Feminism

I've been on Veeky Forums for over five years, seen every anti-feminism propaganda i could, but i can't help myself and lately am starting to agree with them (with the reasonable ones, not the "men should worship women" landwhales).

There just is no actual argument against promoting gender neutrality and complete sexual freedom.

Why not just let anybody be whatever they want to be?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armin_Meiwes
reason.com/blog/2016/04/19/female-student-said-im-fine-and-i-wasnt
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_rights
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duluth_model
theguardian.com/society/2015/oct/19/annastacia-palaszczuk-warned-dont-put-domestic-violence-against-men-above-women
timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Activists-join-chorus-against-gender-neutral-rape-laws/articleshow/18840879.cms)
jpost.com/Israel/Womens-groups-Cancel-law-charging-women-with-rape).
imgur.com/n4NZfxA0
unfoundation.org/what-we-do/campaigns-and-initiatives/family-planning-2020/
inquiriesjournal.com/articles/395/western-feminism-in-a-global-perspective
slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/04/male_rape_in_america_a_new_study_reveals_that_men_are_sexually_assaulted.html
un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imre_Lakatos
drbeardmoose.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/whatisfeminism.pdf
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Because that's not how mother nature set it up. There's a very good reason why there are two genders and why the both of them shouldn't mix. The fact that this set up is very universal in nature and has survived for so long shows that, while we may not know exactly why this set up is the way it is, it's nevertheless extremely successful and tempering with it tends to be an extremely bad idea.

Nature cares about survival, not about whether can make good arguments for something.

I don't mind you choosing whatever you want to identify as, but don't expect to be seen as normal.

I blame tumblr and pop-feminism. A lot of bloggers are whatever refuse to invest time to read bell hooks, Butler or Harraway and just use half assed definitions from wiki or 101 college books to push an agenda (which would be okay) without stating that this is agenda (which is not okay). Plus we actually discuss about American discourses and their political debates are on a horrible niveau. It's no no coincidence that comedians like current-year-man have so much influence. Additionally there are companies like Sony that picked up on the feminist wave and use it to sell their (inferior) products. No surprise basement dwellers leash out like they do.

Learn the difference between sex and gender before engaging in a discussion like this. Please.

>There just is no actual argument against promoting gender neutrality and complete sexual freedom.

No there isn't, but that's not really what feminists argue for in many cases though.

They are usually middle or upper class women who are extremely privileged, yet they are whining that they don't have enough.

Sometimes I think feminism was just a capitalist ploy to get more labor in the workplace, and not actually about women's emancipation at all.

>Sometimes I think feminism was just a capitalist ploy to get more labor in the workplace, and not actually about women's emancipation at all.
This is one of the arguments bell hooks and marxist feminists sometime put forward. You could argue the same thing for handicapped people just being new blood for a dying economic system.

>lets stick to natures rules, eating corpses and roots worked out fine for billions of years
Literally whole success of human race is based on breaking off from nature. You are just strawmaning, not presenting any actual arguments.

Why not? Why not let anybody fuck whatever they want as long as its consensual?

> You could argue the same thing for handicapped people

Except handicapped people are probably less than 1% of the population, and require a lot of resources themselves to be able to labor for any profit.

Women are 50% of the population, and they also control something like 80% of household income, meaning its simply is a net boon for every slimy capitalist on the face of the planet to include them in the workforce.

Consensuality is a meme.

You have heard about the German cannibal case right? One person consented to being killed and eaten to satisfy someone else's cannibalism fetish; that doesn't make it right.

Things don't axiomatically become ethical or good simply because you say yes.

>mother nature
You mean YHWH

>Nature cares about survival, not about whether can make good arguments for something.
Organics are but a stepping stone on the path to the machine dominion of the universe

>One person consented to being killed and eaten to satisfy someone else's cannibalism fetish; that doesn't make it right.
Literally why?

Well women are 51% of the population :-^^
Add colored people and immigrants to the equation and my point (which is yours) still stands. There is an argument to made that there a lot of people to become workforce, increase their income and become consumers. In Germany there is current discussion on how to integrate elderly people in the job market too.
That dude wasn't sentenced for a raping but for the disfigurement of a corpse which is law in civilized societies and especially in Germany after what the nazis did to Jew corpses. Also consensuality pre-supposes the mutual ability to make important decisions (which rules out sex with 9 year olds too). The Rothenberg people were clinically insane.

