I know Romney is evil, but I am voting for him anyway. Men's Rights in focus for a change.

page: 5
17
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Phenomium
 


And judging by your avatar, I assume you're as crazy as Johnny.

Heerrreee's Johnnnyyyy!

And no, not in the Ed McMahon voice.

No harm, no foul. We're even.




posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Destinyone

Originally posted by Phenomium

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by Phenomium
 


Female is a gender, Feminism is, apparently, your pet peeve.

If you wish there is an entire arsenal of synonyms for the world female here.

And a decent read about how to define species here. And it's safe, it was written by a dude.


~Heff
edit on 10/2/12 by Hefficide because: typo - getting late n stuff



Whatever man...you are really splitting hairs here...this is nothing more than a magicians distraction trick that you are pulling here.


I feel so sorry for your wife. You have no capacity to see that you are wrong in any way shape or form...ever.

I can feel her oppression from the way you post.

Des



She is not oppressed...your mind is. She speaks freely of her own accord and even initiates this problem of Feminism, sometimes before I can even speak. I treat her with respect, as she is a true woman. Not like the man-beast females that today's' society offers. I am merely making an observation, but I perceive you to be one of these unseemly beasts, of the modern day fe-MALE, mind bending predators of classy women, who just want to live and be a woman and not a fighter or a champion and has to prove themselves all the time or be a champion of everything just to be better than men. My wife kept her class and again, a second person who speaks about a life they know not, who knows nothing. Your words of pity are wasted on a scenario that doesn't exist. My wife would smack you in the name of men.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by VaterOrlaag
reply to post by Phenomium
 


And judging by your avatar, I assume you're as crazy as Johnny.

Heerrreee's Johnnnyyyy!

And no, not in the Ed McMahon voice.

No harm, no foul. We're even.


Agreed.....were even.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 10:36 PM
link   
I am going to agree with the majority consensus in this thread that the OP is a little...confused, shall we say. My reasoning is that I have yet to see any concrete evidence of Romney saying he would do anything for men or against feminism, etc. I am not sure why the OP thinks things will change with Romney at the helm. Maybe because he is conservative rather than liberal? But look, in 8 years under Bush feminism was hardly rolled back, so why would you expect anything along those lines from Mr. R. who if anything comes across as more socially moderate?

Be that as it may, I do feel compelled to step up in defense of the OP to some extent. First of all, I think the responses in this thread are inappropriate and if the shoe was on the other foot I'd wager a lot of them would be removed as contrary to T&C. So many personal attacks and ad homs it makes my head spin. "You need psychological help," "you are insecure," "you can't get laid." REALLY? That's your answer? I thought ATS was better than that.

Where I come from, ad homs like that mean your basic argument is weak. Chew on that, if you please.

Now, like I said the OP is coming on a little strong and I think his logic is flawed, but I do NOT think some of the responses in this thread are appropriate, so consider throttling it back a bit. Or perhaps ask yourself why you feel compelled to issue ad homs in the first place. Could it be that the OP is onto something fundamental, however flawed?

I think the past injustices against women have been overplayed. Oh, the horror of staying home and caring for children while men went off to be maimed and die in wars and coal mines, or work themselves into an early grave! What "oppression"! And yet its leaned on all the time as an excuse for what are shaping up to be excesses in the present day. Fact is, men do experience health issues, workplace issues, and custody issues that put them at a distinct DISADVANTAGE to women. The feminist response seems to be either to try to laugh it off or to use ad hom attacks. Both are WEAK. So put that in your pipe and smoke it.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by FailedProphet
 


To me, "men's rights" are much like white people claiming to be oppressed by minorities.

You almost have to laugh them off because when you look at the fairly recent history of the U.S, women were once considered property (and still are in some places!) and they were expected to submit to their husbands.

Much like the white man's claim of being oppressed by minorities. What did history tell us about white men? They held African Americans in slavery. They butchered millions of Native Americans through illness and war.

It will take quite some time for both groups to have any merit to their claims. They'll have to experience the prejudices of those they accuse and we know this will never happen thanks to a little thing called "white privilege".



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by FailedProphet
I am going to agree with the majority consensus in this thread that the OP is a little...confused, shall we say. My reasoning is that I have yet to see any concrete evidence of Romney saying he would do anything for men or against feminism, etc. I am not sure why the OP thinks things will change with Romney at the helm. Maybe because he is conservative rather than liberal? But look, in 8 years under Bush feminism was hardly rolled back, so why would you expect anything along those lines from Mr. R. who if anything comes across as more socially moderate?

