|
| Thread: Did Feminists Lied/Over Exagerated Women's Victimhood? |  This thread is pages long: 1 10 ... 17 18 19 20 21 ... 30 31 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
posted July 30, 2014 01:04 AM |
|
|
There is. It's just a very subtle one.
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 30, 2014 04:15 AM |
|
|
artu said:
I don't support it. I couldn't care less if the tradition died out. All I'm saying is, it is not something as dangerous and horrific as you guys imagine. I can relate to how hideous it must appear when you are not culturally used to it, like when I watch those Africans put a bone through their nostrils, I go "uuurgh" but they do it like cutting their finger nails. Or think of it like having your ear pierced, not much of a big deal is it, in terms of physical injury. It's not like they cut your balls off, it's just a very tiny little piece and looking at porn, there is no visually distinguishable difference between a circumcised and an uncircumcised penis.
http://www.cirp.org/library/death/
cirp.org said:
consequently, most doctors who have a baby die after a circumcision would prefer to attribute the results of his unethical operation to secondary causes, such as infection or bleeding, while ignoring the primary cause, which is the circumcision that resulted in the infection or bleeding.
cirmp.org said:
Several doctors have given estimates of the number of deaths that occur each year. Douglas Gairdner reported 16-19 actual deaths a year in England and Wales from neonatal circumcisions in the 1940s. Sydney Gellis believed that "there are more deaths from complications of circumcision than from cancer of the penis.11 There are various figures for the number of deaths from penile cancer ranging from 200 to 480 deaths per year. Robert Baker estimated 229 deaths per year from circumcision in the United States.12 Bollinger estimated that approximately 119 infant boys die from circumcision-related each year in the U.S. (1.3% of all male neonatal deaths from all causes).
|
|
veco
Legendary Hero
who am I?
|
|
posted July 30, 2014 04:22 AM |
|
|
cirmp.org said:
Several doctors have given estimates of the number of deaths that occur each year. Douglas Gairdner reported 16-19 actual deaths a year in England and Wales from neonatal circumcisions in the 1940s. Sydney Gellis believed that "there are more deaths from complications of circumcision than from cancer of the penis.11 There are various figures for the number of deaths from penile cancer ranging from 200 to 480 deaths per year. Robert Baker estimated 229 deaths per year from circumcision in the United States.12 Bollinger estimated that approximately 119 infant boys die from circumcision-related each year in the U.S. (1.3% of all male neonatal deaths from all causes).
even supposing this is true (which I'm too lazy to check)...
I mean come on, at least post info relevant to our century...
____________
none of my business.
|
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 30, 2014 04:25 AM |
|
|
veco said:
cirmp.org said:
Several doctors have given estimates of the number of deaths that occur each year. Douglas Gairdner reported 16-19 actual deaths a year in England and Wales from neonatal circumcisions in the 1940s. Sydney Gellis believed that "there are more deaths from complications of circumcision than from cancer of the penis.11 There are various figures for the number of deaths from penile cancer ranging from 200 to 480 deaths per year. Robert Baker estimated 229 deaths per year from circumcision in the United States.12 Bollinger estimated that approximately 119 infant boys die from circumcision-related each year in the U.S. (1.3% of all male neonatal deaths from all causes).
even supposing this is true (which I'm too lazy to check)...
I mean come on, at least post info relevant to our century...
if you read my post, you'd find out that the other figures are relevant to our century.
|
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 30, 2014 04:33 AM |
|
|
|
Sal
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 30, 2014 05:08 AM |
|
|
Circumcision is a procrastinated issue. You find 1000 links saying is bad (btw people die from all surgeries, so this is not the ultimate proof), I can find 1000 links saying is good, reduces AIDS risks, penile cancer, and so on.
Circumcision is also a serious business so some of the scientific pro-articles are surely biased but in general is not condemned by medics but mostly by anti-[insert here anything] lobbies.
