5 Things Feminism has done for me
As it is the beginning of Women's History Month, I thought, like jeff at 'where'd that bug go?', that I would post my list of the 5 Things Feminism has done for Me today. It seems very apropos:
1. Saved My Life - yes indeed. Had it not been for feminists arguing for equal rights for women, changing the divorce laws and bringing issues like spousal abuse (know as 'wife battering' back then) to the public attention, my mother would have been trapped in an abusive relationship back in the 1970's. She would not have been able to escape and probably would have been killed by my 'father'. Where would I be then? A violent drunk like him? Even alive? Because she could excape, because she could have a job and her own bank account, because being a single parent or a divorcee was no longer the social stigma it had been even 10 years earlier, we were able to have a pretty good, albeit poor, life.
2. Opened up the world to me and my daughter - my daughter can come to me and tell me she wants to be an astronaut, a soldier, a dancer and a swimming instructor. It allows me the luxury to know that my daughter can do anything she wants and her intelligence won't be pigeon holed into nurse, elementary school teacher or stay-at-home-mom - unless she wants to do those thing. Feminists have truly given my daughter that choice, the same kinds of choices her brothers have.
3. Made my wife and daughter people, not property - up until about 1910, rape was a property crime, a tort, not a part of the criminal law. A rapist was guilty of stealing the sexual property of a father or husband rather than for harming a woman. That made situations where women were not afforded the same kind of criminal law protectiosn as men (see #1 above). No longer. My wife and daughter are protected because they are human beings, not because they are legally my property.
4. Opened a new world of sports - yes, this is a silly one, but it is one nonetheless. I can now watch the Olympics and cheer on our Women's Hockey team, just as hard as the the mens (harder actually since they seem to win). I can be in awe of great hockey from Cassie Campbell and Hayley Wickenheiser, something that would not have been possible for me as a hockey fan and for them as players if not for feminism and Justine Blainey.
5. Opened communications - feminism has allowed, even forced us to talk about uncomfortale issues and deal with them, rather than sweep them under the table. Things like the aforementioned spousal abuse, or child abuse, abortion, adoption or divorce.
That is not to say their work is done, however. We still have people that think you need a penis to pull a trigger or aim a cannon and wish to keep women out of combat. Women still make on average about 75% of what a man with similar qualifications and experience does for the same job. There are those that think women should be made to stay home with their children rather than work, even if that means living in poverty. Our political process and Parliament are still made up of men, when 51% of the population are women.
I would consider myself a feminist, in that I believe in the equality of the sexes - equality of opportunity and equality of treatment.
So long as there are people out there who will tell my daughter that she cannot do something, or must act a certain way, simply because she lacks a penis, then we still need feminism.
posted by Mike @ 9:39 AM
42 comments
42 Comments:
Great post.
It's amazing to think that feminism has actually helped to create safer conditions for people. It is also nice to think that both women and men are now able to talk about issues that were once taboo.
So many men who have posted a response to this meme have indicated that they believe feminism has allowed them to take on more positive roles as men!
Then again, you might be lucky your mom didn't just abort you, like 3 million others babies have been since it was legalized. That's half the number of those killed in the holocaust.
Of course the flip side is the version of feminism that says:
1. There is no such thing as gender and thus children should be indoctrinated into sexuality at a young age robbing them of childhood.
2. Women are liberated by being promiscuous, which of course means that they define themselves by their sexuality, not their intelligence.
3. Women do not need any men to be happy, which of course has led to a generation of men into thinking that they can treat women as playthings because being promiscuous is 'enlightened and evolved' (see 2).
4. Marriage is part of an oppressiive patriarchy which needs to be destroyed. This has led to a generation of women entering their 50's alone and bitter and feeling betrayed (see Maureen Dowd's recent book).
5. That all men are 'evil' and 'bastards'. This has led to a generation of women who take the worst character traits of men and apply it to themselves as norm. Hence all of the high rates of women teachers sexually abusing young boys.
Everyone is for the 'equal work equal pay' feminism, but this is not 1952 and modern feminism is a twisted, perverted view of human nature rooted neither in science nor morality. That is why so many young women no longer call themselves feminists.
Nicol, what on earth are you talking about?
In point # 1, you contradict yourself. First you say feminists say there is no gender, and then you say feminists sexualize children. How can there be sexuality without gender? And I call bullshit on feminists sexualizing children. From where I stand, the sexualization of children (and let's be honest here, you mean girls more than you mean boys) has nothing to do with feminism and a whole lot more to do with objectification -> the same kind of objectification women have long been subject to. But now it's being marketed to younger people.
2. Recognizing that women are sexual beings, can enjoy sex, and can have orgasms does not necessarily lead to promiscuity. Shouldn't you be glad that the women in life are learning that they can and should enjoy sex instead of being taught that it will be uncomfortable and she won't enjoy it, but it is her duty to her husband? Aren't males taught that they are sexual beings who can enjoy sex?
3. Of course women don't need men to be happy, any more than men need women to be happy. In a good world, everyone would be emotionally strong, centered, and independent. Then we could build strong relationships - with people of either sex - instead of messed up co-dependencies rife with dominance struggles and manipulation. If you are happy with yourself, inside your self, that makes every other relationship, from your spouse, to your co-workers, to your friends and family, that much stronger. And I'll think you'll find that there have always been men who thought of women as nothing but playthings. After all, traditional Christianity considers women to be either the "Madonna or the whore" - the Virgin Mary or Mary Magdalene. Doesn't leave much room for other careers for us ladies, does it?
4. No one is describing marriage as a oppressive patriarchy. They're describing some of the traditions of marriage as being part of the oppresive patriarchy. Those traditions include: husbands are head of household and must always be obeyed (instead of sharing responsibilities and discussing issues and finding a consensus), men must propose marriage on their timetable (instead of discussing whether to marry and when to marry with his prospective fiancee), husbands must support his family, while wives look after children (instead of determining who has the better job, who wants to work, who would prefer to be at home, and whether there are other options). Many of these traditions are just as oppressive for the man as the woman - isn't it better for all of us to try to work past the traditions that don't work anymore, and try to find ones that serve us - all of us - better?
5. No one is claiming that men are evil or bastards. What you will find is that feminists are both male and female, who believe in equal rights for women and men. Because that's all feminism is; a striving for equality. Despite what the anti-feminists say.
Nicol,
Spoken like a true idiot. Listen to Deanna and get a freaking life. And thank you for proving that the job of feminism is not yet done. Hey, instead of cut and paste reposting crap from your blog, how about actually presenting an arguement?
Anon,
If I would have been aborted, why would I care, since I would not exist. Or is that just a little too philisophical for someone with your simple thinking.
