Undiagnosed mental illness sounds like a public health issue, though, even if it is caused by gender roles it's probably not solved by making date rape legal.

Think about breast and prostrate cancer. They affect one gender more than another, but they are a problem for all of society. Breast cancer awareness is not a Woman's Rights issue.

This is also true of women's rights rhetoric, among others.

I'm not sure why you decided to arbitrarily cut off "or to try and deride some overbearing feminism movement that doesn't really exist" but other than that, yes, this has been my experience. I have yet to see anything in this thread that disproves that, including the guy in the OP who after even cursory research is brimming with that sentiment.

True, except it's "men's rights" not "'gender rights' for men," the latter was the phrase I used to describe the flawed prism through which to address certain issues.

Yeah I mean I tend to associate movements with the people that belong to them and what they say. Guilty as charged.

Sure,
(A) which is why I said that it was not exclusive to MRA's
(B) but I suppose I'm still more inclined to believe arguments about, "OMG this law is so unfair, just look at the disparate impact, maybe there is some bias here that needs to be investigated and addressed" when they are coming from groups that didn't pass the laws as opposed to the one that did...

nullspace seems to have quite the obsession with false rape accusations. Try not raping her.

You're missing my point. I'm not saying that "Men's Rights" isn't anything that you're saying it is. I have no idea. My point is to suggest that it seems like we've reached a stage where any sort of gender related discussion is impossible because the rhetoric has become so ridiculous.

This guy analogizes the concept of "men's rights" to racism:

He actually does think that "men's rights" is analogous to racism.

There have been lynchings in the United States as recently as the 1960s.

Phil repeats the same argument, except he makes sure to add that men's rights is only intended to take rights away from women:

After I challenge his argument, he opts to flat out deny that the thing he was talking about earlier even exists and laments at a lack of qualified experts to weigh in:

I'm sure that he will defend by saying that what he was referring to as "men's rights" is not the same as my use of "gender equality as it relates to men". Perhaps he's correct. Nevertheless, it seems wildly inconsistent to say that "gender equality as it relates to men" isn't a real thing immediately after making observations about discussions of "men's rights".

Furthermore, The fact that he didn't separately address anything that I pointed out supports an inference that he also is using the terms interchangeably.

It's not rape, it's responding to conflicting cues of verbally being told that sex isn't desired and assuming that sex is the only possible outcome from any physically intimate contact with a woman.

http://www.911rape.org/getting-help/...l-assault-exam

Just gotta interject some information into this thread. If we are going to talk about false rape accusations we should talk about the process a person goes through to make a rape accusation.

This is one part of the process a false rape reporter has to go through. If they really want to get someone in trouble for rape they have to go through a pretty rough series of examinations just to get to step one. It's not like you go to the police and make the accusation and they go and arrest their person at their job. The system still heavily favors the rapist.

Yet amazingly, you kept on writing this post.
Nope! You are not good at reading. Plenty of people can have plenty of discussions about gender related issues. "How unfair is it that sometimes dudes get accused of rape just because they raped some girl after she said no" is not one of those discussions, though!

"Men's rights" is a phrase that has a specific meaning beyond "rights" of "men". It's understandable that you didn't know that, because you admittedly have "no idea" what's going on in this issue. That should've made you cautious about arguing with people who do seem to have some idea what they are talking about, but alas here we are.

With you whining that somebody made an analogy to white pride(do you know how analogies work? that was a perfectly legitimate comment and makes a good point).

Was somebody mean to the incest/date rape advocate? And, for some reason, did that hurt your feelings too?

Cry me a ****ing river.

No, that's incorrect. I made no assumptions. I specifically said that I was challenging your assumption that the encounter would end with rape.

No, it was based entirely on what you said. Your assertion that responsibility for concluding the encounter belongs solely to the male based on the potential risk of a rape taking place relies on the sexist belief that women are unable to control themselves.

Your warning of rape necessarily implies that sex will occur and that the female does not consent.

Where no coercion is taking place and where the female is acting voluntarily to proceed in spite of a verbal "no", your suggestion that an encounter will otherwise result in rape unless the male ends the encounter implies a belief that the female is incapable of bridling her baser instincts because if she were capable of doing so, she would cease pursuit of the encounter.

