What the *** is up with this anyway?

A large number of uncomfortable people seem to think words like n*****, f***** etc should be used more often because, I don't know, they got to say it on South Park and something something locker room talk?

I was getting my hair cut from the usual place last week and a new barber there was talking to me about how Australia needs someone like trump, people will get guns anyway through the black market, and PC is ruining the world.. I'm honestly at the point where I don't even have a response.. How do you argue against that level of pants-on-head stupid? Now this lady was cutting my hair so pissing her off wasn't the best strategy for me, but ***. Hey maybe it's just a shock to me since I've been doing the university/white collar thing.

I don't really understand, even if you are strongly against any type of liberalism/social justice or what have you, how can you argue against specific cases when all you're upset about is what I assume is some sort of broader economic *** or fears of some underlying agenda of escalation/progression to letting in terrorists and sharia law?

https://i.redd.it/plggcwh7m8gy.jpg

White males are a victimized minority on campuses across the country, thanks to affirmative action. Speech codes have silenced anyone who won't toe the liberal line. Feminists, wielding their brand of sexual correctness, have taken over.

Where do people get this tripe? It's like having any standards of behaviour at all is just a no-no, but only if it tells a story that ignorant d*******s want to hear (limiting MUH political freedoms). Anyway I was going to go on about immigration and the FIFO crowd but that stuff is probably left for the politcal thread.

https://pics.onsizzle.com/high-school-teachers-im-not-going-to-share-my-political-13301750.png

/rant

Yup and whats hilarious is how much they chant about free speech yet the far right are the biggest offenders at restricting free speech. Ban everything! Deport the Muslims! Ban protests!
Derp.

While I am inclined to agree, can't you keep this s*** in the political thread? That was the whole point of the political thread, so that the persistent arguing that is happening in there is prevented from filling the forum with more and more political threads and never-ending straw man, appeal to futility, etc arguments.

How about those Mass Effect: Andromeda animations?

I think Political correctness is an issue but it's not a huge one. I have not bothered to wade into the political thread because its over 100 pages long and it does not make for great reading.

Where do people get this tripe?

It's essentially baby boomers and the people that listen to talk back radio. There's a minority of young people lapping this up because it's now counter culture to be a progressive.

What if I said that Social Justice Warriors are ruining the country? Would that be politically incorrect?

What if I said that Social Justice Warriors are ruining the country? Would that be politically incorrect?

Is that supposed to be ironic?

I don't know much about SJWs but I do know that once I talk to someone who hates feminists/etc, I immediately know I'm talking to someone who has no f*****g idea what feminism even is, but has had maybe one or two negative exeriences of overweight/unattractive/disabled/minority women talking to them about womens rights, so that's what feminism is to them now

Alright I'll bite.

The militant version of Feminism says these Women have already achieved Feminism because they choose to live with their Cultural slavery

Literally nobody says this.

facebook are really helping with that. just so BRAVE. it's easier for white people to wallow in their guilt then to actually do something.

Social media helps raise awareness and encourages rallying and activism worldwide. No, they don't get it right all the time. Yes, facebook in general is bad for your mental health.

backward and uncivilized the Culture

http://i.imgur.com/zD4C2.jpg.

Policing speech ends in violence.

I think that, when the discussion turns to these waters, the most telling part is this.

Let me ask you a question. If I was to say 'Islam is a religion of peace', and quote that statistic of 99% of Muslims being peaceful (or whatever), what would be your response? A 90 page essay on statistics and populaiton proportions and maybe throw in some Nazi metaphors on war crime perpetrators? In all fairness, you may potentially get quite emotionally involved in this and might start bashing religion in general, talking about backward and uncivilized Cultures, encourage our military involvement overseas, talking about our troops and the suffering they go to to save us from those dirty mulims, support our PTSD troops, reduce immigration etc etc.

Which is great. A nice topic for discussion.

But let me ask you another question.

How great is our own culture? Is Australia perfect?

I will guarantee you this type of question will be a more productive use of your time.

Just like how you don't like people doing 'social media activism', feminism does't honestly give a *** about your armchair expertise in women's rights in Turkey and Islam.

