What I'm Really Afraid Of

[Admiral X]

And you seriously think that if he'd done the same to her he'd have been charged?

Yup. In an instant. And there'd be no dancing around about what to call it.

They'd have asked her what clothes she was wearing until they threw her out of the police station.

You seem to have a very outmoded outlook on reality.

Where's your source, then?

Don't need one for common knowledge.

Says who, Breitbart?

Says all the results I found in like 5 minutes of Googling. And my Google-fu is weak.

Same reason sex crimes against women get laughed off. Police don't want to deal with it and intimate-partner violence is still seen as a largely private matter.

Wrong again. Hell, it's actually defined by law in many places as involving penetration by a penis - being forced to penetrate doesn't even enter into the thought process. "If he didn't want it then why was he hard?" - talk about blaming the victim.

1. Don't cite the Daily Heil, it's as reliable as Fox News.

Unless you can prove it's fake, it shouldn't matter.

2. Most of those cases seem to be because of legal technicalities

Which still proves me right.

I still want some evidence that isn't legal technicalities (which, I should note, are the consequence of any legal system meant to deal with a country as big as the USA).

I've given you plenty.

There's a difference between responsibility and bodily autonomy.

Again, you can keep making up reasons for it, but the fact of the matter is that a woman can decide if she wants the responsibility or not, but a man has no choice. You can try to make the argument that the choice was made to have sex, but all you're doing is making the exact same argument the anti-abortion types are making.

Yeah, because you're making baseless fearmongering speculations instead of reiterating facts.

There's nothing baseless about what I've said, and it's in no way fear-mongering.

That's not a source, you're talking out of your behind.

Look who's talking. At least you don't see me making advocating for slaughtering people.

[Admiral X]

'd like to see your statistics, buddy, because last I checked women still made 70% what men do for equal work

No they don't. The mislabeled "wage gap" is actually an earnings gap, and is given as a straight average. It in no way represents the amount paid for the same hours worked in the same job. Such has been illegal in the US since 1963. It never ceases to amaze me how the social justice types continue to fight battles that were won long ago.

[Nealithi]

'd like to see your statistics, buddy, because last I checked women still made 70% what men do for equal work

No they don't. The mislabeled "wage gap" is actually an earnings gap, and is given as a straight average. It in no way represents the amount paid for the same hours worked in the same job. Such has been illegal in the US since 1963. It never ceases to amaze me how the social justice types continue to fight battles that were won long ago.

One question on fair wages. If you are permitted by law to challenge when you are under paid for your work. Why do standard hiring contracts make it against policy to discuss or mention what you earn?

[Worffan101]

And you seriously think that if he'd done the same to her he'd have been charged?

Yup. In an instant. And there'd be no dancing around about what to call it.

Clearly you live in Sweden, then. Things work differently here in the USA.

They'd have asked her what clothes she was wearing until they threw her out of the police station.

You seem to have a very outmoded outlook on reality.

And you have an unrealistically optimistic one.

Where's your source, then?

Don't need one for common knowledge.

Except it's not common knowledge, it's obvious bullshit, so you DO need a source, or you should just admit that you're lying.

Says who, Breitbart?

Says all the results I found in like 5 minutes of Googling. And my Google-fu is weak.

Again, talking out of your ass. Your "source" are all cases of legal technicalities, and not actual decisions on male parental rights and responsibilities.

Same reason sex crimes against women get laughed off. Police don't want to deal with it and intimate-partner violence is still seen as a largely private matter.

Wrong again. Hell, it's actually defined by law in many places as involving penetration by a penis - being forced to penetrate doesn't even enter into the thought process. "If he didn't want it then why was he hard?" - talk about blaming the victim.

You're talking out of your ass.

Statistically speaking, most rape victims are women, most male rape victims don't report at all, and most female victims are laughed off or slut-shamed.

https://www.rainn.org/statistics/victim ... l-violence

1. Don't cite the Daily Heil, it's as reliable as Fox News.

Unless you can prove it's fake, it shouldn't matter.

It does matter, liar. I shouldn't have to take Mein Kampf as a valid source on whether or not Jews are humans, I shouldn't have to take the National Enquirer as a valid source on the existence of aliens or Obama's religion, and I definitely shouldn't have to take the Daily Mail seriously as a source on anything but tits.

