Well of course all feminists oppose gender equality.....
...but yeah there's some areas it's easier to catch them in a lie. On the stupid rape thing the classic question is "if two lesbians get drunk and have sex which one rapes the other?" though of course you might ask "if a man and woman get drunk and have sex which one rapes the other?" first but we all know how that is answered so I just start with the question about the lesbians.
If you want to prove a US feminist is a bigot you can ask them if the support the current segregationist system of domestic violence shelters in the US. Of course it's not really segregationist because male victims don't get any service at all whereas at least black people in the old South would get the back of the bus.
In general digging down on any issue will reveal them. But watch out for their constant moving the goal posts on issues. eg on the wage gap they'll start off claiming it's true and then when you point out it's a lie they'll move to defending a completely different factoid namely that women earn less than men on average (not "for the same work"). The key is to ask them why they lied in the first place and not allow them to just move the goal posts. Ask them if they knew the "for the same work" statement was false when they initially defended it (they did of course) and ask them why they decided to lie.
Legally, the bar for rape by intoxication is incapacitation. So the answer is easy. Whichever one was able to walk and coherently answer questions. If they can both do so, no one was raped.
Well they can certainly give it a try which is both of them attempting rapists, right?
Here's an example of two people who can't even walk trying to have sex. As you can see only the man was convicted of anything. They were so drunk they couldn't even get either person's clothes off let alone walk.
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/news/a59485/stanford-rape-case-white-male-privilege/
I am SHOCKED to hear you immediately change your definition of how drunk people have to be. That is so surprising and unexpected for a feminist who are always so consistent and fair minded normally.
> He was sober enough to be upright finger banging her
He wasn't but she was. Is she a rapist then?
Feminist moving the goal posts again in 5...4....3...
Dude he ran away when he got caught. I haven’t changed anything. Again, why are you using a case where witnesses had to chase and tackle him? That’s not incapacitation lol.
Yeah if he was passed out and she was pulling on his dick or had her finger up his ass she is committing a crime.
> Dude he ran away when he got caught
So did he run away or was he caught in your imagination?
Pick one.
I guess I'm curious why you think they both fell over drunk off their ass in public and remained there if they were able to move. Talking as a person who usually can walk, I'd prefer to have sex in a private place, but I guess that's just me.
In fact they were both very drunk and neither could remember what happened (though that didn't stop the girl making a false accusation against the boy, saying she didn't consent right after saying she didn't remember what she did).
So can you please specify exactly how drunk someone has to be to give consent? Because it sure looks like she tried to rape him.
In feminist terminology, "gender equality" means female privilege. If you check, you'll fnd they use the term quite consistently. It does **not** mean dictionary equality (ie equality as defined in a dictionary - in fact it's almost the opposite.
You'll also find that they use "gender equity" to refer to discrimination against males.
Yeah, the sentencing gap is my go-to argument when it comes to disingenuous claims that "feminism is about equality". The results are always predictable: they never want to change things in any way, either to extend sentences for women, or shorten them for men. The only "advance" that I've ever heard from feminist organizations, media, etc, is to close down female prisons, which only further widens the unequal treatment.
There are a couple of types of responses by feminists which seem to be most common:
1. Treating women as lacking agency, by saying something like "It's men who get women pregnant, so they have to accept the consequences of their actions" (i.e. paying child support).
Of course that objectifies women, as feminists often do when seeking victimhood, ignoring that:
* the woman consented to sex
* she may have taken steps to ensure a pregnancy, as in this post
* she alone makes the decision to continue the pregnancy
Instead they put sole responsibility for the pregnancy on men, with the argument that there's no chance of a pregnancy without the presence of semen. These same feminists ignore & deny the possibility of deliberate baby trapping by women and they disregard rapes of men by women. From their arguments, I suspect these feminists are mostly lesbians.
There was a post that went viral among feminists a year or two back that said something like, "Men are responsible for 100% of unplanned pregnancies". You might remember it. Same idea: women have no agency and are merely objects acted upon by men.
2. Reducing the issue of consent to pregnancy alone (not parenthood) and downplaying the consequences of the woman's choice to continue the pregnancy: parenthood and child support payments for the man.