Because in Australia at least one woman a week is killed by a partner or former partner. In Australia one in five women has experienced sexual violence. In Australia one in four women has experienced physical or sexual violence by an intimate partner. In our own f*****g shores one in four women has experienced emotional abuse by a current or former partner. And the statistics get much f*****g worse for young women.

This is why your words about political correctness and free speech are a ***ing insult to anyone legitimately caring about feminism. You're spending your time, words, thoughts, who you even are as a person, getting riled up about the violence and problems caused by 'policing speech'. What's beautiful is that feminists can no more police your words than you can police practicing Muslims.

Hell, even supporting our PTSD troops who've been fighting aforementioned dirty mulims is probably something you're aware of and care about - but when it comes to women with PTSD from sexual, physical and emotional violence, who number in multiples of said troops, it doesn't even register, because you just don't give a *** about feminism.

f*** s*** c***

edit: what swear filter?

Islamic feminists do exist, yes. What do you think they stand for FaceMan?

(Here's a tip, the answer starts with 'W", and ends with "omen's rights, gender equality, and social justice in Islam and Islamic countries")

Islam does not Evolve.
Political Correctness has brainwashed you into thinking Islam is just an ordinary Religion when it goes outside the boundaries of Religion.

Around 50 Islamic Countries and only Turkey has had some success approaching a Liberal Democracy but it is now sliding backwards.
How do explain that Vash ?

You have a Pollyanna view of what Islam is.

Can someone explain white guilt to me? Is it like anti-racism, but bad?

Lots of reasons that are keeping them from evolving.

The Religion.

From a political perspective, however, Islam seems to offer the worst prospects for liberal democracy. Of the forty-six sovereign states that make up the international Islamic Conference, only one, the Turkish Republic, can be described as a democracy in Western terms, and even there the path to freedom has been beset by obstacles. Of the remainder, some have never tried democracy; others have tried it and failed; a few, more recently, have experimented with the idea of sharing, though not of relinquishing, power.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1993/02/islam-and-liberal-democracy/308509/

Its over for Turkey.
Take them off the list.

swear filter only works if you're not logged in

Feminism ?
How about Mens Rights ?

swear filter only works if you're not logged in

nah, thats not right, its in phooks posts!

Yeh having been on the wrong end of crazy XX, I'm not a fan of the way that DV is projected as a male on female crime.

^Did you just argue against basic human rights..? ha

^^+^^^ Yeah I mean if we're talking from a genuine desire to support victims of abuse, DV and sexual violence, yes I agree 100%, all survivors deserve safety and support, and nobody should have to go through that. Hogster it sounds like you've gone through some s*** and I feel for you, DV can be extremely traumatic, I know it all to well. If you need any help I would highly encourage talking to people about it, and professional support can be a game changer. Mensline is 1300 78 99 78 and they also do online counselling. Or hit up lifeline.

If we're talking about statistics (and to get into the topic of feminism and all it's politically correct evils), yes there are feminists who are s*** people pushing too hard on an agenda, and there are wrong ways/right ways. Hardcore anti-man feminists are exceptions to the rule. Just like how terrorists are not really considered Muslims by most (see; billions of) Muslims & other rational people. And just like how there are legitimate concerns regarding support, portrayals and unique difficulties for male victims, even though they don't feature in typical DV cases.

Here's the cruncher though - the feminist view is actually that men are suffering under the same 'patriarchy' and socialised masculine/feminine gender roles as women. Feminism =/= men vs. women. It's why lots of the points that film makes Rukh are actually feminist issues - men shouldn't have to follow into this 'patriarchal' idea of masculinity that causes issues for men and women.

So, if we're talking from a Men's Right Activist view, yes the suffering of these things is great and should never be discounted, and the hard and brutal fact is that womens suffering (plural - not individual cases) is also consistently and overwhelmingly greater than mens. Men simply do more damage - physically, financially, emotionally. That's not a politcal point, it's just simple statistics (see below). Of course men have increased incarceration levels for the same crime, 99% of the time sexual violence is male-on-female and ~90% of the time violent crime is by men. This is an issue. Notice how I'm NOT saying abuse against men is not an issue here.

