once more, for the guy who is too lazy to read his own articles:

A little context is probably needed.

In some cultures they take it to far just as she says. But she would rather be locked up than to be cannonfodder on the battlefield as has been the male role. Do you still have a problem with this?

That's a godawful argument. I mean I would like to be "objectified" like that, but not because I like to be thought of as property but because I don't want to die. It's (intentionally) confusing two different points.

Hey I know through history the infirm have been made fun of, but they weren't sent to battle to die so shut up while I make fun of gimpy

you mean aside from it being a false dichotomy?

Look, the whole opinion column (which it is, there is absolutely no evidence provided anywhere in that piece) is littered with bull**** like this. And it managed to confuse you into thinking she's made some great point when all that's there is one logical fallacy after another.

For someone like you who complains that others are feeble-minded, pretty ironic that you would fall for such easy traps.

Unless you where rich then yeah in most of our history you had to go and die for your tribe/country if you where a man.

Also since it is so smackfilled with bs please give me more examples and this time dont go wahwah wrong but instead give me your opinion on how things work. Its more productive that way instead of just standing there pointing your finger without ever saying anything.

See, the thing is, I'm not going to waste time refuting the nothing that she seems to think she has proven.

That's the thing about your types, they continually make up the most insane bull**** they can think of, and then when proven wrong, they just slide over to some newly minted bull**** argument.

Your game isn't new, we deal with people like you around here fairly often. You're not outsmarting anyone because, believe me, you're not smart. You're quite easily duped by any hogwash that confirms your preconceived notions and desires to, as your hate site lovingly puts it:

But yes, at some point in the next few days I will probably dissect a large portion of that moronic opinion piece. Just for fun.

I loled

Made it about a minute in before it was clear how full of fallacies that horrible video is. No wonder it managed to gain your simple-minded support.

Pretty dumb to lash out against one of the leading feminists arguing for more support of men, seeing as how that's your big critique of feminism. But lolsputty, so long as it's bashing women who cares, AMIRITE?

Well I do agree that Emma Watson is a well paid multi millionaire, she's still a woman though. Now perhaps it would be more inclusive to include some third world feminists talking. But I somehow doubt the youtube commentator would change his tune regardless of who's up there.

Of course not. If she talked about third world women the conversation would shift to first world men. If she talked about first world men (she does ldo, not that any MRAtard would know that) they would complain that she didn't talk about third world men.

It just goes on. Another desperate way to try to control women.

She is not a woman when she has a short boys haircut.

why did i just watch 10 minutes of captain wool cap splicing his whining over hermione?

God this thread is at an all time low right now. Like slapping on night vision goggles to watch spastic three year olds swing wildly at each other in the dark.

Lol Forbes. The problem with fraternities is.......... drunk women.

https://archive.today/oUnrj

Bonus points for the "guys it sucks, don't bring drunk women into your room alone, new laws means it could be rape!"

That video was a great example of the men's rights movement, which seems to be more about how much they don't like women than anything else.

If you want to argue for men's rights, that's great. If you are intelligent, you can even do so without ****ting on women.

That won't get morons watching your youtoobs, though.

DIB and an article on drunk girls? I gotta think the thread's about to get worse.

Isnt that what you want?

Thoughts?

This must be wrong since women never behave badly or make bad decisions when drunk.

Isnt this what girls have always done? Looking out for each other so if the girl is to drunk she is supposed to be saved by her girlfriends.

Hes an anti feminist not an MRA. If there is a male feminist that you criticize do you hate on women aswell or do you criticize FEMINISM?

It is also fun that when a similar video to this was posted all you feminist thought it was so fun because the women criticized was not a feminist. I thought both was fun since they brought up good points while using humor. Woman on the good side criticized=misogyny and woman on the bad side=humor. Double standards?

The claim is unsupported. There may be more complaints of drunken male behavior because there are more drunk males and the things they do cause more damage.


The point you are missing is that it also only takes one irresponsible male to bring a fraternity down.



Nobody has a problem with that. They have a problem with this moron claiming that most problems at parties are caused by drunk women--which is a pretty dumb statement.

Who do you think causes more alcohol related problems on campus, men or women?

Okay.

This question doesn't make sense.

Maybe I missed the first video, but my point was that this particular anti-feminist didn't raise any good points. Saying "But you're rich" is clearly an ad hominem diversion. I stopped watching, though, so maybe he saved them for the end.

I don't mind having guys look out for other guys taking drunk girls to their room. After all if a guy does and the gets charged with rape he deserves it amiright?

Anyways, the article touches on an article about frats that I posted 6 months or so ago. Frats are a nexus for a whole host of stupid incidents and frat organizations have built up the whole network of reasonably sounding rules that are totally unenforceable or not enforced while the frat organization looks the other way to give the frat organizations cover and put all the blame on the frat members themselves if something stupid happens. This leads to articles like the Forbes one where fraternity leader get to this tut tut'ing of drunken women and "irresponsible" frat boys while this writer, I guarantee, remembers fondly breaking every rule he's now chastising young kids for without a sense of remose only a sense of relief that nothing stupid happened.

Never know what I might say next. Might get all controversial and suggest that each and every college rape allegation get reported to the cops. OH SNAP.

No doubt that there are many more drunk and rowdy males. The point he makes though is that they can restrict entrance to those and if they are in the fraternity they can deal with them internally. Restrict access to women and this happens since we cant call them irresponsible jerks.

See above


Phrasing is bad yes but i think the message is more that they can handle most men that behave bad but they have no means to handle the women.

Also if you're deeply concerned about the safety of women and men at fraternity parties this isn't the stock photo you use