New form of anti-male oppression discovered: Women’s magazines in checkout lines!

I was unaware that just because someone had a lot of personal willpower, they are “basically men” regardless of what gender they identify as. You seem to be preaching the gospel according to Meller about what defines femininity, and thus “being female” for some reason (since it obviously doesn’t seem to have anything to do with gender identity according to that logic). Also, the relationship I have with my girlfriend is not a relationship where one person inherently dominates the other (in the non-kink sense). Ours is a relationship of interdependence and trust. Just because I respect someones strength of will doesn’t mean I believe that either of us has to play the role of submissive cheerleader to the other.

(also, quick protip: look up agender and save yourself the humiliation of what I assume was an attempt to insult someone who identifies as such by playing the “not a real man” card)

@Shora: No.

(my previous comment was directed toward Brandon, it slipped my mind until now that I didn’t say so)

Ami

Katma Tui must not have been a real woman in the brandonverse.

Brandon: So what do you mean when you say an indomitable woman isn’t feminine?

If you say one, you’d have to say the other. Right?

Ami: nope!

Bee, I NEVER advocated that men “abuse their women” to “keep them in line” or for any other purpose.

Oh right. You just said (repeatedly) that women who are victims of DV have obviously driven their partners to be abusive. And that those women should change their behavior if they want to stop being abused. And that if abuse were to cause women to be happier, then it would be cool.

How :”slavery” got into this is anybody’s guess! He is trying to cultivate, or allow her to cultivate, her inner woman, and she is using her body (and hopefully, her spirit) to provide him with ecstatic rapture!

So, the whole thing there where you say the man can cultivate or allow her to cultivate …? Yeah, that’s kind of what I’m talking about.

Again, not trying to say what’s gonna be good for everyone, but what works for me in my relationship is me trying to be the best me that I can be, and my boyfriend trying to be the best him he can be, and us both being happy for each other’s successes and growth and sympathetic and supportive and loving … but there’s no room in our relationship for him to till my soil (unless you mean … something else entirely) and ‘enry ‘iggins me, or “allow” me to work on myself. The notion is ridiculous.

Talking about which sex is “dominant” here, if it makes any sense, is about as relevant as talking about which hand is “dominant’ when playing a piano concerto?

I’m not a musician, and I don’t know much about music, but a little googling shows me that actually, lots of people talk about which hand is dominant in a piano concerto. Was that what you were trying to say?

Oh right. You just said (repeatedly) that women who are victims of DV have obviously driven their partners to be abusive. And that those women should change their behavior if they want to stop being abused.

But he won’t actually say that when confronted with an actual abuse survivor, like Zhinxy. His theoretical construction of the world completely falls apart when he has to deal with real life and real actual people. xD

Talking about which sex is “dominant” here, if it makes any sense, is about as relevant as talking about which hand is “dominant’ when playing a piano concerto?

It would be freaking relevant if people insisted that pianists wear a fluffy soft cuddly mitten on one of those hands.

I would almost say that signals sympathy, which I didn’t think Meller was capable of, but I’m guessing it’s more like humiliation.

My money’s on cognitive dissonance. He simply doesn’t know how to respond.

[email protected]:

So you start by giving lip service to the fact that beating one’s wife is wrong and then get down to the real reason: it’s counterproductive to the kind of society you want to produce. Because women aren’t going to be sweet, well behaved, adoring slaves if they’re afraid of you.

Seems to me you give women one of three choices:
1. They can be good daughters/wives/mothers and spend their lives serving men.
2. They can be given to the “Houses of Entertainment” where they will serve men as sex workers and/or entertainers.
3. They can work outside the home as long as the work is “female friendly”, meaning some kind of extension of 1. And therefore is (yet again) about serving men.

This kind of begs the question: why should women be forced (by being offered no other choice) to serve men, regardless of their own wishes? I’ve seen nothing in any of your posts about giving women any real choices about that they do with their lives, the only option open to them is to serve men.

Also if you’re going to have families given the option of giving recalcitrant daughters to “Houses of Entertainment” what happens if said woman doesn’t choose to go? Will she be forced? This sounds a hell of a lot like a punishment to me, no matter how you dress it up or how many times you say that women will do all of this “willingly”. I can’t see any way this system could exist without coercion. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you choosing one’s own sexual partners, regardless of how many you choose is very, very different from prostitution (or whatever cute euphemism you choose). The two are in no way interchangeable. This idea that living and working in the “Houses of Entertainment” will make women safer and more hygienic really has me stumped. I mean, do you really think that women are never raped or assaulted in brothels? Or that for some reason being sexually active stops you from bathing, using a washing machine or getting out the vacuum cleaner and that they need to live in brothels or they will degenerate into total squalor?

On the matter of domestic violence: abusers abuse because they enjoy it, their partner could be the most perfect, fluffy, cuddly little catgirl in the world and he would still find fault with her because it isn’t about her and her behavior. It’s about his desire to hurt, both physically and emotionally. Often victims have had the goalposts moved and been gaslighted for so long and are so confused that the accept their abuser’s behavior without question and blame themselves and attitudes like yours just reinforce the nightmare they’re trying to live in.

Our chances for a prosperous and thriving economy are enhanced by following a gold standard–Gold as MONEY

I do not know if anyone has pointed this out to you DKM but the US Constitution does not specify what coins are to be made of.

Aritcle 1, Section 8, Paragraph 5: To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
Source

Where is due process today.

Due process of law as written in the Bill of Rights was not applicable to the states individually initially. Without the 14th Amendment, if your state failed to have a similar provision, you could be thrown in jail without trial or any effort for due process by the individual state you are in. So while it may be laudable that Rep. Paul would like to “return” to the original Constitution, it would cause you bigger problems if he just ignores the additions after 1791.

Where are you protected on your tax return by the V Amendment against enforced self-incrimination?

One can, in theory, raise a 5th Amendment right against self incrimination on one’s tax returns. A discussion that has cases to peruse. Here is another

Where is your right to trial by jury when the jury is specifically enjoined against judging the applicability of the law (as opposed to the mere facts) which you are being tried, possibly for a serious felony, or even a capital offense?

Have you even read the Bill of Rights? Here is the sixth Amendment verbatim:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”

Now I have read that a few million times (yes, I am exaggerating some) and I have never seen it say “you have the right to have a jury that can nullify a law.” Not once.

Nor does it say that in the seventh:

“In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”

So where is this assumption that you have a right to jury nullification? The Founding Fathers were not perfect but if they wanted to ensure you did have that right no matter what, they would have stuck in it there somewhere. And they did not. Therefore plain reading of the statute says you do not have that right.

Where was Awlaki’s–and his son’s–right to simple due process, even in the distorted and truncated Kangaroo court form it is routinely practiced in the American People’s Republic?

Decision on this very issue, the federal judiciary is not unaware of the troubling nature of the Obama Administration’s decision in this matter. The problem is that they are not allowed (nor should they be) to act without jurisdiction.

As for the “distorted and truncated kangaroo court” system, just where is the problem of the court system? Is it in the fact that no one wants to fully fund it so it is hard to get through the cases quickly? Because that is a problem. Is it the over-charging by prosecutors in an attempt to get plea agreements? Because that is a problem. Is it the fact that most self represented litigants are unfamiliar with the rules and requirements and too few judges really care about helping them? Because that is a problem.

And these problems have solutions-the solution is not to just start having juries nullify laws.

PfkaE – I keep asking him about his apparent faith in the Wizard Powers of the Executive Branch as applied to Ron Paul, all I get is that it’s an unknown quantity, and something about the military that sounds coup-ish