So no, this is not an argument IMO. In no way it can be compared by the female butchery they do in african countries. Would be comparable if circumcision removed both your burrito and your nuts with.
|
|
veco
Legendary Hero
who am I?
|
|
posted July 30, 2014 05:19 AM |
|
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 30, 2014 09:21 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 14:23, 30 Jul 2014.
|
artu said:
A man should be moral but women should be moral as well
Jemo, you even suck at trolling and most people learn to ignore your posts pretty quickly. You can keep on idling around with your desperate attempts at cherry-picking, logical fallacy, sexism, demagogy and so on... But I'd really appreciate if you don't pick out a sentence from a news site I link and then insert it here like it was something I personally said myself.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 30, 2014 09:42 AM |
|
|
veco said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwX5zfC0hgc
Umm, you MIGHT use this as a pro-circumcision point in that sense that 14-year-olds (and older) might be confronted with that, allowing them a conscious decision for or against (and the decision against could be revised at any time), but it makes no sense to use this as a point in justifying circumcision for INFANTS.
|
|
Steyn
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 30, 2014 10:50 AM |
|
Edited by Steyn at 10:53, 30 Jul 2014.
|
JeremiahEmo said:
^ yeah I know, there's no law about that. It's a social norm. However, I just gave you tons of what women has that men don't. And here, let me repost it.
Steyn, sorry for the delay, my internet connection broke. Anyway, here's the list:
1* Females are protected by law from genital mutilation. Males are not.
2* Females can use male washrooms, males can be arrested for doing the same.
3* Females can opt out of selective service with no negative affects. Males don't have that same choice.
4* Females are not banned from any domestic violence shelters. Males are frequently denied that option either due to location or shelter policy.
5* Violence against Women act selectively discriminates against men based on sexual dimorphism. Men are physically larger on average and policies that factor in 'size' are biased against men.
6* Any law based on the Duluth Model selectively discriminates against men.
7* Laws that force married men to pay child support on children they did not father.
8* Laws that prevent men from being able to opt-out of fatherhood if a women chooses not to abort or give away for adoption an unwanted child.
Thanks for your list Jeremiah, let's walk through it, shall we 
1* I think enough has been said on the difference between male and female circumcision. I do agree that male circumcision on infants should be prohibited.
2* Males can be arrested for harassing females, not solely for being in the wrong wash-room.
3* This is a dated law that stems from the time that woman were not allowed in combat (so what would be the point in drafting them?). Since 2013 it is allowed for woman to fight, even on the front lines, so probably the law will be changed soon.
BTW, you can opt out of military service if you are a conscientious objector.
4* I've no experience with domestic violence shelters, but this seems like shelter policy and not law. If you want to, I bet you can start a male-only shelter.
5* VAWA is, despite its name, a gender-neutral law. It has even been adapted twice to provide equal coverage for men.
6* The Duluth model is some kind of therapy that might be sexually biased, but it is not a law. Besides, it it based on that 'biology' that you like to use as an argument so much.
7* Never heard of such a law. Also, these laws are gender-neutral, only most of the time the situation demands for the father to pay. If the man had forsaken his career to take care of the children and he gets the children after the divorce, the woman would have to pay child support.
8* You can opt out of fatherhood, just leave her. You will still have to pay child support, but that's your own mistake for getting her pregnant. Your options: being a father or pay. Her options: being a mother or be violated and possibly (emotionally) scarred for life. Seems like the male choice is easier.
JeremiahEmo said:
About your first point, I don't think it's strange at all. Different fields attract different gender. Different lifestyle attract different personalities or rather biology.
Don't you find it strange that a lot of men choose the engineering and other object-related jobs while a lot of women choose social-related jobs? No, it's not strange, it's biological. A professor one time made experiments on newly born boys and girls and boys tend to choose toys designed for boys like cars and tools while girls tend to go for barbie dolls. A psychologist says this is due to evolution and biology.