I mean I don't know if you guys know but as a psychologist I've seen a lot of the fallout first hand and have a professional grasp on how the aspects of abuse manifest both in acute crises and through the lifespan. So I want to clarify that my anger in this thread lies with people who discount this type of suffering and the giant issue that's right under our noses because of things like, for instance, things going on in countries overseas where we have minuscule influence, or people getting upset at a womens health ad campaign because men aren't represented. Representation. I never see right-wing MRAs getting upset about representation of women in executive positions, equal pay, etc.

If you are seriously attempting to say that I am a faux feminist, because I can see condemnable difference between a women being executed by the state for drinking from a mans cup and at most 52 women being murdered in circumstances where each and every murder is condemned at every level of public consciousness, well so be it. But you don't get to hold out as though you're righteously indignant.

Yes I am, and yes I can. Trog absolutely has a point regarding broader impacts.

Stats from the googles:
http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/violence/VAW_infographic.pdf?ua=1
^WHO report on violence against women... they don't even have one for violence against men, which kind of sucks
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-06/fact-file-domestic-violence-statistics/7147938
^Aussie stats
http://www.iwf.org/news/2432535/Domestic-Violence:-An-In-Depth-Analysis
^Pretty decent feminist view
https://www.dss.gov.au/women/programs-services/reducing-violence/the-national-plan-to-reduce-violence-against-women-and-their-children-2010-2022
^This is a great initiative, but Australia still needs more. Federal funding to date has fallen far short of the Productivity Commissions recommendation.
http://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/access-justice/report
^This report outlines what's recommended for real change, just $200mil a year, and if we don't pay those costs the real price will be much higher in services like healthcare, child safety services etc. IMO more should be done as the cost to people and society is extreme, well beyond $200mil. Veterans with PTSD, proportionally, get a ton more funding (which is even then, not bloody enough!). Mental health in this country is a s****how IMO.

Now re the above; where are the men? They are there as well - funding and services in many of these programs go to men also, you remember the ads on the bus stops against domestic violence to men etc. But simply statistically, and to our own society - women and children overwhelmingly suffer more, their outcomes are much worse. Being a feminist means recognizing how society s**** on both men and women based on gender roles etc, and working to educate others and to fix problems arising from things like that.

You say politically correct I say supreme intellectuals

Phooks:

First question: Have you watched the film? It does address the idea that the issues that MRA's are advocating for are actually feminist issues. There were a number of now MRA's who used to be prominent male feminists including Warren Farrell who was a board member of the New York chapter of the National Organisation for Women (the largest feminist group in the USA). While he was talking about women's issues he got large crowds. As soon as he started to *also* talk about men's issues he was ostracised.

Time and again it has been feminists that have actively worked *against* men's issues, irrespective of what you might claim feminism to be about.

Equal parenting rights? NOW consistently lobbies *against* any shared parenting bills in the USA.
Men and women wanting to discuss the male suicide problem? Protests and cries of misogyny from radical feminists.
Students wanting to start Men's Issues campus groups? Protested against and denied time and time again.

Now, I agree with you that by a certain dictionary definition of feminism (NOT the original Oxford Dictionary one whereby it was defined as an "advocacy for women for economic, political and social equality", but instead the more generalised one of "equality of the sexes") that a lot of men's issues are compatible.

But that's like saying that Islam and Christianity are effectively the same in general, if you ignore all of the rules and traditions and the people actually practising those religions.

Thanks to all the other tenets of feminism (patriarchy theory, rape culture etc), feminism as it actually exists is NOT friendly towards men's issues. And if you use the original dictionary definition there's nothing to say it even *should* be.

Irrespective of if feminism *should* be a useful way to address men's issues in reality it is often opposed to solving them.

But that said, most MRA's are *not* tradcons (traditionalist conservatives) who believe that women should be in the kitchen and men should be the provider etc. Most MRA's *also* support equality of the sexes. Both in rights *and* responsibilities. They just realise that feminists don't actually make any efforts to address men's issues and often work against them. MRA's don't demonise masculinity but neither do they accept all of the social (and legal) obligations placed upon men that are not placed upon women.