If you are so worried about abortion, why not teach proper sex ed in schools or provide real access to birth control, or give women better options than abortion. Naw, that would make too much sense - let me just remove a woman's right to control her own body and enforce my particular social mores on everyone, whether they accept them or not. Again, proving that the work of feminism is still not done.
Deanna, nice rebuttal. Keep it up.
Very well said, Mike!
I answered Nicol on her blog. Nothing like distorting the truth to make some people happy in their smug self-righteousness.
Nicol is a him, oddly enough.
Thanks Mike! I value your praise, as I've long respected your blog posts and comments. You sold me on your public health care and Afghanistan posts, so I guess you could call me an RR groupie. Not a drooling one, though, I draw the line at drooling. :D
Folks like Nichol get on my nerves - I grew up in northern BC and in my family and community, it was (and still is) taken for granted that women can't do certain jobs (and that men shouldn't do "women's jobs" such as waiting tables, nursing, being flag persons for road repair crews, etc), or that daughters aren't as desireable as sons. It's under the surface, but scratch it, and it all comes bubbling up.
And I see it in the corporate world too; from the making-less-money, and the less-likely-to-be-promoted point of view.
"Spoken like a true idiot. Listen to Deanna and get a freaking life."
Wowza! What an articuate rebuttal.
Lemme guess, you have a PHD in gender studies?
I know many leftists like yourself who hate to have true modern feminism thrown back in their face.
The fact that you can only respond with glib insults is a testament to that. You're a true progressive!
It was not meant to be an articulate rebuttal it was meant to be an insult to an asinine, mean-spriited, non-thinking response. You will get an articulate rebuttal make an actual arguement, rather than repeating the unsubstatiated talking points of REAL Women and other such conservative groups.
I do not suffer fools lightly. When you are prepared to have a real discussion, rather than throw out straw men and make outlandish claims, you will have a proper response.
The fact that you cut-and-pasted this from your blog (and likely from some other place) indicates you are not making original thoughts or thingking about this at all.
My frankness and anger stems from being a father of a daughter. I will be damned if I will let a troglidyte like your self or your Conservavite fellow travellers tell my daughter she cannot do soemthing or be something or think something because she has the wrong chromosome pairing.
Let me guess - you are in your early 20's and single? Go figure.
Must be hard work trying to defend a hate movement Mike.
Same offer as catnip: do you want me to go over this post or would you rather apply the usual censorship rules for feminism -- no criticism allowed because feminism can never withstand any?
Huh?
David Byron, as I have made it clear to Nicol, if you present cogent arguements with you know, evidence, I will gladly have a discussion.
Stating the feminism is about promiscuity or man-hating, or special privileges is a straw man attack and thus illogical and unwarranted. If you quote certain radical feminists like Andrea Dworkin as representing the whole movement, I will point you to others that do not agree with her that are far more representative.
I will not censor you, nor will I sit back and let people tell lies simply to back up their conclusions. If you would care to actually address the issue I raised in my post and be on topic, that would be a bonus.
Nicol is a him, oddly enough..
Whoops. Thanks for letting me know. And he still has no idea what so-called "modern feminism" is all about.
Nice, Nichol.
Give Mike a bad time, but ignore my rebuttal of your remarks.
Which is it? Was it because a woman nullified your remarks, or because you don't deign to notice women?
Please, enlighten me - and while you're at it, consider how your (lack of) reaction helps prove why we still need feminism today.
Well, that went rather well, I think.
Well haloscan is acting up so I'll respond here to catnip's stuff too. It's pretty much a subset of what Mike wrote anyway.
You two are in the position of trying to defend a sexist movement and although you both want to pooh-pooh that, you have both also had to admit it to some extent. Mike with his comments about Andrea Dworkin and catnip with her comments about how she isn't that kind of feminist.
So it's common ground that the feminist movement contains elements that are anti-equality and hate men. But you guys want to paper over that fact. You want to call it a "strawman". The problem is that the very fact that you try to cover this up proves something stinks.
What would a real equality movement -- or ANY movement -- do if people started pretending they were associated with the movement while actually advocating a position that was 180 degrees removed from the movement's position?
At a minimum they would take the position that those people who were advocating the exact opposite of what the movement stood for were NOT PART of that movement. Feminism does not do this. Nobody claims Andrea Dworkin was not a feminist. You just claim she wasn't "representative".
Fair enough. But what does it say about feminism that the majority of feminists are happy to have a vocal minority in their movement that advocates for sexism and hatred on the grounds of sex? Quite simply what it means is feminism is not an equality movement -- as both of you pretended.
Instead feminism is at best an advocacy movement for women at the expense of men. A dishonest advocacy movement that constantly pretends to be for equality and fairness but actually only cares about women. A dishonest advocacy movement that makes political profit from prejudicial stereotyping of another birth group (men). That's already a pretty nasty sounding movement from where I stand --- as a genuine believer in equality.
It's not hard to see examples of this sexism by feminists just by examining any aspect of feminism. For example let's take the issues which are the cause of these posts by the two of you.
Your government has a department for women but no departement for men. That's sexism. Your reaction to this is to demand more money to be spent only on women. That's sexist too. catnip mentioned women's history month in Canada. There's no men's history month. That's sexist.
So what you are both doing is lying to your audience to suggest you are defending equality when you are actually advocating for inequailty.
Another example. You both brought up the gender wage gap myth. Now this is a lie that attacks men and creates gender jealousies and hatred. Feminists repeat this lie so much that often people say it without knowing it is a lie so before we go further I'd like you both to say whether you knew when you repeated the gender wage gap myth, that it was a lie. Are you lying knowingly, or are you dupes who have been lied to by your own movement?
(In passing I'll note this myth doesn't pass the laugh test by pointing out that although you both mentioned it, neither of you considered it for one of the five points. Of course if women were actually paid less than men it would be a HUGE deal. catnip would be telling us how she got herself a 33% pay raise by demanding to be paid the same as her male peers for example. But it's all bullshit.)
And really the gender wage gap is all you had isn't it? None of catnips points amount to a hill of beans. Mike says feminism helped set up DV shelters. That's fine except of course that Canada's shelter movement is a sexist movement that has been sucessfully sued for its discrimination and lies. Male victims can't use the services. It would be unconstitutional if Canada had a constitution banning sex discrimination. So I don't think that's an example to be proud of for feminism unless you agree with feminism being about hatred and inequality. As for the other serious issue Mike raised it was a simple lie. Women were never property in canada. And Mike's wife and kid were not alive in 1910 of course!
So there you have it -- feminism is based on sexism and lies calculated to create gender hatred by stereotyping men as evil brutal oppressors of angelic innocent women. Neither of you could defend the movement without resorting to lies -- even though you'd probably want to claim you are not man hating "extremists". Extremists or not you use the same lies they do and push the same sorts of prejudices.