Be that as it may, I do feel compelled to step up in defense of the OP to some extent. First of all, I think the responses in this thread are inappropriate and if the shoe was on the other foot I'd wager a lot of them would be removed as contrary to T&C. So many personal attacks and ad homs it makes my head spin. "You need psychological help," "you are insecure," "you can't get laid." REALLY? That's your answer? I thought ATS was better than that.

Where I come from, ad homs like that mean your basic argument is weak. Chew on that, if you please.

Now, like I said the OP is coming on a little strong and I think his logic is flawed, but I do NOT think some of the responses in this thread are appropriate, so consider throttling it back a bit. Or perhaps ask yourself why you feel compelled to issue ad homs in the first place. Could it be that the OP is onto something fundamental, however flawed?

I think the past injustices against women have been overplayed. Oh, the horror of staying home and caring for children while men went off to be maimed and die in wars and coal mines, or work themselves into an early grave! What "oppression"! And yet its leaned on all the time as an excuse for what are shaping up to be excesses in the present day. Fact is, men do experience health issues, workplace issues, and custody issues that put them at a distinct DISADVANTAGE to women. The feminist response seems to be either to try to laugh it off or to use ad hom attacks. Both are WEAK. So put that in your pipe and smoke it.



Here is a YouTube page full of videos:

Romney against women

Pick your poison.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by VaterOrlaag
 


Past injustice is never a cause for present injustice. You were never a slave. I was never a slave-owner. I owe you nothing.

And as I said, I think the supposed past oppression of women has been exaggerated. It was men who died in wars and coal mines, like I said, and who died earlier. Women's lives were not without danger and suffering, but everyone's life was such in the old days, so to claim that women had universally harder or more oppressed existences in history simply holds no water as far as I am concerned. Its one of those "big lies" that gets repeated often and shrilly enough so people start being afraid to question it, but if you pick the logic apart, the structure of the argument folds like a house of cards.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Phenomium
 


you know nothing about me. I'm 62 years old, raised an intelligent daughter by myself, worked my whole life. never depended on a man to support me, nor the government. I just feel pity for you...for your bitterness. For the hatred you harbor. I would imagine you don't like looking in the mirror much. I think you find it kind of a self-medication to lash out at others you blame for your misfortune. It may sooth for a moment, but a very fleeting one.

Des



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by VaterOrlaag
reply to post by FailedProphet
 


To me, "men's rights" are much like white people claiming to be oppressed by minorities.

You almost have to laugh them off because when you look at the fairly recent history of the U.S, women were once considered property (and still are in some places!) and they were expected to submit to their husbands.

Much like the white man's claim of being oppressed by minorities. What did history tell us about white men? They held African Americans in slavery. They butchered millions of Native Americans through illness and war.

It will take quite some time for both groups to have any merit to their claims. They'll have to experience the prejudices of those they accuse and we know this will never happen thanks to a little thing called "white privilege".




One thing to say, as I suspect you are a young man, who has never been married. All I have to say is get married, have a child and when you get divorced....and you will (statistics are far beyond 50% now, because women can make more money divorced), stand in front of that judge in a divorce court....you will find out pretty quick if this is a man's world or a woman's world. Even without a kid...you lose! Unless you are a wealthy male, most of the time they lose too. Rarely does a strong, empowered, weak and frail woman ...lose in court against a male.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by FailedProphet
 


There's no reason to turn back the laws that protect women either.

Before those laws existed, women were getting back-alley abortions, were being sexually harassed and other injustices.

Most employers have a zero-tolerance for sexual harassment in the workplace.

I'm sure that some long for the days when a manager could sleep with his secretary without any consequences whatsoever.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Phenomium
 


Actually, I have the advantage here.

My mind isn't warped by bitterness like that of those who loathe women.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by VaterOrlaag
reply to post by Phenomium
 


Actually, I have the advantage here.

My mind isn't warped by bitterness like that of those who loathe women.



See, more ad homs. "Your mind is warped." "You are bitter." And the lefty's favorite screech: "haaaaaate!"



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by FailedProphet

Originally posted by VaterOrlaag
reply to post by Phenomium
 


Actually, I have the advantage here.

My mind isn't warped by bitterness like that of those who loathe women.