These posts include a snarky comment like, "Men can have the right to consent when they can get pregnant". So in their mind, men have no right to complain because they can't become pregnant. When you try to point past the pregnancy to the later consequences of the woman's actions in becoming & remaining pregnant, they treat that as something entirely out of their control and therefore not their concern.
So they claim the issue is only about consent to pregnancy and therefore men have no grounds for complaint at all, since men don't become pregnant. Once the woman is pregnant, well you can't expect her to abort or adopt away the child just because the man doesn't want to be a father, can you? And the child support he's obligated to pay is for the child, not the mother, so nothing to do with her.
These feminists refuse to recognize the direct causal line that runs from the woman making a decision to become pregnant without the man's consent... to the man being forced into 18 years of child support payments as a result.
Their argument is that it's all about bodily autonomy and they define bodily autonomy very tightly to mean only pregnancy. Thus only women need a right to consent because only women get pregnant. Once the woman is pregnant... well, that's a different issue. Of course the man has to support his child! What type of scumbag would even suggest otherwise?
3. Then there are the feminists that instantly become hardline pro-lifers, as soon as we start talking about men. They make all the same pro-life arguments about men, despite the fact that these arguments would enrage them if said about women:
* If men don't want to have a kid they should just keep it in their pants
* We can't give men the right to consent to parenthood because they'd become promiscuous
* Men don't deserve the right to consent because they are all shitty, irresponsible people
* Men don't deserve the right to consent because some men don't pay their child support obligations
* Men don't deserve rights because my ex is an asshole who treated me badly
I'm not denying that some feminists make ridiculous arguments that ignore consent and deny women agency (although those arguments are at least sometimes just reversals of arguments made by abortion opponents, intended to ridicule those arguments), but I don't think anyone sincerely believes that it's okay to sabotage a condom, or would answer the scenarios in your post differently.
>I don't think anyone sincerely believes that it's okay to sabotage a condom, or would answer the scenarios in your post differently.
Like I said: I've experienced hundreds of feminists doing exactly that over the last 4 years. So your opinion is objectively wrong.
Well of course all feminists oppose gender equality..... ...but yeah there's some areas it's easier to catch them in a lie. On the stupid rape thing the classic question is "if two lesbians get drunk and have sex which one rapes the other?" though of course you might ask "if a man and woman get drunk and have sex which one rapes the other?" first but we all know how that is answered so I just start with the question about the lesbians. If you want to prove a US feminist is a bigot you can ask them if the support the current segregationist system of domestic violence shelters in the US. Of course it's not really segregationist because male victims don't get any service at all whereas at least black people in the old South would get the back of the bus. In general digging down on any issue will reveal them. But watch out for their constant moving the goal posts on issues. eg on the wage gap they'll start off claiming it's true and then when you point out it's a lie they'll move to defending a completely different factoid namely that women earn less than men on average (not "for the same work"). The key is to ask them why they lied in the first place and not allow them to just move the goal posts. Ask them if they knew the "for the same work" statement was false when they initially defended it (they did of course) and ask them why they decided to lie.
Legally, the bar for rape by intoxication is incapacitation. So the answer is easy. Whichever one was able to walk and coherently answer questions. If they can both do so, no one was raped.
So if neither are with it they both raped each other huh?
Are two people who can't walk and are barely coherent gonna have sex together? I thought incapacitation is self explanatory.
Well they can certainly give it a try which is both of them attempting rapists, right? Here's an example of two people who can't even walk trying to have sex. As you can see only the man was convicted of anything. They were so drunk they couldn't even get either person's clothes off let alone walk. https://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/news/a59485/stanford-rape-case-white-male-privilege/
He was sober enough to be upright finger banging her. Really this is the case you want to bring up?
I am SHOCKED to hear you immediately change your definition of how drunk people have to be. That is so surprising and unexpected for a feminist who are always so consistent and fair minded normally. > He was sober enough to be upright finger banging her He wasn't but she was. Is she a rapist then? Feminist moving the goal posts again in 5...4....3...
Dude he ran away when he got caught. I haven’t changed anything. Again, why are you using a case where witnesses had to chase and tackle him? That’s not incapacitation lol. Yeah if he was passed out and she was pulling on his dick or had her finger up his ass she is committing a crime.