"So it's common ground that the feminist movement contains elements that are anti-equality and hate men. But you guys want to paper over that fact. You want to call it a "strawman". The problem is that the very fact that you try to cover this up proves something stinks."
No it merely shows there is a wide spectum of opinion within such a movement as there are in any movement. I could be a great supporter of MLK and still not support the Black Panthers. That doesn't mean that niether was about equality for blacks or that, because one existed and was radical, that the entire civil rights movement should have been ignored. That is simply illogical.
"Your government has a department for women but no departement for men. That's sexism. Your reaction to this is to demand more money to be spent only on women. That's sexist too. catnip mentioned women's history month in Canada. There's no men's history month. That's sexist."
You fail to recognize the power differential between the two sexes here. In fact all of your arguements miss the clear difference in societal, cultural and economic power difference that men still have over women. Historically, women have been the oppressed and men the oppressors. Have a look at our MPs and our government at every level. While women are 51% of the population, almost 80% of the ruling party is men. Most of the civil service is men. In the government EVERY department is the 'department for men' - that's the problem. Do you remember your history classes in highschool or university? EVERY month is 'men's history month', since it is almost always men (except for Laura Secord) that you learn about. Hence the need for a 'Women's History Month' (or a Black History Month) to focus on the historical deeds and accomplishments of women, since we never hear about them otherwise. Proof again that feminism is not done yet.
"So what you are both doing is lying to your audience to suggest you are defending equality when you are actually advocating for inequailty."
Nope, I am advocating giving women the same power and oppotunity that us men have had for so long that we don't even know we have it anymore. I want women to be looked at and treated equally. Having an organization that helps the oppressed climb to the status of the oppressor does that.
"Another example. You both brought up the gender wage gap myth. Now this is a lie that attacks men and creates gender jealousies and hatred. Feminists repeat this lie so much that often people say it without knowing it is a lie so before we go further I'd like you both to say whether you knew when you repeated the gender wage gap myth, that it was a lie. Are you lying knowingly, or are you dupes who have been lied to by your own movement?"
Not a myth at all. Feel free to check out the latest from Stats Canada. Its all there.
"neither of you considered it for one of the five points"
Uhm, that's because women are still paid less than men on average. So this hasn't been done so feminism can't have improved it yet. So it isn't on my list. But thanks for reminding me why we still need the SoW.
"Mike says feminism helped set up DV shelters. That's fine except of course that Canada's shelter movement is a sexist movement that has been sucessfully sued for its discrimination and lies. Male victims can't use the services. It would be unconstitutional if Canada had a constitution banning sex discrimination."
Really? Care to point me to the case where a shelter has been sued? I'd love to read that. BTW, read Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms - it does ban discrimination based on sex, unless, according to Section 1, it can be reasonably justified in a free and democratic society that a [reasonable] limit can be put on it. Women go to shelters because the are attacked by men. Not allowing men in the shelter is a reasonable limit. Women are the victims of these assaults literally orders of magnitude more than men. If there was a men's shelter to protect men from abusive women, I would support not allowing women into those shelters. Now, how many shelters like that are there? Oh, right, none. There's that power thing again.
"As for the other serious issue Mike raised it was a simple lie. Women were never property in canada."
My dear David, rest assured I would not make up such a thing. Anyone who has studied English Common law knows that rape was a tort, a civil law practice, until approximately 1910 everywhere that English Common law was practiced. This did not change until rape was consider a crime of the person and added to our criminal code. Rape was a property offence (a tort) before then. And the reason it is not still this way is because of the work of the suffragettes and other womens organizations - feminists. But don't take my word on it. Women may not have been property, but they were treated as such. In fact, they were not even considered "persons" until 1927. Feel free to google the Person's Case.
"So there you have it -- feminism is based on sexism and lies calculated to create gender hatred by stereotyping men as evil brutal oppressors of angelic innocent women. Neither of you could defend the movement without resorting to lies -- even though you'd probably want to claim you are not man hating "extremists". Extremists or not you use the same lies they do and push the same sorts of prejudices."
So there you have it...everything that you claimed was a lie, is not. Every instance you cite is false. I have no prejudice of men or women, but I can recognize the very real history nature of our society. To do otherwise is to ignore litterally centuries of history. In Canada, it has only been 50 years since women could be tossed in jail as "encourageable" for daring to date an oriental man. It has only been 70 years since women were considered "persons" under the law. It has only been 89 years since women could vote or hold office. It has been less than 40 years - yes within my lifetime - that a woman could even charge her husband with assault, or divorce him without his consent on grounds other than infedelity. Today women are still not equally represented at any level of government, or in certain professions.
Feminism has done a lot of great things, but it is not done. Sorry you don't agree. Perhaps its because your view of feminism is twisted and wrong. I hope that we won't have to worry about this stuff for my daughter, but I'm not holding my breathe, not so long as ther are still men like you that pretend there isn't even a problem.
I pointed out that you already admited that many feminists hate men. I said a real equality movement would reject those people. Your response? You just didn't get it. You showed you just don't comprehend what equality even is. See, if you actually beleived in equality you'd have a big problem with the idea that hate filled bigots can be accepted members of a so-called equality movement without anyone even thinking it odd.
Since you don't know what equality is, just take my word on that one.
You tried to excuse your de facto appeal for sexism (eg funding for women but none for men) by saying women deserved to be treated better than men because men are evil brutes. Sounds like what the nazis said to explain their laws. Really? So all men are evil and that's why they deserve no help from your government? You're saying an entire birthgroup is guilty and must be punished? Sounds like bigotry to me.
Historically, women have been the oppressed and men the oppressors
That's a bigot's lie of course. It's your equivalent of the International Jewish Conspiracy or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion isn't it?
But of course just as with the Nazis even if your propaganda were true it would not make your prejudice against men rational. Why must every male person be made to suffer because of your hypothesis that men in the past hurt women in the past? That isn't rational. Bigotry isn't rational. Hate isn't rational. It isn't rational to apply collective punishment to an entire birth group as if they all did the same things, had the same ideas and were guilty of the same crimes.
I'm not saying your lies are more truthful than the Nazis hate lies were. I'm simply pointing out that even if they were true your attitude remains inexplicable except as prejudice.
While women are 51% of the population, almost 80% of the ruling party is men
So on this basis you say all men are evil and deserve no help from the government is that your "logic" here? Is that what equality means to you? A sort of twisted gender revenge for crimes commited by completely different people? Basically making maleness itself a crime?
How many people are we talking about in your parliament anyway? A few hundred? You know 80% also happens to be the proportion of the homeless that are men. There's a lot more homeless than MPs. how come feminists never complain that women are not 51% of the homeless? It's almost as if you are cherry picking "factoids" to present a picture and make people hate all men --- as if the average man was a member of parliament.