As for the prison thing...You don't seem to have understood what I said.
There have been scientific studies that have shown that *for the exact same category of crime* that:
* Men were more likely to be arrested for the crime (if both a man and a women had committed that category of crime)
* If arrested, men were more likely to be charged.
* If charged, men were more likely to be sent to trial
* If at trial, men were more likely to have a conviction recorded
* If convicted, men were more likely to be given a custodial sentence
* If given a custodial sentence, the average men's sentence (for the same crime) was 66% longer than for a woman.
* Men would also serve a longer proportion of their custodial sentences too.

Again, to be clear, we're not talking about the absolute numbers of men who commit crimes vs the absolute number of women. We're talking about of the men who commit a crime and of the women who commit a crime, a higher proportion of those men will be arrested etc, than the proportion of women.

Furthermore, this gender prison gap is *larger* than the racial prison gap (i.e. that black Americans for example receive longer sentences etc than white Americans for the same crime).

You then provide some links to services and make the claim that there are also services provided to male victims. Okay, roughly how many DV shelters are there that cater for women and their children? How many DV shelters are there that cater for *men* and their children?

Remember, that as per the ABS and AIC, around 25% to 40% (depending upon what statistic in particular you're looking at) of the victims of DV are male.

You claim that men get a share of those services but its often the case that they *don't*. And, at least in the USA, when it comes to funding for things under VAWA, like for shelters, if an organisation wants to *also* provide shelters for men in addition to women they will be denied *any* VAWA funding.

And what about DV helplines like those in Victoria? I'm assuming that you know what the code of practice for helplines in Victoria (which they're trying to export nationwide) is when it comes to male victims, yes? You know, the part about how the counsellor should by default assume the veracity of a woman who calls up claiming to be a victim, but should *not* give that same presumption to a man claiming the same but should instead get in contact with the police or other agency to talk to the man's partner to ensure that the partner is not actually the victim.

I never see right-wing MRAs getting upset about representation of women in executive positions, equal pay, etc.

Well, I'm a left-wing MRA, however despite the oft-used feminist rhetoric that it's simply a case of gender discrimination, there are other possible explanations including:
* Differences in career choices even in "gender equal" countries like Norway.
* Numbers of hours worked, including paid and unpaid overtime.
* Willingness to work with less flexibility or in more difficult circumstances.
* Less time taken off for raising families.
* More aggressive negotiating skills.

On an individual level a man and a woman could be identical in all of those things, however across all men and women, differences have been shown. Thus across all executive positions and executive salaries etc, a difference is seen.

The whole wage gap as quoted by the media, politicians and feminists is a poor use of statistics. For example, you could have two different jobs, job A and job B. If say, job B paid more than job A on average, you could still have the situation whereby women could be paid *more* than men in job A *and* paid more than men in job B and yet the average wage gap (the figure quoted in the media) could still show that women were worse off. Despite getting paid more than men for the same job. How? If a higher enough proportion of men worked in job B than job A.

Want another example of shoddy statistics use? Take a look at the World Economic Forum's yearly Global Gender Gap Report.
It purports to rank each country by their level of "gender equality" by using a weighted system of ratios in various categories of how women compare to men. A 1.0 in a category implies equality. Higher than 1.0 means women are better off. Less than 1.0 means women are worse off.
The problem? Well there's a few including the weightings chosen, the inapplicability of some categories to some countries, but the biggest is the cap they use in each category when computing the overall ratio and rankings.

For example, picture two countries, Country A and Country B and two categories. Let's say for category 1, Country A has a ratio of 2.0 (that is women are *twice* as well off as men) and Country B has a ratio of 1.0 (men and women are equal). And for category 2, Country A has a ratio of 1.0 (equality) and Country B has a ratio of 0.99 (women are 1% worse off than men). Assume each category is equally weighted. Which country would you say is more equal? Country A or B? Most people I would hope would say Country B. Yes, in category 2 women are *slightly* worse off than men, but in category 1, women blow men out of the water.
What does the WEF's report do however? It caps categories. Any value over 1.0 is treated as a 1.0. That is anytime women are better off than men that counts as equality. So it would rank Country A as the more equal country.

Just another example of a gender biased study that gets quoted each year by the media and politicians. It's not a measure of gender equality but that is how it is presented.