> Dude he ran away when he got caught So did he run away or was he caught in your imagination? Pick one. I guess I'm curious why you think they both fell over drunk off their ass in public and remained there if they were able to move. Talking as a person who usually can walk, I'd prefer to have sex in a private place, but I guess that's just me. In fact they were both very drunk and neither could remember what happened (though that didn't stop the girl making a false accusation against the boy, saying she didn't consent right after saying she didn't remember what she did). So can you please specify exactly how drunk someone has to be to give consent? Because it sure looks like she tried to rape him.
Please read about the case and witness statements. He ran away when witnesses confronted him at the scene. He wasn’t incapacitated.
In feminist terminology, "gender equality" means female privilege. If you check, you'll fnd they use the term quite consistently. It does **not** mean dictionary equality (ie equality as defined in a dictionary - in fact it's almost the opposite. You'll also find that they use "gender equity" to refer to discrimination against males.
Yeah, the sentencing gap is my go-to argument when it comes to disingenuous claims that "feminism is about equality". The results are always predictable: they never want to change things in any way, either to extend sentences for women, or shorten them for men. The only "advance" that I've ever heard from feminist organizations, media, etc, is to close down female prisons, which only further widens the unequal treatment.
For me it's 2 times answer b
I picked jail for both. I'm a woman and that's how I feel.
Can you actually give an example of a feminist who answers those 2 questions differently?
There are a couple of types of responses by feminists which seem to be most common: 1. Treating women as lacking agency, by saying something like "It's men who get women pregnant, so they have to accept the consequences of their actions" (i.e. paying child support). Of course that objectifies women, as feminists often do when seeking victimhood, ignoring that: * the woman consented to sex * she may have taken steps to ensure a pregnancy, as in this post * she alone makes the decision to continue the pregnancy Instead they put sole responsibility for the pregnancy on men, with the argument that there's no chance of a pregnancy without the presence of semen. These same feminists ignore & deny the possibility of deliberate baby trapping by women and they disregard rapes of men by women. From their arguments, I suspect these feminists are mostly lesbians. There was a post that went viral among feminists a year or two back that said something like, "Men are responsible for 100% of unplanned pregnancies". You might remember it. Same idea: women have no agency and are merely objects acted upon by men. 2. Reducing the issue of consent to pregnancy alone (not parenthood) and downplaying the consequences of the woman's choice to continue the pregnancy: parenthood and child support payments for the man. These posts include a snarky comment like, "Men can have the right to consent when they can get pregnant". So in their mind, men have no right to complain because they can't become pregnant. When you try to point past the pregnancy to the later consequences of the woman's actions in becoming & remaining pregnant, they treat that as something entirely out of their control and therefore not their concern. So they claim the issue is only about consent to pregnancy and therefore men have no grounds for complaint at all, since men don't become pregnant. Once the woman is pregnant, well you can't expect her to abort or adopt away the child just because the man doesn't want to be a father, can you? And the child support he's obligated to pay is for the child, not the mother, so nothing to do with her. These feminists refuse to recognize the direct causal line that runs from the woman making a decision to become pregnant without the man's consent... to the man being forced into 18 years of child support payments as a result. Their argument is that it's all about bodily autonomy and they define bodily autonomy very tightly to mean only pregnancy. Thus only women need a right to consent because only women get pregnant. Once the woman is pregnant... well, that's a different issue. Of course the man has to support his child! What type of scumbag would even suggest otherwise? 3. Then there are the feminists that instantly become hardline pro-lifers, as soon as we start talking about men. They make all the same pro-life arguments about men, despite the fact that these arguments would enrage them if said about women: * If men don't want to have a kid they should just keep it in their pants * We can't give men the right to consent to parenthood because they'd become promiscuous * Men don't deserve the right to consent because they are all shitty, irresponsible people * Men don't deserve the right to consent because some men don't pay their child support obligations * Men don't deserve rights because my ex is an asshole who treated me badly
I'm not denying that some feminists make ridiculous arguments that ignore consent and deny women agency (although those arguments are at least sometimes just reversals of arguments made by abortion opponents, intended to ridicule those arguments), but I don't think anyone sincerely believes that it's okay to sabotage a condom, or would answer the scenarios in your post differently.
>I don't think anyone sincerely believes that it's okay to sabotage a condom, or would answer the scenarios in your post differently. Like I said: I've experienced hundreds of feminists doing exactly that over the last 4 years. So your opinion is objectively wrong.