In the government EVERY department is the 'department for men'
That's a lie Mike. The truth is there is a single department especially for one sex and that sex is women. There is nothing for men. And you are now lying flat out here.
The woman's department isn't some kind of metaphor. It exists. It's cold hard cash for women only. Institutionalised prejudice. "Gender apartheid" is an accurate description. God knows society has always put women ahead of men metaphorically and all to often literally -- like when a boat sinks. Life and death. Do all the men get off first? No? I'm just asking because you just told me in your fantasy world men oppress women and men have all the power so maybe on your planet the men get off a boat first. In the real world it was always women and children first.
On the Titanic there were four classes. 1st class men, 2nd class men, 3rd class men and any woman at all. All the women got off before even the 1st class men. That's how much more valuable women were treated than even a wealthy man. And that wasn't in 2006; that was 100 years ago.
so really every department is a woman's department isn't it? But I'm talking about the one that specifically only does things for women. Are we clear there? There is no equivalent for men and that's sexist.
EVERY month is 'men's history month',
See that's what we non-feminists call a LIE. Because it's not true! I don't think you feminists understand "truth" any more than "equality".
Of course you want to speak metaphorically again don't you? But you can't admit the truth first. You're more like one of these US Republicans. Spin. Distort. Twist. Deceive. Why couldn't you simply admit to everyone that its true there is no men's history month? Then if you have some other point to contextualise it you can go ahead.
You claim history is all about men of course. "Normal" or classical history is about leaders who were both male and female. You don't pretend there were no female leaders do you? As you point out the leaders were mostly male but the men that your normal "history" talks about were not representative of most men any more than the few women mentioned were of normal women. The real bias is between leaders and the 99.99% of ordinary people.
You feminists lie to pretend traditional history was all about only men. Then you say we need to talk about normal women's lives. That's great. We need to know normal women's history but what about normal men's history too? What about a history month for normal men too? In fact why the hell do you need to divide the sexes up like that? it's like you people are trying to deliberately stoke up antipathy between the sexes for your own political purposes. Spreading hatred.
How many coal miners or tinkers get into the history books Mike? Don't they deserve a month?
look Mike I have to admit I have an advantage over you in this little "chat". As an ideologue you've never bothered to think about any of the so-called arguments you are using. You talk about equality but you've never for one second thought to simply turn around in your head the same arguments you always use to "prove" women are "oppressed" to see if they apply just as well to men too. They do.
And why would think to do that? It's not about equality or truth is it? It's about twisting "facts" and perceptions and distorting the historic record so as to attack men alive today.
Your problem is that I know all the dirty little tricks that you feminists use. I know them better than you do probably. And here's another problem you have: you are pretending to be what I am. You are pretending to be a liberal who wants sex equality. I'm the real deal. I can see through everything you say. But you are clueless about me. You probably figured I was a religious right conservative like our friend up above.
I am advocating giving women the same power and oppotunity that us men have had for so long
No Mike you're LYING. I have pointed out two rights men in Canada don't have that women do have (eg their own government department and the ability to go to DV shelters) and you've said you don't care. You on the other hand haven't managed to come up with a single right that women lack but men have. Not one. So that statement you made there is a LIE.
I want women to be looked at and treated equally.
No Mike; I DO. That's why I think women need to loose their special privileges. so they have the same rights as men. Or else give men those same rights women have. YOU oppose this equality. You are the bad guy here.
Not a myth at all. Feel free to check out the latest from Stats Canada. Its all there.
(That site sucks ass btw -- if you've ever tried finding anything.) Evidently you've never tried to find the gender wage gap because you'd find it isn't there. You just LIED again Mike.
Or are you just a dupe?
A sincere patsy?
Really? Care to point me to the case where a shelter has been sued? I'd love to read that.
It was a few years back. Maybe 2001? I'm better on the US stuff to be honest but try Googling it or search some Canadian equality sites. Specifically they were sued over the contents of a leaflet they were putting out and had to change it. Think that's right. Since then I can only imagine there have been other cases despite your constitutions inequality clause.
But I doubt you really care.
BTW, read Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms - it does ban discrimination based on sex, unless
Unless it might pull women down to men's level! LOL. Some equality clause eh? I've read your constitution. I'm better educated than you on this stuff. Know why? Because you're an ideologue in a hate movement so you haven't ever even bothered to look up something as basic as the gender wage gap stuff. You just take everything they say on trust.
Women go to shelters because the are attacked by men. Not allowing men in the shelter is a reasonable limit.
There goes your bigot logic again. If one man is guilty than all men must be punished? You'd never say that no BLACKS should be let into DV shelters in case some of the women were attacked by black people would you? That would be racist of course. And what about lesbians?
Even if there were separate facilities for blacks to go to ... and you just admited you already know there are no facilities for men.
I would support not allowing women into those shelters. Now, how many shelters like that are there? Oh, right, none. There's that power thing again.
You're laughing at men's powerlessness. How's that 80% male parliament working out for ordinary men? How's that sexist constitution working out for the oppressed sex -- men? How come a woman victim gets help but if you are a man -- no help? Is that what you mean by equality? You keep laughing. I think that laugh of yours said more about your real attitude here than anything else.
It's disgusting really. In this post you started off saying your life was saved by the ability of your mom to seek help in a shelter yet you laugh at the fact that another kid would die because their victim parent just happened to be a man. Tough luck kid. Your dad's kind son't even get to go to the back of the bus. Disgusting. You keep laughing Mike. That really speaks volumes.
My dear David, rest assured I would not make up such a thing.
Let's say I'm skeptical.
But don't take my word on it. Women may not have been property, but they were treated as such. In fact, they were not even considered "persons" until 1927. Feel free to google the Person's Case.
I already know that case. You're misrepresenting what that case says.
It has only been 89 years since women could vote or hold office.
And how long has it been since the majority of adult men could do those things? You don't have one single clue do you? everything you say is deception. Everything is at best a half truth that is a calculated lie.
It has been less than 40 years - yes within my lifetime - that a woman could even charge her husband with assault
And now how long ago was it that a man could charge his wife with assault Mike? Of course assault isn't a civil but a criminal law so technically even what you said is wrong. men could always be charged with asault. The idea that people could go around beating up their spouses is another feminist LIE. But good for you the exact wording you made there wasn't a lie because it wasn't meaningful. it would have been a lie if you'd said that "a man couldn't be charged with assault for hitting his wife".
Today women are still not equally represented at any level of government
A LIE. Government represents women every bit as much as men. Given the reality of the way the government passes so many sexist laws favouring women I would say more so. But that would be a metaphor of course. In fact all men and women in Canada enjoy representation.
Your lie here is to pretend that a woman can't be represented by a male representative in parliament. But I don't see you advocating two representatives for every constituency - one for men and one for the women. Just more feminist bullshit.