But anyway, back to my original question, have you actually watched the movie? The answer to that question (positive or negative) will inform further discussions on this topic with you. I've watched it twice (once at a screening and once on dvd) and bits and pieces (the Boko Haram part for example) multiple times.

When you're putting "gay people who want the right to marry" in the same comparison list as "straight white males who want rights to punch women", your list may have some issues with credibility and support.

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/131/351/eb6.jpg

I'm hoping you're not one of those people who rages at the Onion. They're always a constant disappointment. Though they bite every time.

last edited by Twisted at 18:20:18 05/Apr/17

Notice how I'm NOT saying abuse against men is not an issue here.

This comes back to the crux of your issue. I started writing a whole thing about this yesterday but got depressed and deleted it before posting. The gist of it was, it doesn't matter if you're not saying that. If you don't have a one-sided view, it opens the door for people to assume that means you're not on their side. This happens all the time to me (e.g., here I get in trouble for being too politically correct and suggesting that maybe free speech can have its faults, with my friends and family I get in trouble for suggesting that maybe free speech is more important than arbitrarily deciding what people can and can't say).

It needs a name. War on moderates? War on middle ground? War on things aren't always as simple as black and white?

@Trog

Political discourse is simply a range of special interest groups vying for influence. As Francis F**uyama describes it - patronage.

Liberalism and social engineering is at its zenith, we have liberal commentators advocating mental illness dressed up as transgenderism, late term abortions as womens' rights, property theft as social justice, racism against whites as black lives matters, advocacy for oppressed Islam which just so happens to also hate gays and Western culture, economic migrants receiving better treatment than veterans.

Liberalism has turned into self-flagellation, a drummed-in self-hatred by whites of whites for all their past cultural transgressions coincidentally manifesting at the same time as a well-provided generation of entitled Millenials seeks their next moral crusade because their every personal need is catered for and they would die of boredom otherwise. It doesn't help that internet Slacktivism enables all this while they sit in their bedroom. *cough* Kony.

Honest hard working everyday people (aka racists) are sick and tired of the lame attention seeking. they are also sick to death of the intelligentsia triad of politicians/academics/journalists telling them what they should think. So they exercise the only power they have - the ballot box.

It seems ironic that only 40 years ago Australia has entrenched racist and sexist public policy, but somewhere along the way modern democracies lost the plot and threw all sense of personal responsibility, abdicating it to the government and its all knowing fleet of risk averse bureaucrats in lieu of deciding what they actually want their society to look like and wondering when their next handout will arrive.

huge pile of infi dumbisms

This is what happens when infi finally emerges from the safety of his echo chamber after a long period of recharging.

Bill Nye the Science guy is now
Bill Nye The Collectivist

We Accept Him
One of Us
We Accept Him
One of Us
Gooble Gobble Gooble Gobble

Freedom of Speech warns us when the Stupid Stuff is out of control.
The Stupid Stuff needs to get rid of Freedom of Speech to Metastasize.

http://www.rense.com/1.mpicons/17752016cycle.jpg

So there is a lot to respond to, I'm trying not to cherry-pick particular things, but keen to debate. So;

@Twisted, I'm still not sure if you're trolling but;

* Homeless people who think its a right to have a roof over their head.
* Gays who want the right to marry.
* Women who want to be paid the same as men.
* Aboriginals who want rights to stuff.
* Disabled people who want the right to bypass stairs.
* Muslims want the right eat halal food without being asked if they're terrorists.

These things = yes, how nice. In fact, under the current system, it's actually cheaper to buy each homeless person their own roof than what we're currently doing. Bit that's just my opinion, or something.

* Straight white males who want rights to punch women.
* Pedos who want the right to choose to live beside schools.
* Farmers who want to sleep with sheep.
* The local Murwillumbah library wants the right to read your porn history.
* Bogan's want to right to just piss/vomit wherever they want whenever they want and confront muslims (or jews they thought were muslims) in the street about being a terrorist.

These things = no, not very nice. For further information please refer:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Economic,_Social_and_Cultural_Rights
http://www.humanrights.gov.au/

@Trog

I am too lazy to watch videos

Lazy people tend not to take chances, but express themselves by tearing down other's work.