2. Most of those cases seem to be because of legal technicalities

Which still proves me right.

Nope. Legal technicalities are a BIG difference from actual legal declarations of male parental rights and responsibilities.

To use another example, there's a BIG difference between the appeals court saying "evidence was mishandled so your conviction is invalid" and the court saying "well, I guess you really did have a right to murder all those people". While the immediate legal effect is the same for the individual, the broader scope of the effect in the former case is nil while in the latter case it affects the law as a whole.

I still want some evidence that isn't legal technicalities (which, I should note, are the consequence of any legal system meant to deal with a country as big as the USA).

I've given you plenty.

No, you gave me a bunch of cases of legal technicalities. That's a lie.

There's a difference between responsibility and bodily autonomy.

Again, you can keep making up reasons for it, but the fact of the matter is that a woman can decide if she wants the responsibility or not, but a man has no choice. You can try to make the argument that the choice was made to have sex, but all you're doing is making the exact same argument the anti-abortion types are making.

If I have unprotected sex with a consenting female partner who isn't on birth control, children are a risk. If an accident happens, and she decides to give birth to it, then I have a responsibility to either abrogate all parental rights or to help her pay for and raise it.

I challenge you to find even the most radical leftist who would disagree. You make a mess, you clean it up, and whether the cleanup is having an abortion, putting a kid up for adoption (though tbh in this country aborting it before it can think would be the more humane option), or raising the kid doesn't really matter.

Yeah, because you're making baseless fearmongering speculations instead of reiterating facts.

There's nothing baseless about what I've said, and it's in no way fear-mongering.

Lie. You're acting like men are being oppressed by teh evul feminazis and should segregate ourselves from women to avoid being trapped in parenthood like some kind of insane alt-right conspiracy theory.

Despite the fact that men really do still run the world. Richest people on the planet? Men. Trophy wives? Still a thing, unlike trophy husbands. Male-on-female sexual abuse in business? Still a MASSIVE problem especially at the upper levels.

Just because a few TERFs say astoundingly misandristic things on Reddit doesn't mean the world doesn't shit on women more than men.

That's not a source, you're talking out of your behind.

Look who's talking. At least you don't see me making advocating for slaughtering people.

When did I do that? Again, you're either knowingly lying or talking out of your ass.

[Worffan101]

'd like to see your statistics, buddy, because last I checked women still made 70% what men do for equal work

No they don't. The mislabeled "wage gap" is actually an earnings gap, and is given as a straight average. It in no way represents the amount paid for the same hours worked in the same job. Such has been illegal in the US since 1963. It never ceases to amaze me how the social justice types continue to fight battles that were won long ago.

One question on fair wages. If you are permitted by law to challenge when you are under paid for your work. Why do standard hiring contracts make it against policy to discuss or mention what you earn?

Because capitalists excel at circumventing the law like that.

Also most companies have a standard policy of "mommy-tracking" female execs, where female managers and execs are shunted into less important, less lucrative positions so that if they decide to start a family they won't cost the company a few extra bucks when they go on leave for 6 months (which, given that this is the US, is the outer limit for unpaid maternity leave in most places). Women are also largely seen as expendable in business, too, which is why you only see them being brought in to run things for half a year when the company knows it's screwed short-term. Perfect scapegoats. People like, say, Carly Fiorina aren't actually intended to be the long-term CEO of the company, just like Theresa May was never supposed to be long-term PM, the whole reason she got the job was to be an expendable scapegoat for the Brexit fallout and then there's an implied agreement that she'll get a comfortable retirement. Of course she had her own ideas and Brexit's turned into a clusterfuck, so..

[Antiboyscout]

'd like to see your statistics, buddy, because last I checked women still made 70% what men do for equal work

No they don't. The mislabeled "wage gap" is actually an earnings gap, and is given as a straight average. It in no way represents the amount paid for the same hours worked in the same job. Such has been illegal in the US since 1963. It never ceases to amaze me how the social justice types continue to fight battles that were won long ago.

One question on fair wages. If you are permitted by law to challenge when you are under paid for your work. Why do standard hiring contracts make it against policy to discuss or mention what you earn?

Because capitalists excel at circumventing the law like that.