Feminism has done a lot of great things, but it is not done.
So how come you can't come up with even ONE issue where women have fewer rights than men while we've stumbled on two just in chatting -- two issues that YOU brought up, not me -- where men have fewer rights than women?
It must be hard to defend feminism when you've got zero issues. I guess that's what the lies are all for.
"pointed out that you already admited that many feminists hate men."
No David, I said some, not many. In fact, I stated, that most do not hate men. So your very premis is faulty and thus the rest of your arguement.
Now every paragraph in here you accuse me of lying yet you show no proof what-so-ever. Simply because I disagree with you, you state I am lying. Meaning that you think you have a monopoly on truth. Yet you claim not to be able to find the stats I mention, you claim that the Persons case does not say what every legal scholar in Canada say it does (Please pick up Peter Hoggs "Leading Constitutional Descisions" and read the analysis there.)
Look if you don't agree with me that's one thing, but to claim I am outright fabricating things is quite another. That is somethig you sir need to prove - more proof than simply writing the word "LIE" or "LYING" in all caps.
"Of course assault isn't a civil but a criminal law so technically even what you said is wrong. men could always be charged with asault. The idea that people could go around beating up their spouses is another feminist LIE."
David, fuck you. I watch my mother get the shit beat out of her for 7 years by my so-called 'father'. I watched the police come and take HER away. He was NEVER charged because the changes to the Criminal Code did not take effect until the mid 70's. Throughout the 90's I worked for the Metro Toronto Police Victim Services unit. Quite literally 8 out of every 10 calls was a domestic violence call, almost every one of them a man beating his wife or partner. Again, go to stats Canada - women are most likely to be the victims of violent crime and that crime is most likely to be committed by someone they are related to.
If you cannot get that simple fact right, then there really is not debate is there. If you cannot accept that there even is spousal abuse going on in this country, they how can we even talk about equal pay or representation.
Thank you for once again proving why we need and SoW and feminism - merely because you exist and believe these things which are wrong (notice I don't accuse you of lying David, I just think you are horribly wrong and mistaken).
(reminder to compose your extended posts on notepad or something before submiting)
First of all to remind everyone of the part you didn't reply to: I challenged you several times to name even ONE SINGLE right that men in Canada have that women don't have -- since two rights women have over men had come up just by accident in our conversation. Issues you brought up not me. You had LIED and claimed that women needed to catch up with men whereas the reverse is true isn't it Mike?
You failed to name any issue where women lacked rights.
That's a big deal because that's the only possible justification for treating women any better than men. That's what you are defending here with your blow job for the woman only department of government. So without that your claim to be for equality is revealed as both a LIE and an appeal for INEQUALITY.
You had nothing to say.
================================
I pointed out that if feminists who hate men -- and we both agree such women exist -- are considered real feminists and part of the movement then feminism cannot be an equality movement. That would be like saying that people who eat meat and like hunting animals are true vegetarians. Either they aren't vegetarians or being a vegetraian doesn't mean someone who doesn't eat meat. So we conclude from the common ground that "some" feminists hate men, that feminism is not an equality movement.
At best feminism could be a female-only advocacy movement that doesn't care about equality and just uses arguments about equality deceitfully as a cover to demand special privileges for one sex -- which may not be a full hate movement but obviously is anti-equality and nasty.
Your response? You said it was only "some" not "most" feminists that out and out hate men. You actually thought that made a difference.
================================
Yet you claim not to be able to find the stats I mention
I didn't look because I know it isn't there. YOU are the one making the positive claim. You haven't so much as given a source for your comment. It just came out of your ass like everything you say. It was absurd on its face. Many jobs have tight pay scales and you seriously expect anyone to beleive women are paid 25% less than men? That's absurd and you offer not one stitch of evidence.
You are an ideologue but the rest of the world isn't. have you EVER tried to fact check your assertion for yourself?
you claim that the Persons case does not say what every legal scholar in Canada say it does
Have you actually read it? It's not hard to fact check this idiotic rubbish you spout you know. Have you ever?
Look if you don't agree with me that's one thing, but to claim I am outright fabricating things is quite another.
Well I did ask you if you were a dupe. I'm happy to accept that you're just a naive useful idiot who trusted feminists to tell the truth all the time and never fact checked one single thing. Is that the case? But if that is the case then your testimony here has little to no value, right? You'd be a rumour monger.
I watch my mother get the shit beat out of her
Ah the argument by emotional anecdote. So typical of feminists. Did it never occur to you that male victims could tell the same story? Of course not because your thinking is so blind you can't think of the sexes as equal. For you if any woman is a victim that proves no man could be a victim. It's a blinkered thinking common to bigots who see the world in a very black and white way.
Again, go to stats Canada - women are most likely to be the victims of violent crime
That's false Mike. Men are. Look it up. God you can't even remember the "factoids" that the feminists gave to you. Hardly surprising of course. You learn by rote then you are bound to make a few mistakes. That claim is so silly and so easily disproved that no intelligent feminist would make it.
Good grief. Men are born as the majority of the population. But because society prefers killing of men to women at such a high rate women end up as the majority in the population. That's how squewed things are.
The smart feminist strategy revolves around ignoring almost all violent crime where men are the majority of victims to concentrate laser like on the only two violent crimes they have a hope of spinning to make it look like women are victims. namely rape and DV. Now in the US rape of men is actually more common than rape of women because of the fucking disgusting prisons they have. And DV is about 50-50. In Canada I am not sure. Part of the problem is that the record has been consistently distorted by feminists for political reasons.
One way feminists twist statistics is by ignoring domestic violence against the elderly or against children -- both examples of domestic violence where women are the majority of the criminals, not men. it's also rare to hear much about DV in gay couples because that too shows that the balck and white world of feminist propaganda is not true. Men can be victims and women can be the criminals.
Why do you feminists want to prevent male victims of domestic violence from getting help? Is it because you hate men? Or is it because you gain politically by pretending only women are victims? or is that really the same thing when it comes down to it?
You of all people ought to support providing services for victims of DV regardless of their sex. Do you? Because your movement doesn't.
You actually accused me of what your movement does --- deny that one sex can be victims of domestic violence. (In fact that was what that law suit I refered to was about I think - feminist lies about only women being victims)
In short: you are what you accuse me of being.
David Byron has made some excellent points. Thank you for your impassioned posts, David!
"I didn't look because I know it isn't there."
But earlier you claimed you did look but couldn't find them. Now who is lying?
Here. Look here. And here.Or here. How about this?
5 minutes with Google...there are plenty more.
"Have you actually read it? It's not hard to fact check this idiotic rubbish you spout you know. Have you ever?"
Yes, a number of times. I studies it in Constitutional Law under Prof Jim Mackenzie. I know it quite well.