Workers of the world unite amirite

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armin_Meiwes

Because by promoting gender neutrality you tell men who are masculine that their natural inclinations are problematic and women who are feminine the same thing. When feminists accept that most women actually do like semi-traditional gender roles, and simply want to be ensured a safety net for when they go south ( abusive husbands and the like), and don't treat women and men poorly for doing what comes natural to us, and is the most efficient social organization, then it will be fine.

Currently is feminist who are against complete sexual freedom. For example take this case, where the women consented but a feminist administrator decided that she was not competent enough to consent, denying her agency, and demonizing the innocent man who she was involved with.

reason.com/blog/2016/04/19/female-student-said-im-fine-and-i-wasnt

Female empowerment is great, but victimhood fetishization for the sake of attention and creating tension between men and women so to increase government oversight into private relationships has nothing to do with empowerment. Feminism has been actively working against women and men for most of our life times. The last positive thing done by feminists for women was equal pays laws( which worked marvelously despite the myths that legbeards push), it's been half a century since then.

>Also consensuality pre-supposes the mutual ability to make important decisions

Which wasn't a problem in this case because they were both adults.

The point I'm trying to make is that consensuality has everything to do with context, and not the act of consenting itself.

I mean, you can also sign a contract with a company to become a literal slave for them for 10 years, that still doesn't make slavery right, regardless of you consenting or not.

So you are saying survival in modern society is tied to upholding social roles of man as a provider and woman as a caretaker?
You are saying that in modern society, in which muscles are useless and its about brains, women have no way of surviving on their own, or being the provider?
I get that nature made it some way and most men want to be providers and most women want to be caretakers, but denying them the possibility to be whatever they want seems like limiting the possibilities of the society for sake of its stability. The same thing that was main agenda of monarchic/totalitarian/etc. government for thousands of years before democracy, capitalism, individualism and all that stuff that makes up modern society.

>appeal to nature

wew lad.

Sea horses change their gender too.

>Which wasn't a problem in this case because they were both adults.
It is when they are literally crazy. The court ruled that the victim was not able to decide on that dude to mental problems. Let's not totally derail here please. I am all for consensuality and stuff but there must be limits. Even Milton Friedmann limits his idea of a free market in that regard.

>I mean, you can also sign a contract with a company to become a literal slave for them for 10 years, that still doesn't make slavery right, regardless of you consenting or not.
Yeah, because of the law. I don't say let's get rid of the law but let's make a law based on the idea of cosensuality rather than puritan sex morals.

I thought this society is all about achieving happiness. And when some people reach happiness which some other people don't like, suddenly its wrong, what the fuck? The fact that they were different doesn't make their happiness any less worth.

>puritan sex morals.

Oh, you mean those puritans who allowed women to divorce their husbands if they weren't having orgasms

Yeah, what a bunch of backwards prudes!!!

>I don't say let's get rid of the law but let's make a law based on the idea of cosensuality rather than puritan sex morals.

Nah, I'm more interested in a system of law that is based on whether someone is harmed.

If two men or two women have consensual sex, that cannot be said to be harmful, and thus shouldn't be illegal.

But there's a vast difference between the legality and illegality of certain acts, and the idea that I have to listen to your babble about your self-identifying gender category.

I mean, the reality is that if you self-identify as a gender-queer demi-sexual flipqueen cockmongler, nobody really cares about that. What most people care about is who you have sex with, because people are perverts.

Part of modern definition of mental illness in subjective suffering. Meiwes was suffering from the idea to merge which his victim literally taking over his personality. This can't be achieved by eating a penis or anything else in the world really. So there was no way for him to be happy this way. He needed treatment to get rid of this idea.

>One person consented to being killed and eaten to satisfy someone else's cannibalism fetish; that doesn't make it right

Actually it does. Law is just too rigid to account for it. Same as with taking hard drugs in some countries - you get jailed for it.

Read Weber please.

>Actually it does

No it doesn't. Murder doesn't become right simply because someone wants to die.

