‘Someone who gave women a slight nod of concession has probably been sent running to the patriarical side.’

Boo-hoo. Why do people have such a hard time with this being a blog that doesn’t give a shit what men think?

Not to mention that our government supported the especially woman oppressing faction of the previous war in Afghanistan in order to screw with godless commies and give Russia “their Vietnam”. This was post-vietnam, our officials knew that attempting to do this would mean ruining the country and destroying infrastructure. People were greatful for the taliban because they needed some kind of order after the invasion by russia. Any help we manage to give is making up for the mess that our country contributed to back then. We armed and trained those crazy people and now are using the fact that they are armed&crazy as a reason to kill more innocent people there.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/04/06/afghanistan.law/

Our service people are sworn to protect and defend our Constitution. Presumably, we are in Afghanistan to remove outlaws who attacked us here at home and allow Afghans to live by their constitution (reducing the threat of an extremist government to ourselves).

The above law about women was passed in violation of the ‘equal rights’ granted the people of Afghanistan in their 1964 version of the constitution (see

http://www.cic.nyu.edu/peacebuilding/oldpdfs/E22Womens%20RightsFullVersionNawabi.pdf )

to one segment of the male population for political balm. Men can override laws anytime they wish for political or religious expediency. When the two are equivalent, laws cannot be changed since they are no longer of the people but designed by a higher power. Currently, equal rights for women are a state, not a federally, defined matter as are marriage contracts (hence the invalidation of DOMA). Women lack national validation as equals although we can protect and defend our nation. On that basis, the right to vote was decreased from 21 to 18 in a constitutional amendment (1971).

There is no defense for pornography as a concept because it exploits (primarily, but not solely) females and children. Girls are consigned to the status of ‘legal’ or ‘not legal’ under the philosophy of porn or “When can I have them without being jailed or feeling guilty for panting after children?” Or have to high-tail it over to Asia to enjoy them? Slavery today is a practice based in sex instead of labor as in past centuries and even more prevalent.

http://video.nytimes.com/video/2006/12/18/opinion/1194817092163/heartbreak-and-hope.html

Consent to a life defined by sexual accessibility to the minds and bodies of males is not the same as meaningful consent in that the decision is life affirming and healthy. Consent to a form of ‘death’ isn’t what feminism is about nor does it require reinforcement of those who argue it from that point of view. It’s like arguing for a lower age to buy cigarettes. Whatever the matter of legal privilege involved, it’s going to hurt you and no amount of discussion will alter that fact. Use of cigarettes remains subject to restrictions for the protection of non-smokers and kids; and it’s okay to disapprove of tobacco. So, since the use of women for porn remains legal, like cigarettes, there’s nothing a porn-loving male needs to complain about, is there? Those who have lung cancer and those who have been sexually oppressed are not likely to politely reply to any insistence they be forced to ‘inhale’ the second hand fumes from Camels or porn.

Ridicule [...] me all you want

OK, if you say so!

I have not deleted SarahS’s dear-god-what-about-the-men! comment because it is an example of one of my favorite species: the ‘you should be nicer to dudes or they will be “sent running to the patriarchal side”‘ argument.

Tell me, SarahS, do you believe men who drop by Savage Death Island expect me to entertain’em with hula girls and a roast suckling pig? And unless I, who am suddenly the official Woman Ambassador to the Internet, shower them with diplomacy, these dudes will have no choice but to conclude that women totally deserve to be oppressed? In other words, patriarchy is the feminists’ fault?

Priceless.

More hyberbolic delights: I am “standing in a corner screaming” (why would I do a thing like that? Are there no couches? No pitchers of margs? Am I in a Yoko Ono play?); comparing me (or the “femensists”) to a Jihadist (presumably the kind with guns and bombs); I ‘love to hate’ men; and by not choosing to publish her comment I would be “censoring” SarahS.

This one’s a weener!

Falsum brought his opinions to the forum in a polite manner. He tried very hard to answer questions directed at him with further information, and he backed up his claims more than most.

He was met with hostility and rudeness. The few polite and insightful counter-arguments were outnumbered by unequivocally stating he was a rapist to impolite comments about his “shrivled dick”. The bulk of your arguments were of the same vein as his: “I’m right until you prove me wrong.” Someone who gave women a slight nod of concession has probably been sent running to the patriarical side.

I agree when he says you are arguing yourself into impotence. The “if I yell louder then I win the debate” approach does not facilitate positive discourse.

Stating that the site is reserved for only hardcore anti-patriarchy femensists draws strong comparison to the difference between a Muslim and a Jihadist.

As a two time Afghanistan veteran I feel quite empowered and I, personally, will continue WORKING towards a future where women and men are equal, instead of just standing in a corner screaming.

Ridicule or censor me all you want, by saying my opinion is any less valid than your own you are no better than the dudes you love to hate so much.

Sarah-out.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/08/health/08hormone.html

I just read it and it reminded me of your post. It looks like they found that increased levels of testosterone inhibit the ability to trust, and from there they came to the conclusion that women are sexually complicated. Please, please help.

‘In short, you have no way of knowing if that image you are happily wanking away to is an enslaved, drugged, abused child or not.‘

Remember Traci Lords? She’s just lucky somebody found her.

Each and every single incidence of male violence against women is an isolated one.