"Ah the argument by emotional anecdote. So typical of feminists. Did it never occur to you that male victims could tell the same story?"
Please show me the stories of males suffering like this and I will advocate on their behalf as well. In the mean time here are some more facts for you to read, since clearly you don;t think this is a problem:
http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/fm/spouseafs.html
From the article:
"For example, compared to men, women were:
* six times more likely to report being sexually assaulted
* five times more likely to report being choked
* five times more likely to require medical attention, as a result of an assault
* three times more likely to be physically injured by an assault
* more than twice as likely to report being beaten
* almost twice as likely to report being threatened with, or having a gun or knife used against them
* much more likely to fear for their lives, or be afraid for their children as a result of the violence
* more likely to have sleeping problems, suffer depression or anxiety attacks, or have lowered self-esteem as a result of being abused, and
* more likely to report repeated victimization."
http://www42.statcan.ca/smr08/smr08_012_e.htm
Again, there is lots more. Google is your friend:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=spousal+abuse+canada&btnG=Search
You may call it "emotional anectdote" but it was in response to you stating that it didn;t happen. I have seen it with my own eyes.
"That's false Mike. Men are. Look it up. God you can't even remember the "factoids" that the feminists gave to you."
Well see the link above. As well:
http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/dates/dec6/facts_e.html
http://www.harbour.sfu.ca/freda/articles/statsw.htm
http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/prgrm/fsw/fsw23/fsw23e01_e.shtml
From the last one:
"n Canada in 1991 88% of all those charged with violent crime were men, and 12% women. This amounted to 110,000 charges against men, compared with 13,000 against women (Statistics Canada reported in Johnson and Rodgers, 1993)."
And
"ost violent crime, 58% overall, consists of charges classified as minor assaults. Only 13% involves more serious assaults, 11% sexual assault, 11% robbery, and 7% `other' including 0.24% murder or manslaughter (Statistics Canada 1994)."
Compare those to the stats above which show where women were victims.
There is lots more here:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=women+violent+crime+canada&btnG=Search
"One way feminists twist statistics is by ignoring domestic violence against the elderly or against children -- both examples of domestic violence where women are the majority of the criminals, not men"
That's not what the statistics I just quoted and linked to say. Care to provide a link?
"Men can be victims and women can be the criminals."
No one is aying they aren't. But as I showed earlier men are the agressors in 88% of violent crime, not women.
http://www.cserv.gov.bc.ca/womens_services/stopping-violence/facts.htm
I don't know what else to say to you David, I really don't. Everytime I counter your arguement and negate your premise, you move the goal posts and claim something different. Unlike you, I have actually caught you contradicting yourself. If you want to ignore all of this data from around the country and the world an pretend that women are the vitims as much as men, that women make as much as men or have the same power as men, you are entitled to do that, but don't expect anyone but guys like jeff to take you seriously.
Well at least you are trying I suppose. Or maybe not. Maybe you just copied and pasted this from some crapy feminist site. So I guess to be courteous I will have to debunk all this one by one. That will have to wait until this evening but as a general observation that will apply to most of these "fem stats" you are deceitfully trying to imply things with these statistics which the statistics are not saying.
For example the large list of statistics you copy and pasted from the department of justice site were all within the context of domestic violence -- and spousal domestic violence at that -- and remember that the Candaian government discriminates agains male victims of DV so it's not a valid source for that stuff anyway. How much of this data comes through their DV shelters that refuse to serve male victims? Talk about biasing your results to fit the discrimination.
But you presented the "facts" shorn of that context and so misled your audience -- or tried to -- to say that women in general were more likely to be assaulted in various ways, which is false.
I predict every other factoid you mentioned will also have some deceit in it which has the effect of completely reversing the sense you were trying to draw from the statistic.
Mike do you support the way feminist ban all male victims of domestic violence from getting state aid? It's not clear from anything you've said. You seem to go back and forth on it.
Obviously it's a hard thing for you to answer because if you say you do want male victims banned you look like a complete bigot and a huge hypocrite.
But if you say you don't want male victims banned then you have admited that the feminist movement in canada and the candian government are being sexist against men.
Which is it Mike?
Btw -- third time of asking -- can you think of ANY issue whatsoever in Canada where women have less rights than men do? It looks like you can't.
If you can't then doesn't your support for a special department for women only make you a bigot?
Do you think I'm being unfair or something here? IMO if you can't think of a single issue where women lack the rights of men but we can think of issues where men are behind women then that means Canada needs a department for men, not women.
This question undermines the very heart of your position and you're just ignoring it again and again.
"Mike do you support the way feminist ban all male victims of domestic violence from getting state aid?"
No because that assertion is simply not true. Please show me where feminists "ban" such things. Again, as a former worker in this field with the Metro Toronto Police Victim Services Unit, we sent the very rare male victims of domestic violence to services within the city. In 4 years I think that happened once, BTW, as opposed to nightly for women. Did it occur to you that perhaps these services don't exist because men are so rarely the victims of domestic violence?
"Btw -- third time of asking -- can you think of ANY issue whatsoever in Canada where women have less rights than men do? It looks like you can't."
Can women take part in any and every combat role in the CF? Nope. And that's just off the top of my head. I'm sure others can chime in and tell you a few more.
BTW, is your back getting sore from dragging those goal posts around?
So you beleive the sole justification for feminism is to allow women to get into combat roles do you? seems to me you'd be better off fighting for men who are forced into those roles.
Still you did better than 90% of feminists who can't even name one crapy right. Well done.
Women are oppressed in society because they cannot volunteer for some roles in the military -- the nastiest most dangerous ones -- because society values them too much.
Congratulations. You really showed me how oppressed women are. Now excuse me while I sign up for the all-male draft that no woman has to sign up for.....
Ok I apologise. I challenged you and you came through. That is better than almost all feminists can do. maybe there's hope for you.
==============================
Please show me where feminists "ban" such things. Again, as a former worker in this field with the Metro Toronto Police Victim Services Unit, we sent the very rare male victims of domestic violence to services within the city
You just admited you refused to serve them in that paragraph Mike.
You're so blind to sexism you can't even see what you're typing. You helped women, but you sent men on their way. But you insist DV shelter serve both men and women. LOL.
I think that happened once, BTW, as opposed to nightly for women
I'm sure all the male victims already knew you'd give them no help so why would they bother to contact you? That's as idiotic as a KKK hotline saying it hardly ever gets calls for help from "niggers".
God. You've really never thought about it have you?
Did it occur to you that perhaps these services don't exist because men are so rarely the victims of domestic violence?
Easy to see which it is. What proportion of all victims do you claim -- even with your bigoted stats -- male victims consist? From the above I'd guess your lying stats would suggest a number like 1 to 10% right?