Also most companies have a standard policy of "mommy-tracking" female execs, where female managers and execs are shunted into less important, less lucrative positions so that if they decide to start a family they won't cost the company a few extra bucks when they go on leave for 6 months (which, given that this is the US, is the outer limit for unpaid maternity leave in most places). Women are also largely seen as expendable in business, too, which is why you only see them being brought in to run things for half a year when the company knows it's screwed short-term. Perfect scapegoats. People like, say, Carly Fiorina aren't actually intended to be the long-term CEO of the company, just like Theresa May was never supposed to be long-term PM, the whole reason she got the job was to be an expendable scapegoat for the Brexit fallout and then there's an implied agreement that she'll get a comfortable retirement. Of course she had her own ideas and Brexit's turned into a clusterfuck, so..

You ever think that women mommy-track themselves into less demanding jobs to have a better work life balance? I guess not. To do that, you would have to assume women can control their own lives, and obviously you don't.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

I really hope that Brett Kavanaugh doesn't get the nomination, because he openly states that the President is above the law, and if he gets on the supreme court, well then he could be ruling on the legality of the president's actions if it goes as far as a criminal case.

[Admiral X]

One question on fair wages. If you are permitted by law to challenge when you are under paid for your work. Why do standard hiring contracts make it against policy to discuss or mention what you earn?

Farts if I'd know. I'd love to see someone challenge the legality of that if companies are actually doing that. Every job I've had so far has a set salary or wage which is clearly stated either in the job announcement or during the interview.

[Admiral X]

Clearly you live in Sweden, then. Things work differently here in the USA.

Nope, I live in current year USA.

And you have an unrealistically optimistic one.

Funny, most people consider me to be pretty cynical.

Except it's not common knowledge, it's obvious bullshit, so you DO need a source, or you should just admit that you're lying.

You realize that when you say stuff like this, it just makes you look bad, right?

Again, talking out of your ass. Your "source" are all cases of legal technicalities, and not actual decisions on male parental rights and responsibilities.

They aren't "legal technicalities," they are the law.

You're talking out of your ass.

No, it is literally the law in many states that penetration by a penis is what is required for it to be legally defined as rape. There are also some states that have such backwards domestic violence laws that if a man is abused by a woman and calls the police for help, they will arrest him. Modern day, "current year" intersectional feminism also has a habit as defining it as male violence perpetrated on a female victim.

Statistically speaking, most rape victims are women, most male rape victims don't report at all, and most female victims are laughed off or slut-shamed.

Which is undoubtedly why the mere accusation is often enough to destroy the personal and professional life of a man who is accused or rape, right?

If I have unprotected sex with a consenting female partner who isn't on birth control, children are a risk.

Hell, even if you use protection, or she's on birth control or whatever, it's still a risk. But this is still the exact same argument that the anti-abortion types use.

Lie. You're acting like men are being oppressed by teh evul feminazis and should segregate ourselves from women to avoid being trapped in parenthood like some kind of insane alt-right conspiracy theory.

Where do you even get this shit? I've said nothing of the kind. No wonder you think I'm lying - you're so fixated on disproving the points that you've mistaken your own straw man for me.

[Admiral X]

You ever think that women mommy-track themselves into less demanding jobs to have a better work life balance? I guess not.

They never think of that. In one of the greatest ironies of feminism, they assume women want to be like men. You know, in spite of the fact that they themselves will take gender studies instead of studying a for a degree in a STEM field. One need only look at Sweden to see that even when there is plenty of government resources available for both women to get into traditionally male fields and men to get into traditionally female fields, they both tend to stick to the traditional fields because that is simply where their interests lie. Plus, I think they actually like the idea

To do that, you would have to assume women can control their own lives, and obviously you don't.

Modern day intersectional feminism in a nutshell. They live in a perpetual fantasy version of the 1950s, and get off on the idea that women are just constantly oppressed by the ever present and invisible patriarchy (kind of reminds me of conspiracy theorists and the Illuminati, actually) because it gives them an excuse to basically be in a perpetual state of righteous indignation. This plays in to the Marxist oppressor/oppressed basis of intersectionalism, which would fall apart if they had to acknowledge that the oppression didn't actually exist. They have to direct their hatred somewhere, after all, and never mind that they are simply being used as tools by someone else.