It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
originally posted by: ~Lucidity
You find my "by proxy...broadbrushing of women and feminism" offensive? I am a woman. The statements I made are about this group and feminists, not about women in general. Not all women are feminists. Not all women feel intimidated by men. Not all women feel that anything that doesn't go well in their lives is because of their sex. Not all women feel that men must be put down to make women look better. Many, many feminists do, however, and that permeates our society. It's in television shows and movies. It's also ridiculous, and the end result is resentment and a poor reflection on all women.
originally posted by: windword
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes
We can post definitions all day long, but the modern feminist movement isn't about equality at all; it's about putting down men, and claiming that anything that happens to a member of the group is because she's female.
That's Misandry, not Feminism
You can try to slander a cause by redefining it as something wicked all day long! But as a woman, I find the broad brush in which you're painting feminism, demonizing the avocation of equal rights for women as if it's hateful to men, dishonest, disrespectful and offensive!
That's a common characteristic of modern feminists. It isn't slander if it's true, and there are countless examples of this all over the internet.
Equal rights are one thing. Equal pay for equal work is fine, for example, but equal pay for women that can't do the same work isn't equality; it's favoritism. That happens all over, even in the military. I have seen this first hand. Equal treatment is fine, but when all-male clubs are condemned, bt all-female groups are allowed, that isn't equal. When all men are blamed for the actions of some, that isn't equal. Claiming that the women would be threatened by the mere presence of men, because they might have been abused or assaulted is painting all men with the same broad brush, now isn't it?
I'd say a much better example of being granted "special rights" comes from the current movement to provide the religious with the right to exempt themselves from any laws they suddenly don't agree with, setting themselves up as a superior class with rights that the non-religious, for example, would not have ...
originally posted by: Wookiep
I am not totally sure what you are referring to here, but I'm guessing it has something to do with tax exemptions? Churches are non-profit organizations and rely solely on donations. Any non-profit organization has this right to assemble without intervention from government, and it doesn't matter if it's a religious organization or not..
I think maybe you are fabricating the part about them being exempt by ANY laws, or being a superior class etc. I think you're making things up! You just hate churches and religion, that's your problem.
The proposal is modeled on a 22-year-old federal law known as the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act. That law played a key role in the U.S. Supreme Court's decision that allowed Hobby Lobby and other closely held corporations with religious objections to opt out of an Affordable Care Act requirement that they cover certain contraceptives for women.
Nineteen other states have adopted similar "religious freedom" laws, and several others are considering legislation.
originally posted by: Wookiep
a reply to: Gryphon66
Well, just for starters, how about special college grants based on nothing more than race or sexual preference? Can you point to any grants solely for say, a white (straight) male in his 20s? I'll bet you can't because they don't exist, yet it's "equal" to have have special grants based on race and sexual preference? (And by sexual preference, I mean gays because straights do not get special college grants)
As to hating religion? You've got that right. I make no bones about it.
originally posted by: woodwardjnr
This is funny another thread made on the back of a tweet about a group no one outside the UK has ever heard of. This right here is manufactured outrage if ever I've seen it. An excuse for a bunch of guys to come out and whine about how hard done by they are in society. There's some proper insecurity issues on ATS right now. That seem to come from men who are questioning their status in society. Anyone who is secure in their sexuality, race religion and gender certainly wouldn't be displaying such insecurities
There's some proper insecurity issues on ATS right now. That seem to come from men who are questioning their status in society. Anyone who is secure in their sexuality, race religion and gender certainly wouldn't be displaying such insecurities
I demonstrated that there are no special rights for blacks or gays exhibited in college grants, tv shows, or special riots.
What a hypocritical statement ... you provide no facts, no evidence, and empty examples of your point, and now you want to try to put it off on me to do your research for you. No thanks, I knew you didn't have any basis for your comments when you made them
And I see you're now trying to slide "special rights" to "special treatment" ... overtly and simply dishonest.
Religious freedom does not mean that a special religious class is set up that gets to ignore the laws. I know you haven't bothered to actually read or research these laws, and that your own belief is enough to sustain your inflated agenda ... but that doesn't cut it for others.
If you think I'm getting into the cake debate you're insane; it's off topic.
These proposed laws allow the religious to claim that whatever law they don't like is "against their religious beliefs" which sets up two classes of citizens, one who obeys the laws, and one to which the laws don't apply.
So, to summarize ... you provide no evidence for your claims, you expect others to do your work for you, and the only thing you have left is blathering about "agendas."