Here’s a little video that takes a look at some PUAs and MRAs who share a great love for underage girls … and a hatred of the word “pedophile.” If some of the quotes in the video look familiar, that’s because they’re from a creepy mini-manifesto called “Age of Consent is Misandry,” which we examined here not too long ago. The rest are from a thread on Roissy’s Citizen Renegade blog that really has to be read to be believed. You’ll notice one, er, interesting comment from a guy calling himself “Welmer.” That’s our good friend W.F. Price from The Spearhead.
Enjoy?
Also, it’s false that husbands were held responsible for their wives’ actions. Women had to answer criminally and civilly for their actions the same as men. Also, female property owners could not vote, whereas male property owners could. So I really don’t see in what way female property owners oppressed men who had no property by not voting. Also, despite — or rather, because of — being treated as chattel, wives were held financially responsible for all of their husbands’ debts, even if the spouses were separated. Men did not have that responsibility towards wives that they abandoned.
“The constitutional argument against the VAWA was plausible. I don’t agree with it, and I think it hinges on a much narrower reading of the 14th amendment than I’m will to endorse, but it’s plausible.”
Re-posting this part because ugh, I screwed up the editing.
It isn’t. If you disagree, please make a specific reference to the actual text of the Constitution, explain in what way VAWA violates that particular provision of the Constitution, and back up your arguments with citations to actual court cases.
Considering the Supremes chose not to strike down the entirety of VAWA, one would assume the parts that are left are implicitly constitutional. But apparently that’s not enough…
@ozymandias42
I know dear. Yet somehow children still aren’t oppressed.
I mean couldn’t a man going to jail for a womans crime be equally oppressive. Since that definitely is the case, than neither were oppressed.
“I mean couldn’t a man going to jail for a womans crime be equally oppressive.”
Men did not go to jail for a woman’s crime. Women went to jail for their own crimes.
Also, depriving a grown person of agency IS oppression, and your likening of women to children as a way of justifying the denial of agency to women is appalling. Children aren’t oppressed by virtue of having no right to self-determination because lacking that right is temporary — once they reach the age of majority, they become full-fledged citizens. That’s not the case with women who have no civil rights.
You might as well justify actual slavery by saying the position of slaves is exactly like that of children. Or say that women being treated as chattel isn’t oppression because cows having no right to vote isn’t oppression either.
@Amused… It is a fact that ALL property owners could vote. Be informed. You have the further audacity to tell me that women, not being allowed to work were also responsible for their husbands debt as well?
Further, if you actually knew anything at all about history you would know that each State had a seperate law as to voting. There were states where women could vote long before it was nationwide. In other words women were voting in some state while a man who didn’t own property living in another state couldn’t vote. Those men weren’t oppressed. Neither were the women.
Darling Oaf, thank you for responding. I love pointing out your numerous lies.
Did I say that I personally am suffering from the inability to vote or own property? No I did not. Hey look! Not even one sentence into your paragraph and you’re already lying.
I did not know of any specific examples, but it doesn’t surprise me. There have always been exceptions to the rule – a few women found ways to serve in the army, etc. Does that invalidate that women’s legal status for most of Western history has been akin to that of a chattel slave? No it does not. Nor does the disenfranchisement of non-property-owning men make the disenfranchisement of women, property-owning or otherwise, any less of a human rights violation.
No, it was the men in power who were doing that. Duh.
Bzzzt! Wrong! A deliberate fabrication, or a simple moment of genuine ignorance? We’ll let the audience decide, but given NWOaf’s track record, I think “mendacity” is the safest guess here.
You know what’s revealing of really deep-rooted hatred of women? When a guy compares women to children, who are mentally incompetent for making adult decisions, and tries to justify taking their rights away by noting that it was oh-so-burdensome to the men of the time to be saddled with the horrible responsibility of treating an adult women as if they were childlike, mentally incompetent creatures. This here is just straight up misogyny, you woman-hating piece of turkey vulture offal.
Lying about feminist ideology. Again.
NWOaf-the trauma a male victim suffers from the rape is terrible and it is compounded by the victim’s wife leaving him for “not being much of a man.”
Fuck that. And fuck her too for doing such a thing.
Children are controlled by their parents because children are not capable of making fully adult decisions because their brains aren’t developed yet; therefore, controlling them is not oppression. Women, however, have fully developed brains, so controlling them is.
Sharculese, please show me this “clear record” of womens abuse being swept under the rug. And how a beaten woman wasn’t being taken seriously? I would surely love to see the empirical data on this.
Did you read the bill before you decided it was the greatest threat to liberty of your lifetime? The text is here.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/getdoc.cgidbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h3402enr.txt.pdf
Congress’s factual findings are on page 34. Have a blast.
Say this to yourselves everyday when you wake up. Women were never oppressed.
I know it’s feminist heresy.
Do try to keep in mind that for every woman locked away in the home. The man was doing a thankless job. Sometimes he died, sometimes he was maimed, sometimes he was alright.
Whatever percieved oppression you believe women endured in the past, men endured an equally crappy situation. Since they both bore seperate but equally crappy burdens neither was oppressed. Now say it, women were never oppressed.
