Feminism: It’s like letting your kids stay up eating ice cream
How would you define feminism in a sentence or two?
Wait, stop thinking, for Reddit’s ImissAOL has already provided a wonderfully concise and accurate definition:
I see modern feminism as the equivalent to letting your kids stay up all night eating ice cream.
He adds, helpfully:
Just because they feel they are getting their way doesn’t mean it is actually benefiting them.
Gosh, that’s not patronizing at all!
Sometimes doing this blog makes me hungry.
Posted on February 25, 2013, in antifeminism, misogyny, MRA, oppressed white men, patronizing as heck, reddit, straw feminists and tagged antifeminism, men's rights, misogyny, MRA, reddit. Bookmark the permalink. 291 Comments.
This is really late and going back to something from pages ago, but I just couldn’t let this slide. I’m about Martyn’s age and also went to school in the UK, and we absolutely were not taught “…and lesbianism is fine for all ages *nudge nudge wink wink*”, especially because Section 28, which banned ‘promotion of homosexuality’ in schools, wasn’t repealed until 2003, and the age of consent for homosexual relationships had been reduced to 16 in 2000. So yeah. Backside. Talking out of.
I’m shocked, shocked, I tell you. Okay, not really. As is ever the way, any discussions of age of consent I’ve encountered have, of course, concentrated on heterosexual or gay sex. Because men.
Nerd: Factoring in (generic violence + rape) would be unfair regardless of situation.
I see, so if you exclude rape you get to say men are more likely to be the victim of a violent crime, but if you add rape (a violent crime), then you can’t.
This is dishonest.
and come out with an answer that is extremely biased in favour of MRM-arguments
Whut? factoring out a crime, so that men are the greater victim is an MRM trick, not the other way round.
Well the MRM is primarily about men’s rights and feminism is primarily about women’s rights.
Objection, facts not in evidence (or, to take a note from Scotland, “not proven”). So far as I can see, from some pretty wide ranging travels in the Manosphere, the point of the MRM is to “put women in their place).
DOOOOON’T bring him back! Nerd = Martyn Hare, longest-winded and most boring little creep since B___.
Facts not in evidence = facts not proven? Maybe I’m just too used to HS debate…
Seriously though, please don’t summon him, he’s already a contender for top troll.
Is it just me who reads “Feminism: it’s like lett…” in the comments bar as “Feminism: it’s like lettuce”?
I didn’t, until now! Feminism, it’s like lettuce!
Please let that work! *is kind of too drunk to be sure on the html* (I’m a magician, not an elf! And +1 internet to anyone who gets that joke)
@ Nat
Thank you. I’m older so I was giving him a teeny amount of leeway in the sense that, well, the time period in which I went through sex ed in the UK was different, but I was having a really hard time imagining sex ed classes that were all “yay, lesbians can totally fuck kids and it’s legal!”.
I don’t win an internet, I didn’t get the joke! But yummy looking lettuce.:)
I do, however, have toasted ham, cheese and tomato sammiches for tea
nom nom nom
Argenti: “Objection, facts not in evidence”, is a legal term for a variation of “shifting the goalposts”. It’s basically when someone makes a statement/poses a question, which has an assumption of a known fact in it, when that fact isn’t, as yet, in the record.
“Not Proven” is a Scottish verdict”, and it means, “while we don’t believe the accused didn’t do it, the evidence isn’t enough to convict”.