So are you claiming then that you saw 1-10 male victims out of ever 100? No. You said 1 male victim in 4 years out of thousands of victims in all that time. Not even 0.05% were male.
So by your own lying figures you are admiting that at least 95% of male victims didn't even approach your bigot organisation knowing you'd refuse them help. And that's if we accept your figures which I don't.
Ever done that calculation yourself Mike? Why not?
Let me ask you this: how many female victims approached male-only domestic violence shelters for help in the same period? oh that's right. There are no male DV shelters.
You've refused to clarify whether you support the bigoted policy of only having female DV shelters. Can you explain why Mike? You understand male victims exist. But you are fine with all the shelters being for one sex only. Why? Bigotry?
============================
I looked at your so-called wag gap pages. None of them talked about the wage gap.
Let me be clear.
I always ask feminists if they are dupes or wilfully lying about the wage gap. They always pretend they are sincere. But as the conversation gets going they almost always reveal they were wilfully lying and so I expect you will too, and catnip.
Incidentally? If I sound angry it's because I despise people who try to lie to me to my face like this. You really must think the rest of us are idiots.
The 75% figure you "quoted" isn't calculated by comparing people working the same job is it? That's your dirty little secret. Feminists average women's wages over all jobs and then avergae all men's wages. Not working the same jobs but utterly different jobs.
All the pages you referenced used this different statistic and you lied and said it was comparing like with like.
Now everone agrees that if two people do the SAME work they ought to get the same reward. Basic fairness. And women and men are paid identically for the SAME work.
But NOBODY thinks when two people do completely different work that they ought to be paid the same amount of money. So you liars take the statistics from comparing different jobs and label them as if they were comparing the same jobs.
You think the rest of us are too stupid to pick up on this huge lie.
Of all the feminists I have discussed this with (hundreds) only one was actually surprised to learn that the so-called "wage gap" numbers didn't represent "EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK" but a deceit. She was so angry about it she refused to call herself a feminist any more.
One.
Just one honest feminist out of hundreds.
So I'm betting that you and catnip wilfully lied to the rest of us in repeating the wage gap myth and pretending that 75% represented comparisons with the SAME work. The truth is women get paid less because they work less. If any woman works as hard as a man she gets a man's wages.
Go back and look at how those numbers were calculated. look at your own sources.
But let's face it 99% likely you already knew everything I just explained, right?
"You just admited you refused to serve them in that paragraph Mike."
No David, I did not. Not anywhere on this page. It was against the law for me to refuse to serve any one. You are now making things up.
With all of this I must conclude that you don't really want debate this, you simply want a platform for your simple minded, angry little spasms. You completely missed the page which lists IDENTICAL jobs held by men and women where woman earn, on average about 73% of what their male counterparts - in the same job - do.
But I digress. I will let our little exchange stand on its merits and let others judge. It was fun while it lasted. Good luck in the next discussion.
Aha. So you did wilfully lie. You did know the 75% figure was a fraud and you deliberately deceived your audience.
And now suddenly you want to end the "debate" huh? Can't say I blame you but it won't be that easy. What have you got left at this point? You can flame me and you can ban me.
Let's examine where you indicate that you wilfully lied. I want to be clear here because I wouldn't want to accuse an innocent man. I'm going to give you every opportunity to explain how you could possibly be innocent but I bet you refuse to take me up on it and instead flame me or ban me.
You just said:
You completely missed the page which lists IDENTICAL jobs held by men and women where woman earn, on average about 73% of what their male counterparts - in the same job - do
Oh no Mike. I made particular note of that page. As did you. We both know the game. But here's the thing Mike. If you are now saying that ONLY ONE OF THOSE FIVE PAGES compared people in the same jobs, then can you explain why the other four were put forward by you as if they were saying that same thing?
And if you knew that the 75% figure represented a comparison where the men and women worked at completely different jobs why did you pretend they were for the same jobs?
This all goes to prove your gross dishonesty Mike so I'd appreciate some answers. or will you play at Republican Congressman?
Incidentally? You are still lying. The page you refer to doesn't compare people doing the same work. It compares people working in the same very broadly defined career category.
For example a man who works 60 hours a week would be compared with a woman working 40 hours a week. A man with 30 years experience would be compared to a woman his assistant who started that day.
Do you claim that everyone working in the same broad category of occupation ought to get the same amount a year -- regardless ofANY other considerations? That is not what people mean by "EQUAL WORK" is it?
If you admit you willfuly lied I'll be happy to drop this.
Gosh David you are right. Sorry Girls, we've been found out. David is too smart for us. All that time and effort put into infiltrating universities, Stats Canada, the government has gone for naught. The fiendish plot to enslave men has been uncovered by DavidByron.
Damn you DavidByron!
Time to switch to Plan< B, though I'm pretty sure with the attitude he has displayed here, David is probably used to this too.
Buddy, you might want to get the nurses to up the dose...
I thought I'd pass this link along:
http://www.liberalavenger.com/2006/10/03/five-things-feminism-has-done-for-me/
A post by a guy who is struggling with the idea of feminism. David and Nichol, you might like to read this one.
What have you got left at this point? You can flame me and you can ban me.
And that was your first 100% flame reply Mike. From now on I will just talk about you rather than bother to address you, since you've opted out.
=============================
What just happened with the Gender Wage Gap Myth? I pointed out to Mike that all five of the pages that he had used to back up his claim that women are paid less than men for the same work, were not comparing like with like. Nevertheless all those pages dishonestly use the language of the wage gap as if they were comparing like with like.
So this was more about Mike's character than it was about the truth or falsity of the Gender Wage Gap Myth itself. Certainly in theory just because these 5 pages he picked were no help doesn't mean he couldn't find some pages somewhere that actually did compare women and men working the same job and under the same conditions.
The interesting question is Mike's reaction. Was he surprised to learn that all the pages talking about the "Gender gap" were deceptive? Did that give him pause for thought? Did he even admit that those pages were deceptive?
No he didn't.
Like a Republican Congressman caught in a lie he moved seamlesly from one lie to the next. We never left the all spin zone.
An honest person would have expressed surprise -- maybe even thanked me for pointing out -- the discrepency. An honest person might have had the good grace to be a bit embarassed at repeating falsehoods albeit unwittingly. an honest person might have been shocked to have been made a dupe. Certainly after all that, an honest person might still have entertained the idea that despite the dishonesty of the first five pages found, maybe there were some real support for a real Gender Wage Gap out there, but they would have had to search for different pages for that.
Mike did none of this.
I suggest that Mike knew from the beginning that his 75% figure was a fraud. he wilfully mislead his audience. When challenged as to its accuracy he did not back down or seek to put the figure in "context" but dogmatically asserted he was correct.
how can you trust someone who will lie like that straight to your face?
===========================
Of course I've just covered the tip of the iceberg with feminist lies about the so-called gender wage "gap". The entire concept of comparing men and women's wages without taking account of marital status is ridiculous. Why? Because men and women often share their finances.
80% of consumer expenditure is by women. Women spend four times as much as men in other words. Pretty good trick considering they are supposed to be paid 25% less don't you think?
There's an easy explanation of course. Women spend the money that men work to earn.
Now in that context it doesn't sound quite so bad to be the one earning less -- but spending far more. are feminists just unaware of this context? Have feminists just not realised this problem with the use of so-called gender wage gap figures over the last 100 years of using this lie?
Well judge for yourself -- the 80% figure was stated by Gloria Steinem in a book celebrating how much financial muscle women had. braging about it.
So, yeah. I'd say feminists were quite aware of that problem in their "argument".
Most couples have a division of labour with one parent working more outside the home and one working more inside the home. That remains true even these days when more "housewives" are having to work part time or even full time in a non-career job. It's not sexist to note that men work outside the home more than women do. Of course you earn more if you work more. Is it sexist to note that women work more inside the home? So why is it sexist to note the obvious fact that men work harder than women do outside -- for paid work? if they are in a couple that is.
of course not all families are like that. Whenever a woman takes on the role of the wage earner they earn the wages of that role. Equal pay for equal work. And among the single (never married) people out there men and women earn almost identical wages even before you take into account what jobs they are working at.
Feminists know all this.
I'm saying nothing Mike doesn't already know.
Their "Wage gap" is a huge and deliberate fraud. A hoax. A despicable lie. Why do they lie? It's clear they have an overwhelming need to try and find any pretext to present women as somehow persecuted or "oppressed" as Mike put it. Feminism has no real issues so they are forced to fraudulently invent some. How else could they demand the special treatment and special laws that favour women over men?
Feminism deliberately lies to concoct stories of discrimination. The truth is that it's the feminists themselves who are the biggest sexists out there. many do it purely for the power. some because they hate men. But always the means of acheiving their goals is to attack men and characterise men negatively.
In this case the myth says men are bastards that give each other a full pay but conspire together to under pay all women. As a myth it's about as rational as any hate mythology. It's like saying the Jews secretly run the world.
In reality what would happen if women were paid 25% less than men and would do the same exact work for it? Nobody would ever hire any men. Well you can see that happening with the way jobs are flying out of America to India for example. A real life example. What happened to that old boys network then? I thought the deal was that men get an artificially inflated wage packet and employers take the hit compared to what they could save employing women or Indians?
World doesn't work that way.
I'm no beleiver in the so-called free market but I sure as hell know there's no global male conspiracy called the "patriarchy" where all men get together in secret and agree to pay all women 25% less. No more than there's a Global Jewish Conspiracy. It's a sign of a hate movement to beleive such nonsense.
Deanna's link
These essays are really funny aren't they? all these people so desperate to try and say ANYTHING positive about feminism and they can't because the whole movement is fake.
Mike's comment about women in some combat roles in the army is the only actual "disadvantage" anyone's managed to think of. Some disadvantage. Less "right" to become a war criminal.
This guy is just another zombified victim. He's not struggling with anything. Here's how he characterises any man who dares to criticise feminism:
People who seriously make this argument, though, almost always fall into one of two camps: people who aren’t paying attention, and people who aren’t being honest.
Oh yeah some real reflection going on there.
David (is it it Richard...the tone is awfully familiar) why don't you start your own blog?
It is clear that you have a bee under your saddle about this. I mean, you already have a blogger id, just take the next step. This is really tiresome. I have made my point and you have move the goal posts every time, been caught contradicting yourself and are generally behaving rather angry and unstable. You are clearly suffering from some kind of delusion, nearing paranoia.
Now for your warning: Its been fun, but now its done. If you want to continue, get your own blog. If you continue to post with out my reply, I will simply close off posting here. If you continue to obsess, I will delete any further posts about this subjuect in any of my other entries.
Easy.
Now get your own blog and I'll go over and se you there. But we are done here.
Mike, you are a shitty loser. Did you know that?
I'm sorry Mike, that came off a bit harsh. It's your blog, your rules, etc....
jeff,
Thanks jeff, I appreciate it
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DavidByron,
I do not tolerate people calling me a liar, comparing me to Hitler and using my own blog to launch into ad hominem screeds with no connection to to issue at hand.
Blogger does allow me to remove ALL evidence, but chose to leave the minimal indication to point to you that your attacks are not welcome.
Our conversation started well enough but has now devolved to the point that your posts are the blog equivilent of a crazy man on the corner screaming paranoid, angry insults at passersby, and then wondering why people ignore what he says and think he is nuts. Your freedom of speech is in no way censored or curtailled as you are perfectly free to start your own blog and scream all you want. You are no longer welcome to use my blog to attack me.
You'll also notice the cordial bit that occured between jeff and I. Jeff and I do not agree on most things, and over the past couple of years have tangled - sometimes quite passionately and bittersly - on many occasions. But jeff has never once resorted to the frothing-mouth personal attacks that you have resorted to. Hence, we agree to disagree and are still civil. I dare say that should ever meet in person, despite our differences, we might even be friends. You could learn from jeff and many others in the blogsphere.
Until that time, you are not longer welcome to comment on this post. Everything you post will be deleted. If you are compelled to continue, start your own blog - it takes about 3 mouse clicks...
Wow.. Mike, that davidbryon guy is seriously f@k'd up. My women studies courses didn't even come close to touching the discussion coming from that guy. I thank god for my mom, my grandmother, my sister and my niece. I couldn't imagine being that angry at women in general. He needs to take some women studies courses I think. Maybe it would help free his mind. Congratulations on a well said and put argument. It's a shame it degenerated to that point though. I am truly surprised that people would still have that much of an issue with feminism. I guess I live in my own bubble, but all the men I know appricate the women they have in their lives and are thankful for the way they are. And the way they are is largely due to the efforts of feminists everywhere. Good post, by the way.
Shawn
Um... sorry, if I'd gotten here sooner, could have warned you... you dealt with him bravely and as patiently as anyone could have been expected to, but as you noticed, the grab bag includes insults, undeserved bile and hatred, and finally--or firstly, in this case--the claim that "a-ha! You're censoring me!"
You horrible cad, Mike. You're just like Hitler, you know that? Exactly like Hitler, no difference.
Wish I had gotten here sooner to warn you.
I think this DavidByron has had the same exact spiel everywhere he's gone, too, but isn't seeing that it's received exactly the same way every time... who was it that said "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result"? You wish he'd choose some more positive, productive pastime. What a waste of one's life. Oh well.
Hi Friends ,
Nowadays searching jobs is very easy one. just post your resume and get your dream jobs soon by using search engine.
Post a Comment
<< Home