Another great example of NWOaf just making shit up and expecting to be treated as if he’s not a complete liar who has zero respect for facts and truth.
Only if you beg me to. Come Oaf, on your knees.
@Sharculese
You might find the message web page cannot be found illuminating, I don’t.
*looks at Wiki* Women were allowed to vote in New Jersey from 1790 to 1807 as long as they had some property. In 1807 that right was rescinded and it was not until 1869 that a state/territory granted women the right to vote.
I know you want Holly to get out the whips and chains Oaf, but that’s not going going to happen until you beg properly. You’ve been missing your spankings, haven’t you?
better?
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h3402enr.txt.pdf
“Amused… It is a fact that ALL property owners could vote. Be informed.”
I AM informed — and you are lying. Not ALL property owners could vote. Only male property owners could vote.
“You have the further audacity to tell me that women, not being allowed to work were also responsible for their husbands debt as well?”
Exactly. Women had extremely limited employment opportunities, and yet were responsible for their husbands’ debts. Whereas men had much greater employment opportunities AND lesser responsibilities for their wives’ debts. I have the audacity to say it, because it’s the truth.
“Further, if you actually knew anything at all about history you would know that each State had a seperate law as to voting. There were states where women could vote long before it was nationwide. In other words women were voting in some state while a man who didn’t own property living in another state couldn’t vote. Those men weren’t oppressed. Neither were the women.”
That’s a bunch of lies. None of the states allowed universal suffrage until the late 19th century — and by that time, every state already provided for universal MALE suffrage, without regard to property ownership. So there was never a time when women could vote in one state while property-less men couldn’t vote in another. And in any event, only three states allowed women to vote by the time of the 19th Amendment.
@NWOslave
Actually, it was white, male, property owners who could vote. And I know that because I payed attention in history.
@SallyStrange, “Only if you beg me to. Come Oaf, on your knees.”
Run it up MSM flagpole, I’m sure the talk show hosts and audience would love it.
As long as the insatiable desire to fear, hate and ridicule men exists, the State, corporate, charity and MSM will compete to fill that demand.
This isn’t whether children are by definition “oppressed” or not, but when it comes to power/privilege dynamics, children have v little power. I mean obv that’s b/c they’re underage, deemed to be less mature, intelligent, and unable to make their own decisions, and b/c of that they are reliant on adults (caregivers, parents, doctors, teachers, friendly neighbours who notice something is wrong) to protect them and take care of them : (one of the things often missing in kyriarchy stuff, is being a child… whether you’re a boy or a girl, you have MUCH less power than an adult, are at risk of being abused and not being listened to, ppl will defend an adult’s right to hit you in certain situations, etc)
Children’s voices are less important than adults (typically), they are not believed as much, they are often not taken as seriously. They can’t vote, or sign contracts. They are at high risk of rape and abuse, and they risk not being believed if they say something…. their anger and tears are taken less srsly, but as somebody throwing a tantrum, pity, but not understanding… etc etc
But you can also claim that children have “privilege”… that they’re (ideally) taken care of… they are reliant on their parents, but their parents buy everything for them… they can cry and throw tantrums, and be spoiled for it (depending on the parent)… their parents take care of everything for them… I mean being a child is great right?
I mean that’s very similar to the type of “privilege” that ppl often attribute to other groups… like when ppl talk about the “good old days” and marriage and women shouldn’t work, etc… “well you can get pity if you cry, ppl can take care of you, you don’t have to work, etc etc”
This isn’t saying that our laws protecting children, or children being taken care of by their parents is WRONG or oppressive, but that if you want to argue that children are a non-privileged group, there’s def an argument there, b/c not only do they lack rights, we treat their voices, agency and intelligence, lower than of adults, and that can often lead to harm if it’s abused. : Which is why being “treated like a child” is something ppl do not like (and being called a child is an insult).
The fourteenth amendment was passed in 1868. Say this to yourselves every day: after Reconstruction, Black Americans were never oppressed.
Did it work? Did I actually change history?
“Actually, it was white, male, property owners who could vote. And I know that because I payed attention in history.”
Native Americans did not become US citizens until 1924. And it wasn’t until 1965 that federal law finally put a stop to individual states denying Native Americans the right to vote. But no, it’s white males who are the most oppressed group in history. *Facepalm*
All women were allowed to vote in the wyoming territories in 1869. Unless I’m wrong. State to state princess.
Say this to yourselves everyday when you wake up. Women were never oppressed.
I think this is another case of 2 ppl talking past each other xD
What groups do you consider to have been oppressed in history? o: And why do you consider them to have been oppressed?
What groups NOWadays are oppressed? o:
I think we need to figure out what the standard is for oppression for NWO first, before you can start arguing w/ him if you want to argue w/ him :3
Does he mean in ALL of history btw? o_O (like incl in every single part of the world, history is pretty diverse)
Well if indians couldn’t vote until that time you as a woman oppressed them.
Because if men could vote before women and women were oppressed. Well the only ones left that could be oppressing them are men.
So whats your excuse for oppressing indians?