If it was this easy we wouldn't have the whole nature vs. nurture debate. Yes, there are biological influences on our choice of toys and jobs, but the stereotypes derived from that pushes everyone into either the blue or the pink box. The main reason there are so few females choosing engineering is because already since their childhood they are discouraged to play with 'boy-toys', because these are not girly. It's a self reinforcing system.
Quote:
Also, are you talking about gender quotas in the US currently in place?
I was talking about the Netherlands, but I guess for the US it's similar. Maybe the Netherlands have even more/higher quota, as we tend to be a bit more progressive 
|
|
Sal
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 30, 2014 11:11 AM |
|
|
Creating gender quotas is not progressive but awkward and hypocrite. Cheap move.
Misogyny is mostly created by bad education and this is where you start by improving things (schools, universities, social structures). Creating unfair quotas-because this is where it ends- is going to create even more misogyny, exactly as the censure against racism creates more racism.
As an example, are you going to wholeheartedly let a female surgeon -recruited on gender quotas- perform a risky surgery on you or loved ones?
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted July 30, 2014 12:53 PM |
|
|
Sal said:
Misogyny is mostly created by bad education and this is where you start by improving things (schools, universities, social structures). Creating unfair quotas-because this is where it ends- is going to create even more misogyny, exactly as the censure against racism creates more racism.
mmmmmmmmmmmnotreally, but close. Sending everyone to school/uni won't help misogyny out of the world (like.... fratbro douches, anyone?), but good, sensitive upbringing might!
Sexism (and all forms of discrimination) for the most part stemn from them being deemed acceptable by the parents during the child's upbringing. As most children tend to copy the viewpoints of their parents in later life, if parents would sensibilize their brood on what is acceptable and what is not, and encourage their kids in following through with it, discrimination could be eradicated for good.
It's less simple than it seems though, because HOW do you get parents to bring up their children in a particular way? It's pretty intrusive, isn't it?
Anyway, as i noted in the actual genital mutilation thread, research on the matter is streaked with bias and is best left taken with a huge grain of salt. pro-sources will interpret their research in a way so it suits their intentions and opinions and the exact same is true for the anti-sources as well. The actual truth is that the benefits of preventive infant male circ are minimal, and only have a benign effect in a small amount of medical conditions. Otherwise, it has no proven benefit and imo, shouldn't be done. Most intact men have no problems with their foreskins during their entire lifespan, so circ'ing infants as a precaution seems really silly to me. Educating would-be parents and children alike on personal hygene would be more poignant in this case.
(lol @ emo's reports coming from the 1940s. please. modern medicine is a lot more advanced nowadays.)
Female circumcision on the other hand... no, there's no way to justify it, or even equalize it with male circ. Part of why i know so much about this subject is because I saw a documentary on female circumcision during a high school morals class. The documentary followed an eight-year old girl from a sub-saharan country (i believe it was Niger, but don't quote me on that) as she was going to be circumcised before entering an arranged marriage with a sixty year old man. They censored the procedure itself, but i still remember the screams of the girl as they cut away half her genitalia with a rusty razor. The wailing, my god. It was bone-chilling.
Ever since then, i've looked up why it was necessary and found out it actually has no use. By consequence, I also found out that the usefulness of male circumcision is desputable at best. I don't approve of both and never would circumcise my son UNLESS it would cause him active harm if the procedure wasn't done. Even then, it's not my penis, so I feel I don't have a right on deciding what my son's body should look like.
However, male circ is nowadays done in hospitals and hygenic, medical environments. Even then, the procedure is relatively minor. Female circumcision is another story. First off, it's outlawed because it is ACTUAL MUTILATION THAT CUTS AWAY HALF A WOMAN'S GENITALIA. Secondly, because it's done clandestinely, it's hardly ever done in a medical environment, without a doctor or a physician doing it, which also makes it a lot more hazardous. As i said before, comparing them is simply ludicrous. Female circumcision is nothing short of torture and child-abuse.
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 30, 2014 02:09 PM |
|
|
lexxan said:
Anyway, as i noted in the actual genital mutilation thread
There is a genital mutilation thread? LOL. Anyway, with male cicumcision, it all comes down to this: Considering there are around 1.6 billion Muslims in the world (+ around 13.5 million Jews), half of them male, if it caused any serious threat in general, we'd know and vice versa for benefits. Both the positive and negative effects of circumcision is not drastic enough to determine anything. It exists because it is a deeply rooted, religion based tradition. On principle, you shouldn't be able to decide such a thing for an infant, hey, I think you shouldn't even impose any dogma itself, until they are around 15 or later but that's me. However, the effects being so insignificant (imagine it was a religious ritual to have your ear pierced) and the tradition being so normative, people will keep on doing it and it wont be outlawed. (Just like, on principle, women should be able to walk around topless but they cant and the laws regarding that wont change because the norm is overwhelmingly built-in). Since, there are no significant negative effects for this norm to be abandoned through social reaction that evolves against it, it will stick around until some centuries later, the religions themselves become obsolete.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted July 30, 2014 02:23 PM |
|
|
artu said:
There is a genital mutilation thread?
Yes.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 30, 2014 02:30 PM |
|
|
@Sal
can you give one of those links?
I don't see how these scientific claims are bias.
@artu
what?! I'm trolling now? I'm sorry but I don't see how my post is trolling in any way. Fred was right about you, you're a very close-minded feminist. I'm not surprised since I've met a lot of feminists like you all over the internet.
@Lexxan
The 1940's was based on one research. If you read carefully, you'd find out that the other 3 researches were yearly. They also included research that dated up to 2013. Come on Lexxan, be logical. I know you're smarter than that. Don't let our Sucks rivalry get in the way.
@Steyn
You know, it's useless to have a law if the people implementing it are gonna be bias about it and you can't do anything about it. But anyway, let's continue.
4. Yes, there is no law about it but what use is a law if you can't do it anyway?
Watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yt5BRcsOyy0
You can watch the first 11 minutes of it. The first 10 minutes was Earl's story, the rest are Karen's opinion.
If you don't have the time for it, I'd gladly summarize it for you.
Karen Straughan talks about Earl Silverman who tried to open a man's shelter but when he asked funding from the government, he was told "providing services for male victims was not their mandate".
Because of this, he used his own money and donations to run the man's shelter. To make the long story short, he did everything he could to run the man's shelter but later became too in debt. So, he sold his house and everything he owned and committed suicide.
You really should watch it, Karen said it very nicely. You'd get a good idea of why myself and a lot of people think feminism is such a bad name.
Another thing.
Erin Pizzey, the first person to open a woman's shelter attempted to open a man's shelter but got lambasted by militant feminists. She received death threats and they even went as far to shoot her dog.
Erin Pizzey said:
Erin Pizzey goes on describing her experience attempting to set up a male shelter
Erin Pizzey said:
For her efforts she was picketed by a group of British shelter workers, who referred to themselves as "feminists." These militant extremists staged demonstrations against her, and she and her family members received death threats. "ALL MEN ARE RAPISTS," "ALL MEN ARE BATTERERS," read the placards. She was advised to travel with a police escort during her promotional tour. The book disappeared from the shelves of libraries and book stores alike. The publisher went bankrupt in the process.
The harassment of Erin Pizzey became so bad that she was driven into exile in Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Pizzey
http://www.ejfi.org/DV/dv-63.htm
I think number 4 deserves a separate post cause you'd really get a good idea why many people are against feminism.
I don't hate women. I am an anti feminist.
Feminism has a good theory in its core. I mean yeah, a lot of the feminist problem is something easy to deal with. I mean, you really can't compare family courts (which I'll discuss later), law enforcer bias and the draft to not being able to not wear your shirt. The problem with feminism is, the radical ones are the ones in power and they are quite destructive.