See, more ad homs. "Your mind is warped." "You are bitter." And the lefty's favorite screech: "haaaaaate!"



So...I guess you are now the self appointed thread referee. Are you going to rate each and every post according to the rule book, you wrote. Just curious.

Des



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Destinyone
 


Nope, but what's wrong with calling out ad hom arguments for what they are?

In a formal debate, use of personal insults is an automatic LOSS.

Why rely on ad homs and personal attacks if the logic of your position is so unvanquishable?



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phenomium
You're right. Meh, what can be done about it now? I also married a bad woman (cheater,liar) before I met the wife I am with now.....]



So lets put this into perspective. You are willing to vote for someone evil and send this country into a further nose dive all because you want to get back at your mother and your ex wife.This is what it all boils down too.

Unlike others here im not going to be so nice. Your behavior suggests you have a lot of deep rooted mental issues and you would benefit from treatment with a shrink.

If you don't wish to take that route then its quite simple. SUCK IT UP. You're supposed to be all gung ho with "manism" yet you're on in here getting you're emo on all because you cant let your past go? Oh boo hoo cupcake ! I hate to break it to you but thousands of people around the world got it much worse than you and you don't see them wanting to ruin a whole nation because of it.

Further In the chauvinists outlook wouldn't this over emotional outburst be more fitting to how women are supposed to stereotypically act?
That probably didn't occur to you did it?
edit on 2-10-2012 by paganini because: (no reason given)
edit on 2-10-2012 by paganini because: (no reason given)
edit on 2-10-2012 by paganini because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by FailedProphet
reply to post by Destinyone
 


Nope, but what's wrong with calling out ad hom arguments for what they are?

In a formal debate, use of personal insults is an automatic LOSS.

Why rely on ad homs and personal attacks if the logic of your position is so unvanquishable?


I was unaware this was a formal debate. I was under the impression it was started as a diatribe by the OP with some of us responding, some emotionally, some not, depending on which ego toes were stepped on. Or, maybe some wanted to honestly educate the OP in different perspectives. Never knew it was a formal debate. Thanks for clarifying that for me....

Des



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Phenomium
 


I can certainly see where your coming from in terms of men being considered unequal in many ways in today's society and everything siding with women.

a lot of stuff the woman in the first video in your second post was saying was true in my experience and I can relate to. But I feel bad saying this, men are not suppose to complain about anything especially how he is seen by society or fits into it.

My experience has always been woman first, be it people just pushing into a queue because they are female you can't really say anything because your a man, be it feelings, men's feelings are often overlooked and the woman's expected to be taken more seriously, rights favor woman over men when it comes to divorce and child care etc. there are numerous other things i could relate to which would also go into the portrayal of men in the modern world.

I heard on the news in the U.K. that they have broadened what is considered abuse a few weeks ago, they now consider denying people (although as always they depicted a woman) access to money is abuse, although I doubt if men made a complaint their wife was spending all the money and therefore denying him access to money or was just out right denying access it would even be taken seriously. I believe it would only apply if you said to a woman enough with the spending I am limiting what you can spend, then you will be hauled off for abuse for denying woman access to the money.

we all have different experiences which shape our views and that largely is what will determine how people think on this subject.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Destinyone
 


Never said this was a formal debate. However, the fact that it is considered an illegitimate debate tactic does indicate its fundamental weakness.

Note that personal attacks are also expressly forbidden by the Terms and Conditions of ATS. Now, we are on ATS, are we not?

Funny, we had a moderator here earlier who seems to have gone mysteriously quiet on the topic of personal attacks. Perhaps he or another moderator would like to step in and clear things up?
edit on 10/2/2012 by FailedProphet because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by FailedProphet
reply to post by Destinyone
 


Never said this was a formal debate. However, the fact that it is considered an illegitimate debate tactic does indicate its fundamental weakness.

Note that personal attacks are also expressly forbidden by the Terms and Conditions of ATS. Now, we are on ATS, are we not?

Funny, we had a moderator here earlier who seems to have gone mysteriously quiet on the topic of personal debates. Perhaps he or another moderator would like to step in and clear things up?


I am capable of reading what you wrote. I don't require a MOD to interpret for me. If you would feel more comfortable with a MOD as a mediator between us...well...go for it....

Des



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 11:20 PM
link   
There is a real and increasingly destructive men's rights issue at play these days, but I just don't see Romney being a significant factor.
edit on 2-10-2012 by ErgoTheConclusion because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
17
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum