They're damn books, Jesus Christ. You really expect me to go through all of that as soon as you send them to me as if I have the time for that? Did you google the stuff that I brought up? Obviously not.
You were defending feminism by doing what you
thought was correcting me. You seem to confuse paraphrasing someone with wrongly interpreting/wrongly quoting someone, and that's just not the case here. What's the point of explaining anything to you? Everything I wrote didn't get through and the things that you were posting only served to further prove the points that I was making.
Here's some examples, like how you asked:
- By directive of the US Department of Education: A rape accusation need not meet the legal standard of 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt' to end the accused's college career:
- The U.S. Department of Educations Office for Civil Rights has lowered the standards required to determine the outcome of a sexual discrimination or harassment case. The DEAR COLLEAGUE LETTER, April 2011, requires a preponderance of the evidence standard (satisfied if there is greater than 50 percent chance that the proposition is true) to resolve complaints of sex discrimination.
If you think that this will help men in some way, you're deluding yourself.
Title IV-D requires that a father be named if a woman who applies for welfare has kids, or the mother loses benefits. When benefits for free-loaders are about to be lost, they have no problem putting the name of a father down - right or wrong.
- The Injustice by Default article about child support legislation shows how easy it is to fraudulently name a random man as the father, and the difficulty he meets in acquitting himself of the ensuing debt, even when dna clearly shows that he's not the father.
- The Bradley Amendment requires state courts to prohibit retroactive reduction of child support obligations.
- Doug Dante's article here points out the laws involved in the federal subsidies aimed at maximizing child support payments. Follow the money: The Federal Government provides financial incentives to states' efforts to maximize the number of CS payers and the amount they are forced to pay.
- Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott's site forwards the assumption that noncustodial parents are fathers
A woman is entitled to sue the father of her child for child support even if conception occurred as a result of a criminal act, like statutory rape, committed by the woman- Hermesmann v. Seyer
- According to a 2010 report, Expanding Definitions of Domestic Violence, 63% of states include emotional distress in their statutory definition of domestic violence. That means any person who claims to be fearful no evidence necessary is entitled to a protective order and the generous cornucopia of bennies that comes with it.
- Women are treated better in all aspects of the legal system. For instance, women receive lighter sentences and a higher chance of acquittal, simply for being women.
http://www.terry.uga.edu/~mustard/sentencing.pdf
- The feminist definition of domestic violence has skewed arrest and prosecution philosophies, resulting in having mostly male batterers criminally pursued, and female batterers left alone.
http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/downloads/304/kelly.pdf
- Men who are falsely accused of rape can have their names published and their lives ruined even if they are not convicted or charged - their accuser is protected and is likely to face no punishment, or a light one.
- Female-owned businesses get free government money for literally no reason other than being a woman (i.e. all other factors are equal, same size of business, same income, etc. etc. but the owner's gender is different = money or no money.
Confessions of a "Woman-Owned Business" Owner - Reason.com
- Selective service. Enough said.
:wobadass: Uh oh! A wall of text! I know we're just talking past each other at this point. So I don't really expect you to address this. There are more things like the above, which feminist ideology is responsible for, but I'm tired of posting and it's Friday night.
Who do you think runs the show among modern feminists today?
When the fringe elements rule the direction of the movement, it's a fair assessment.
I guess if you're losing the argument, "giving" me the last word can let you feel like you made some headway.I never once said that I wanted a woman that was a breadwinner (I've almost never seen this), traditional housewife, or a virgin, so don't apply those arguments to me. I never made them.
Being anti-feminist is not the same thing as being anti-female, but I know that the coli feminists like to pretend that people that criticizing feminism is the same thing as hating women to try and shame men out of criticizing feminism. All my criticism was valid and again, the only rebuttal that the feminists have had are unfounded allegations of ignorance and hatred.