Anyway, I'll comment on the other bullets in my next post.
|
|
kipshasz
Undefeatable Hero
Elvin's Darkside
|
|
posted July 30, 2014 05:05 PM |
|
|
JeremiahEmo said:
* Laws that force married men to pay child support on children they did not father.
Never heard of a DNA test, now have you? a simple procedure which can easily flip off greedy dick hungry broads.
well of course you have to spend a fortune on thieves I mean lawyers, but still, better than paying for a basterd you didn't fathered.
____________
"Kip is the Gavin McInnes of HC" - Salamandre
"Ashan to the Trashcan", "I got PTSD from H7. " - LizardWarrior
|
|
kayna
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 30, 2014 07:07 PM |
|
|
|
Someone shove Jeremia's face in a big pair of saggy tits already.
|
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 31, 2014 02:19 AM |
|
|
kipshasz said:
JeremiahEmo said:
* Laws that force married men to pay child support on children they did not father.
Never heard of a DNA test, now have you? a simple procedure which can easily flip off greedy dick hungry broads.
well of course you have to spend a fortune on thieves I mean lawyers, but still, better than paying for a basterd you didn't fathered.
Oh man, you're right. How can something be so simple slip under men's noses! But wait! What's this I found?!!
[url=http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3000598/posts]Men Jailed for Not Paying Child Support for Child Not Their's[/url]
Man Jailed for Not Being Able to Pay Child Support for Child Not His Discussion in 2009
Man Jailed for Not Being Able to Pay Child Support for Child Not His in 2011
[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKZiQT5Ql-4]Man owes 10k in back child support for a child that isn't his[/url]
kayna said:
Someone shove Jeremia's face in a big pair of saggy tits already.
LoL. Just to let you know, I've had tits offer themselves to me.
I think with my brain, not my banana, if you know what I mean.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 31, 2014 02:36 AM |
|
Edited by fred79 at 02:40, 31 Jul 2014.
|
JeremiahEmo said:
I think with my brain, not my banana, if you know what I mean.
see, that's your problem right there. human beings don't THINK with banana's; they eat them. if you imply that others think with something that they eat, then you are clearly in a delusional state. i suggest high doses of lsd and psilocybin mushrooms, to cure what ails you.  
p.s. DO let me know how that turns out, k?
btw, jmo, you can't use apostrophe's in links, or you won't be able to click on them. just a heads up.
|
|
Steyn
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 31, 2014 07:24 AM |
|
|
JeremiahEmo said:
kipshasz said:
JeremiahEmo said:
* Laws that force married men to pay child support on children they did not father.
Never heard of a DNA test, now have you? a simple procedure which can easily flip off greedy dick hungry broads.
well of course you have to spend a fortune on thieves I mean lawyers, but still, better than paying for a basterd you didn't fathered.
Oh man, you're right. How can something be so simple slip under men's noses! But wait! What's this I found?!!
[url=http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3000598/posts]Men Jailed for Not Paying Child Support for Child Not Their's[/url]
Man Jailed for Not Being Able to Pay Child Support for Child Not His Discussion in 2009
Man Jailed for Not Being Able to Pay Child Support for Child Not His in 2011
[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKZiQT5Ql-4]Man owes 10k in back child support for a child that isn't his[/url]
I thought you were talking about children the wife brought in from a previous marriage 
2nd workable link (2011), first 6 seconds: A new state law says men no longer have to make child support payments if they discover the child is not theirs.
BTW, before they could opt out by proving it was not their child men only had to pay child support for children registered to be theirs. This happens when you get the child while married, or when you claim fatherhood. Even though they are not the biological father, they've still helped raise the children, so they are some kind of father. And if he wants to, he can still see his children, even if they are not biologically his.
|
| |
|
|