>But there's a vast difference between the legality and illegality of certain acts, and the idea that I have to listen to your babble about your self-identifying gender category.
Well, you don't. Just don't listen. What is your point? There are a lot of people saying a lot of shit and I am not forced to listen to any of them. Gender troubles have nothing to do with it.
>I mean, the reality is that if you self-identify as a gender-queer demi-sexual flipqueen cockmongler, nobody really cares about that
The law does since gender-neutral passports don't exist, your insurance does cause gender neutral insurance rates are rate etc.
>What most people care about is who you have sex with, because people are perverts.
I agree but that's only part of the issue.

It's not murder. It's suicide.

Can't blame a bridge if you jump off it.

>Murder is the killing of another human being without justification or valid excuse
Eh, saying "please kill me" seems like a really good justification. By our definition people attempting suicide should be jailed.

>implying feminists support gender neutrality
kek
Feminists only support gender equality when it benefits women.

>I am too lazy to read this thread or anything with more than 20 words
kek

Feminists do support traditional gender roles though when it benefits women.

that's same nice same fagging. May I ask on what ground your argument regarding what feminists support is based?

>Can't blame a bridge if you jump off it.

A human being isn't a bridge.

>thread about gender equality
>starts sperging about transexuals and how there are only 2 genders

>Why not just let anybody be whatever they want to be?
Peaceful coexistence is too advanced a concept for like 90% of people.

>Why not just let anybody be whatever they want to be?
That's not really the problem. The problem arises once people start asking for special treatment.
Also, feminism is literally build upon a victimhood mentality, which is, in itself, absolutely toxic.
For example: Feminists constantly complain about sexism in video games, but instead of setting an example and making their own non-sexist game, they try to push developers into making games by their standards.

No, the reality is that 90% of the time, whatever the fuck kind of bullshit gender you self-identify as, doesn't matter.

The idea that your gender identity is somehow the defining characteristic of you, is incredibly narcissistic, and most people don't give a shit, which is why nobody understands why it is even thing.

> Because that's not how mother nature set it up.
You mean some ancient cultures that barely even existed from a mother nature point of view? It isn't like feminism tries to literally create third genders or unify everyone into the one in biological sense.

Tradcons believe that men are strong and women are weak so it's the duty of men to be expendable protectors of women. Feminists believe that men are oppresssors and women are oppressed so it's the duty of men to be expendable protectors of women.

This can be seen in the fact that feminists oppose helping male domestic violence victims despite growing evidence that men are equally likely to be victims as women. This can also be seen from the feminist obsession with 'violence against women' implying that violence against women is more important than violence against men even though the majority of violence is suffered by men. Feminists in some South American countries have worked to get laws passed that make it a higher offense to kill a woman than a man. Feminists in India and Israel have also opposed recognition of male rape victims. This shows that feminists support male expendability.

The feminist attitude to MRAs is also evidence that feminists support male gender roles. If feminists were against male gender roles, they wouldn't oppose the MRM, instead look at the insults MRAs get from both feminists and tradcons, 'whiner', 'manbaby', etc. These insults insult MRAs for their percieved lack of masculinity and failure to conform to male gender roles, thus showing that feminists support male gender roles and actively oppose those who are against them.

Also, what rights do men have in the western world that women do not?

but i already now i'm not normal. After all normal is liking capitalism and the 30k people it kills everyday from hunger.

>A human being isn't a bridge.

Wow, really?

By your definition euthanasia is murder too, yet it's definitely legal in several countries: Switzerland, Netherlands and Japan. So fuck right off you retarded, religious piece of dung.

Women are bitches, don't do them any favors. Feminism mattered before internet porn came around, women serve no purpose outside of breeding and the sluts let Chad knock their shit up so the human race won't die off.

Absolutely no logical reason for women to be brought to the top if they can't kill their way there. Hillary Clinton is the only woman who has the balls to earn her spot. I hate that cunt but I also admire her.

Anyone in this thread who say's otherwise is probably a fag or a nerd.

No, euthanasia certainly isn't murder if it's legal in a specific country.

Murder is after all a legal category of unlawful homicide.

But there is a vast legal and ethical difference between stopping life support, or giving someone who has stage 4 cancer a huge dose of morphine, and cutting off and eating someone's penis while they are tied to a chair, and then murdering them.

>Feminists believe that men are oppresssors and women are oppressed so it's the duty of men to be expendable protectors of women.
Yeah, they believed that in like 1920. Modern theorists would never state it like this.
>This can be seen in the fact that feminists oppose helping male domestic violence victims despite growing evidence that men are equally likely to be victims as women.
Post the evidence (inb4 Breitbart/Fox)
>This can also be seen from the feminist obsession with 'violence against women' implying that violence against women is more important than violence against men even though the majority of violence is suffered by men.
Wrong. It's not "violence against women" but the idea of masculine habitus leading to violence that obviously can also be exercised by non-males. In the LGBT-community there are huge discussions about this since violence is ubiquitous in queer-relationsships.
>Feminists in India and Israel have also opposed recognition of male rape victims
Someone I know is called Peter. He is an idiot. Therefore everybody called Peter is an idiot.
>Also, what rights do men have in the western world that women do not?
Is this a joke? Also nobody states that fighting for same (legal) rights is the feminist endgame.

>man cannot achieve his dream
>coming as close to it as he humanly can is wrong and he should be stopped

Why the fuck do you feel the need to dictate him what he can and can't do? He isn't hurting anybody, he isn't using anybody, he just does literally what he wants, fullfilling his utmost desire. But fucks like you just can't let a man live, gotta keep making up rules to limit other's lives. Seriously i hope you go insane too, so you know how it feels when your way of thinking is out of the ordinary and others dictate you what is "normal" for no reason but their own content feeling.

You know you're really in Alice in Wonderland when someone literally defends mental illness as eccentrism.

>There just is no actual argument against promoting gender neutrality and complete sexual freedom.

>Someone I know is called Peter. He is an idiot. Therefore everybody called Peter is an idiot.

Ok, so you don't really have any counter arguments besides

>not all feminists ;)

>Is this a joke?

Then name some rights men have women do not

Mental illness is treated because it isn't compatible with society. When the patient isn't hurting anybody and actually wants to leave the society alone via suicide, there is no reason to stop him.

>When the patient isn't hurting anybody and actually wants to leave the society alone via suicide

Yeah, but then you can hang yourself, and not get someone to cut off your dick and stab you with a knife.

The same way that people who use police as a means to commit suicide are terrible people, if you really want to kill yourself, there are hundreds of ways to do it, that doesn't involve harming others, or involving others at all.

>Mental illness is treated because it isn't compatible with society
Has it ever occured to you that this not the only reason for treating mentally ill people?
The main purpose of therapy is usually to make it possible for those people to lead normal lives.

So you are only addressing half of my posts point. And yes, your inducing (without source) what an unknown amount of people said to a general statement about a certain group is a logical fallacy. There really is no responding to that in any meaningful way.
>Then name some rights men have women do not
In Germany until two weeks ago you couldn't rape women without them physically resisting i.e. them saying no or being intoxicated wasn't enough to constitute rape. Since rape victims are predominantly female the absence of a functioning law hurt the right of women not being raped. Not having access to contraception hurts the right to plan families etc.
I mean there really is no debate here, even amongst reactionaries.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_rights

>He isn't hurting anybody,
Yes, he was using a mental patient who was literally unable to willfully consent. I guess you are trolling though.

Ok but I don't see anything about equal rights

If anything rape laws regarding male rape are significantly worse

Fuck whatever you want, or look, act as you want etc. But dont expect the majority to accept you for the special snowflake you are.
>ACCEPT ME FOR WHO IAM, IM A WHALEKIN FEMINIST I DEMAND RESPECT
Its like BLM, gimmuh respect i r black

Are you talking about legal right? Cause I already stated that it's not about that anymore and that feminist generally agree that equal right in the West have been achieved. This is why they talk about culture now.

>And yes, your inducing (without source) what an unknown amount of people said to a general statement about a certain group is a logical fallacy.

Which is the same thing you did
>Modern theorists would never state it like this.
>Someone I know is called Peter. He is an idiot. Therefore everybody called Peter is an idiot.

But how about those rights men have women dont?

>In Germany until two weeks ago you couldn't rape women without them physically resisting i.e. them saying no or being intoxicated wasn't enough to constitute rape.

Wait, so the law applied to both sexes but because you state;

>Since rape victims are predominantly female the absence of a functioning law hurt the right of women not being raped.

Then its somehow a right men have that women dont....

Also nice source ;^)

>Not having access to contraception hurts the right to plan families etc.

Now thats what I call reaching

And since when is the right to plan families (lol) something that only applies to women?

Ah so the "feminism is about equality" is not actually objective equality but more
>i cant have everything the way i want why cant people just be like i want them to be :(

ok cool

>Yeah, they believed that in like 1920. Modern theorists would never state it like this.
Actions speak louder than words.

>Post the evidence (inb4 Breitbart/Fox)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duluth_model
theguardian.com/society/2015/oct/19/annastacia-palaszczuk-warned-dont-put-domestic-violence-against-men-above-women

>It's not 'violence against women'
You're joking right? Femiists constantly use those exact words.

>Someone I know is called Peter. He is an idiot. Therefore everybody called Peter is an idiot.
Funny how feminists complain about 'not all men' but then constantly rely on 'not all feminists' (while every MRA is either a whining manbaby neckbeard or the spawn of satan) It wasn't a small group of feminists, it was large enough that the governments involved had to concede (timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Activists-join-chorus-against-gender-neutral-rape-laws/articleshow/18840879.cms) (jpost.com/Israel/Womens-groups-Cancel-law-charging-women-with-rape). Mary Koss (one of the people behind the violence against women act) also rigged statistics to erase male victims of rape. (imgur.com/n4NZfxA0

>Is this a joke?
No. No feminist has answered this before.

> lead normal lives
If people are okay with whatever mental illness they has and there is no harm for anyone else then it isn't even issue, be it normal life or not.

Oh, so you mean abstract 'rights' that arent actually codified nor definable

>that feminist generally agree that equal right in the West have been achieved.

How can you make such a general statement about a certain group of people made up of an unknown amount of individuals?

>Cause I already stated that it's not about that anymore and that feminist generally agree that equal right in the West have been achieved
In that case, there is no need for feminism anymore.
>This is why they talk about culture now.
And you think that this is justified? In my opinion, culture (whoever you want to define this term) should be free (as in, uncensored). Wouldn't you agree with this?

If you seriously doubt that in the West more women than men are getting raped it shows me that you are not rooted in reality anymore. Also >>Modern theorists would never state it like this.
Spivak, Bourdieu, bell hooks. You want me to cite articles? Also those are the people who (amongst others) are the ones forming the paradigms. I man not talking about tumblrettes.
>Now thats what I call reaching
Yeah I am reaching far, so far that I actually know about the United Nations: unfoundation.org/what-we-do/campaigns-and-initiatives/family-planning-2020/

Point is to not be looked down upon. Not to be treated specially.

Yes, this is why the first question of most therapists usually is "Is this having a negative impact on your life?"
If the answer to this question is no, then this illness will in most cases not be treated.
Your point?

There's a good chance that more men are raped than women due to the prison system. Of course we can't say for sure since there's no statistics.

>If you seriously doubt that in the West more women than men are getting raped it shows me that you are not rooted in reality anymore
Yes, but men still make up a significant amount of rape victims. They are also getting an unproportionally low amount of support. When was the last time you heard a feminist complaining about that?
Same thing with domestic violence.

Feminists do not give a single shit about men, that's why I call myself an egalitarian.

>How can you make such a general statement about a certain group of people made up of an unknown amount of individuals?
You can look at the laws and how courts are ruling. It's pretty objective. Also it's "rape culture", not rape "laws" for example, they are allowed to vote etc. Have this:
inquiriesjournal.com/articles/395/western-feminism-in-a-global-perspective
I believe that the idea that are is free bourgeois idea that defies science. I am neither researching gender nor race stuff but I am working on my PhD regarding cultural phenomenon and historically culture has been anything but free. I mean here I agree with Adorno and Zizek (I usually despise both of them).
>In that case, there is no need for feminism anymore.
Legal codification and societal reality are not the same thing.

>If you seriously doubt that in the West more women than men are getting raped it shows me that you are not rooted in reality anymore.

then you are clearly fucking clueless
>the survey uncovered that 38 percent of incidents were against men.
>After all, in years past men had accounted for somewhere between 5 and 14 percent of rape and sexual violence victims.
>slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/04/male_rape_in_america_a_new_study_reveals_that_men_are_sexually_assaulted.html

Surely you must understand how difficult and traumatic it is for rape survivors to come forward, no? And that maybe the gender stereotypes in our society have caused male rape to go grossly under reported, no? Or are you just another no-empathy permavirgin channer?

>Spivak, Bourdieu, bell hooks. You want me to cite articles? Also those are the people who (amongst others) are the ones forming the paradigms. I man not talking about tumblrettes.

Someone I know is called Peter. He is an idiot. Therefore everybody called Peter is an idiot.

>Yeah I am reaching far, so far that I actually know about the United Nations

Where in the declaration of human rights is family planning listed? Or in any other document that lays out legal rights?

I don't get why feminists say rape is a feminist issue

Rape is a violent crime, like murder or assault

It's a social issue, not a feminist one

>You can look at the laws and how courts are ruli........

That response was taking the piss out of him

Its a verbatim copy of one of his 'counterpoints'

Because women are raped, not men. This is literally impossible.

Because MUH RIGHTS

Just not legal ones but theoretical ones we get to define and change at will

Yes, I know. Also globally cause Africa is fucked up. But I am talking about the West i.e. neither the world nor the U.S. alone. Also feminists would argue that raping in prison is the result of rape culture. No one ever said men can't be victims too (except for these anonymous feminists user stated above).
>When was the last time you heard a feminist complaining about that?
Around November when Spivak held a lecture in Berlin.
Sorry, I don't follow. To clarify: my statement was not about criminal cases but constitutional rules in Germany and the US where both supreme courts played a pretty "progressive" role over the last 40 years.

That is a retarded question. Every person in the world has some mental issue in their life causing them issues. (urge for wealth/appreciation/attention etc.). If somebody had an issue that would have no negative impact on their life, they would truly be insane.

>I believe that the idea that are is free bourgeois idea that defies science
What are you even trying to say?
>historically culture has been anything but free.
That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be free.
>Legal codification and societal reality are not the same thing.
Well yes, but any violation of legal codification is a crime, and therefore punishable by the powers that be. There is no need for feminism in such a system.

>then you are clearly fucking clueless
As I said I am not talking about the US alone and your statistic is for the US alone.
>Someone I know is called Peter. He is an idiot. Therefore everybody called Peter is an idiot.
Those are people called Peter being taught in colleges around the world shaping the paradigm of feminists studies. It's a qualitative difference.
>Where in the declaration of human rights is family planning listed? Or in any other document that lays out legal rights?
un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/

>Rape is a violent crime, like murder or assault
It should be but in many courtrooms around the world it's not despite the law stating otherwise. I am with you though in the sense that I think a strictly legal debate could be fruitful.

From wikipedia: Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse or other forms of sexual penetration perpetrated against a person without that person's consent.

>(urge for wealth/appreciation/attention etc.).
Thise aren't even mental disorders, what are you talking about.
If a person with OCD came to a therapist and said that he could not sleep unless all keys in the house are in upright position in their keyholes, this would be a reason to treat this disorder.
In a less severe case, the disorder may not be treated.
There are various degrees of mental illness.

>Sorry, I don't follow.

I copied one of your replies to use as a response against you here;
>And yes, your inducing (without source) what an unknown amount of people said to a general statement about a certain group is a logical fallacy.

But since that went over your head....

>my statement was not about criminal cases but constitutional rules in Germany and the US where both supreme courts played a pretty "progressive" role over the last 40 years.

Which gets back to this - What rights do men have in the west that women do not?

And you still haven't answered that. Or have you already thrown the towel in on the legal side are and putting your chips on 'societal' rights?

Everyone has issues, and they aren't disorders.

>complete sexual freedom.
t. pedophile and animal abuser.

Exactly. Issues aren't treated. Disorders are. Your point?

As in, I think the other user meant something similar to desires in buddhism, rather than medical disorders.

>As I said I am not talking about the US alone and your statistic is for the US alone.

So it doesn't matter then because it doesn't fit your narrative?

>Those are people called Peter being taught in colleges around the world shaping the paradigm of feminists studies. It's a qualitative difference.

hmmmmmm

>And yes, your inducing (without source) what an unknown amount of people said to a general statement about a certain group is a logical fallacy.

Do you have a source on what every feminist professor the world over believes?

Or are you falling into the same type of logical fallacy you decry others for committing?

>un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/

A fucking convention

Where is a legally binding document that defines family planning as a right, anywhere in the western world?

>taking hard drugs
this destroys people mentally and physically 99.9999999 % of the time and is in someone's best interest.

>Netherlands
It isnt, Many himanitarian doctors get fucked over hard if they euthanize anybody outside the 0,000001 % who meets the bizarre criteria.

Can this thread just die already, please?
OP has been BTFO multiple times now, this is just painful to read.

There misght be a rape culture in prison, but the theory that there is a rape culture in normal society that EVERY male adheres to, is crazier than Dahmer.

>OP has been btfo'd multiple times
Are we reading the same thread? I see most of the posts agreeing in a way, if you rule out the obvious memers like

> most of the posts
The one obvious same fag, you mean?

I mean every post in this thread that isn't about dyed hair landwhale "down with patriarchy" feminists, but about the main point of feminism mentioned in the OP. Nobody btfo'd it yet.

On rape? I think prison rape is a special issue. Are there statistics on women on women rape in prison?
>So it doesn't matter then because it doesn't fit your narrative?
It fits my narrative about masculine habitus perfectly desu but I refrain from talking about US-only issues only since I am not American.
>hmmmmmm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imre_Lakatos
>Do you have a source on what every feminist professor the world over believes?
You can go google n-gram that those names in relation to feminism.
Also there are a bunch of papers out there tracing the most influential ideas in feminism:
drbeardmoose.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/whatisfeminism.pdf (footnotes lead to good articles on that issue)
>A fucking convention
Are you dense? It's document from that conference ratified by member state.
>Countries that have ratified or acceded to the Convention are legally bound to put its provisions into practice.
>legally bound
>legally
Good enough for you?

Prison is a horrible program for drug addicts.

>Hey I got this drug charge on my record
>now I'm stuck in this cage full of assholes
>k, I'm released, no job will take me because of this charge
>stuck in half way house
>relapse
>rinse and repeat

Not to mention its often just as easy to find drugs in prison as it is for civilians, in some cases easier.

>99.9999999 % of the time
Magic nines must mean you didn't totally pull that statistic out of your ass.

>On rape? I think prison rape is a special issue. Are there statistics on women on women rape in prison?

The article wasn't about prison rape, it was incident of rape across the us.

>It fits my narrative about masculine habitus perfectly desu but I refrain from talking about US-only issues only since I am not American.

Does it?

Because this is one hell of a change from
>If you seriously doubt that in the West more women than men are getting raped it shows me that you are not rooted in reality anymore.

You start off by insinuating that rape is only relevant for women because, well I guess reasons of reality?

Since you've surrendered on that point, nice to see a new refrain. Although you'll have to key me in on you 'narrative about masculine habitus' - did you post that in another thread? Its certainly not here in this one.

>You can go google n-gram that those names in relation to feminism.

You attack others for generalizing but then you go off and do the exact same fucking thing.

Once again as you so eloquently put
>And yes, your inducing (without source) what an unknown amount of people said to a general statement about a certain group is a logical fallacy.

Could you maybe key me in on how you do this? Who do I need to talk to so I can speak with authority on who/what is/isn't part of modern day feminism? Do I just have to insinuate that someone is using fox/breitbart as a source?

>Are you dense? It's document from that conference ratified by member state.

Yeah, with a bunch of very vague provisions and no specifics on actual enforcement, laws, or any other step signatories should take. Aka a set of fucking guidelines.
Yet the core question remains unanswered; what legal rights do men have in the west that women do not?

You've danced around this a bunch but have been unable to come up with anything of substance.