In other words, she is freely and actively pursuing the encounter. We know that she does not want to proceed because she said "no". Nevertheless, she voluntarily proceeds, taking action to that end. But because she is unable to control herself like a man is able to do, the responsibility for preventing a rape from happening belongs to the male.

Feel free to challenge my assessment.

.

so the way the protestors behaved was, in your mind, completely justified due to the speaker's perceived views on a couple of topics that people have raised concerns were being twisted unfairly? or even that if you choose to write off those concerns as unwarranted because the speaker is a douche the protestors actions are still okay?

I didn't watch either video, obviously, but assuming the protesters did not use physical violence I'm probably fine with whatever swears they might have used to hurt Mr. Positive Incest's feelings.

I watched the video. They tried to shut it down and did have some pushing and shoving which I wouldn't agree with. Mostly it was a dual of obtuse gender academize sprinkled with explicitives against clueless guys (at least in the video they played dumb) which is fine especially against the guys that actually support the speaker.

At one point the police pushed the protesters back and the crowd started chanting, "this is what men's rights look like! " which made me wonder if policing in general and police brutality in the extreme were just men fighting for their rights.

Basically stupidity all around.

Not a single thing about this response surprises me. I love how you selectively edited my post to make it look like something much different than what it was.

For those interested in accuracy, Fly said this:

Rather than attack his highly debatable evaluation based on subjective opinion that he offered entirely without supporting evidence, I let it go because I had a more important point, which I clearly indicated and which Fly deliberately edited to remove:

Perhaps most ironic is the way Fly unintentionally illustrated the point I was trying to make in such convincing fashion.

You're arguing that analogizing men's rights to white pride was perfectly legitimate? And makes a good point?

I disagree. In the U.S., the issue of racism and the severity of its effects so far outweighs the harm that has resulted from gender inequality that an attempt to analogize the two fails for want of any comparable scope of impact. It isn't even close.

Can you read? Here is what I wrote:

I made no defense of Farrell. I called out the blog because of its dishonesty. My purpose was clearly stated - to challenge dishonest journalism because it distracts from the actual problem at hand.

I doubt that you recognize how clearly you're supporting that argument at the moment.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/41...logic-1266657/

watch the video. basically everything that the video shows falls under fighting words, which are prosecutable in and of themselves as a hate crime when directed towards a person.

it's kind of sad that you give so many ****s about free speech that when it comes to free speech, you don't give a ****.

Meh, seemed like riled up protesters in all. Not enough for fighting words, imo, it takes more than just insulting someone.

I really didn't want to get dragged into the rape issue, but, I'm just a silly woman who can't control herself, so, just out of curiosity, what % of rape allegations do you think are the result of scenarios like the one you described (woman says no, but keeps physically pursuing the encounter, the couple has sex, and she claims rape)? And out of these allegations, what percentage of the time are the men involved actually charged with and convicted of rape/assault/etc.?

I don't think it is illegitimate to see some similarities between those who claim that whites are punished by reverse discrimination and some men's rights "activists".

you really think that these "riled up protesters" aren't deliberately trying to incite feelings of hatred or violence from the people they're hurling slurs at?

Note that I did not remove the bolded quote, I in fact responded to it, and you removed my response! This **** is all on the page, bro.

Why are there question marks after this? There was nothing unclear about my statement.

Yes. It does. I don't think you know how analogies are supposed to work.

I do think that when someone mentions "racism" your brain FREAKS OUT and you throw a temper tantrum about Jake trying to 'shut down' the discussion, though I guess I've only seen you do it this one time.


Just a pro tip: When people call "Men's Rights" advocates misogynists or whatever, that's not them trying to "shut down" your VERY SERIOUS gender related issues discussion about how bitches be lying cause you know they all want it.

It's calling you a misogynist in an attempt to shame you. Because your ideas are offensive and stupid.

Holy ****

SDTURNER, is your mind ****ING BLOWN that Jake and Phil's read, which offended your tender sensibilities so, turned out to be, in fact, absolutely correct with regard to nullspace?

Because I wasn't surprised at all.

and i'm sure that situations like that don't ever happen to any other group of people.