sigsfried wrote:To return to the scenario I used earlier, if my partner says in the morning "not today" and later seduces me do I have to follow the original "not today" even though it is clear that it is now something she wants? Clearly this is a root we do not want to go down.
Saying any sex that both people wanted, and were in no doubt the other wanted is rape, or comparable to rape, just because of the language they used (even if it was clear what they meant) is a profoundly arrogant attitude. It means saying to people who are happy that they had sex that they were raped. Which is both demeaning to them, telling them how they can go about their relationships and demeaning to people who are actually raped.
I'm not sure why this was spoilered, since it seems relevant to topic at hand, so I'm unspoilering because it's easier to have a conversation that way.
Your hypothetical sounds bad, but fortunately, society has created a workaround designed to be 100% effective in issues of communication where one party might be misreading the other party, and this radical technique of finding something out about what another person wants is called a question. You might try "Are you sure you want to have sex? Earlier today you said you didn't." Perhaps you might try "Oh yeah, are you ready for some o' my world-famous lovin'?" If you're overly formal and your relationship is weird, you could even go with "can I take this body language as a sign of consent for us to have sex?"
Fun fact: nowhere in this thread, including the post you quoted, claimed that a woman who said "no" but wanted sex and got it was raped.
As for Men's rights advocates in general. Even if society is totally dominated by men and male ideas (something I am not convinced by though I don't deny women face widespread discrimination) that doesn't mean that it is wrong to object to the areas where men are discriminated against (though they are few notable examples include adoption rights where in many countries the mother is strongly favoured). Yes the overwhelming majority of feminists want equality but that doesn't mean they are likely to target as a priority the areas that benefit women. Unless you really believe no such areas exist but I strongly doubt that, after all when girls were as far beyond boys in academic performance as boys are now behind girls there was really strong arguments that the education system was biased against girls. Should we now accept that girls are just better and therefore there better academic performance is to be expected? Should we worry about the gender imbalance in physics, maths and computer science, but not in history, English literature and nursing?
A lot of feminists, including myself, believe that the under-performance of boys in some areas is due to the existence and enforcement of traditional gender roles. Guys aren't caring, so they shouldn't be nurses. A lot feminism is about uprooting those traditional gender roles. MRAs are specifically not about that.
And willingness to throw yourself in front of the Kings horse in a race doesn't suggest rationality that is required to reasonably take part in democracy? Also why on earth should someone get shot for climbing those buildings?
I don't think Emily Davison's actions were in any way a good argument for suffrage, even though suffrage was a good cause. Just as fathers are a good thing, but Fathers 4 Justice is not. And uh, yeah, I think trying to infiltrate the home of the head of state is something that can reasonably get you shot. The police didn't here, which is good.
CorruptUser wrote:The problem I have with BET is that it assumes that Afromericans like STUPID things. Imagine if the world was reversed, and whites were the minority, where we talk about black privilege. Now imagine that Viacom creates WET. But the shows are things like Jerry Springer. It'd be insulting.
Yeah, I agree, though that's really a topic for elsewhere.
HungryHobo wrote:As much as any form of protest.
Do you even realise how hateful what you say is?
Imagine if someone came out with a statement implying that women who walked in slutwalk shouldn't have access to their children because walking around with hardly anything on doesn't suggest "responsible parent".
Really. try to imagine someone saying that to you and meaning it like you just meant what you said and how it would make you feel.
That would require a person to think that wearing minimal clothing is a thing that good parents don't do. I don't think that. I would think that person is wrong because of that. I think causing disruptions, wasting police time, and recklessly endangering yourself is a vastly different thing that wearing less clothing.
omgryebread wrote:No. no it is not. There certainly is a lot of male privalige but there's also lots of female privalige which you probably don't even acknowledge. it's a long long way from being a one sided thing.
Mmm. And this female privilege is...? It's in any way comparable to male privilege in what ways?
sigsfried wrote:It was insulting to everyone and I apologise. This includes omgreybread as I should not have implied that they would have supported such a position.
You missed my point (not that fathers shouldn't have rights, but Fathers 4 Justice is a terrible argument for them), but I didn't think anything you said was that bad and needed an apology.
Feeding the troll: Knock it off. Final quote and comment removed.