@Rukh A good post and thank you for not getting personal, I will try to respond in kind.

feminism as it actually exists is NOT friendly towards men's issues. And if you use the original dictionary definition there's nothing to say it even *should* be.

feminism
the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.
I mean, you're bringing this up in a thread about feminism, as a self-proclaimed MRA. You're arguing from the camp of pro-men against the camp of pro-women which, for some unbeknownst reason, seems to be at odds 'in reality'. Somehow feminists hurt the MRA agenda, but certainly not vice versa?

Time and again it has been feminists that have actively worked *against* men's issues, irrespective of what you might claim feminism to be about.

I'd argue the majority of feminists do not try to sabotage the things MRAs advocate for at all, similarly to how you purport that MRAs seek simply equality. However, I would argue the size of the issues facing men and women differ. I haven't been to or heard of one, but I imagine there aren't many 'MRA-allies' (women) in the latest MRA march? There were plenty of men in the 2017 women's march. I imagine you're also in the first part of your post talking about issues like workplace quotas and benfits, maybe mens right to force women to get abortions etc; in which case I'll simply say feminist and womens/minority rights initiatives exist for a reason, even if a number of straight/white males do sadly miss out. For instance, it's not a childs fault that his parents have issues - the child is the important/unprotected party here. This is the 'bigger picture'.

we're not talking about the absolute numbers of men who commit crimes vs the absolute number of women. We're talking about of the men who commit a crime and of the women who commit a crime, a higher proportion of those men will be arrested etc, than the proportion of women.

Disregarding the fact that the statistics I can look up say the exact opposite of yours for some reason (can you provide a source?).. Again, yes that's exactly what we should be talking about because this is the 'bigger picture'. You're arguing that because women, who commit a type of crime less than 1% as much as men (i.e. sexual violence), get off easier and so this means we should focus on this horrible injustice towards men?

You then provide some links to services and make the claim that there are also services provided to male victims. Okay, roughly how many DV shelters are there that cater for women and their children? How many DV shelters are there that cater for *men* and their children?

I cannot stress how extremely out of touch this type of statement is. A) Do you have any idea what a womens shelter is actually like? Shelters are not a preventative tool, and B) Men who suffer things like hospitalisations and extreme impacts to their financial situation are in the minority of DV. You must remember men who abuse their partners and children simply do more physical, emotional and financial damage. In chronic cases, they easily evade and lie the cops and child services for sometimes up to years, and as a result the women and children have to leave the house (and everything they own), while the man gets to live in the house and roam free. This is why shelters exist - because women are fearing for life and livelihood. Men who go through DV do not, on average, suffer as much or in the same way. Men simply need different types of support.

Why does this happen? Many reasons, but education and support on DV goes a hell of a long way. In Victoria I think it was a brand new law as of 2015, women who live in marriages that stand by while their husbands abuse the children can go to jail, for long periods of time.

but should instead get in contact with the police or other agency to talk to the man's partner to ensure that the partner is not actually the victim

Because this happens so often enough that it is actually warranted.

Despite getting paid more than men for the same job. How? If a higher enough proportion of men worked in job B than job A.

have you actually watched the movie? The answer to that question (positive or negative) will inform further discussions on this topic with you. I've watched it twice (once at a screening and once on dvd) and bits and pieces (the Boko Haram part for example) multiple times.

No I haven't, could you share a link?

@PornoPete Ok, how is the discussion of statistics a radical disaster zone?

difference between saying we have to ride in and save the pakistanis from themselves, and actively participating in the enforcement of a prehistoric barbaric law (which is what facebook is doing

I'm not saying either of those things - I've said, for instance, that facebook isn't directly regulated or even located in Australia, and discussions about 'what we can do about it' aren't useful. What can we do, as Australians, about Pakistan or Boko Haram? Economic sanctions won't be very effective and I feel that you haven't even really mentioned a solution, in fact you've mentioned a particular topic where a solution for us would, in all likelihood need to be extreme and goes to higher levels of military/police.

Here is the reasonable feminists (meaning not a feminist at all) perspective on the woman's march (hint she thinks it's crap)

I agree. Those statements on the science march don't see to be a big issue but I'll admit I don't know much about that march or those issues in particular. Bill Nye is pretty cool - but as is representation of the genders in things like science.

if you think a four year old has sexist views that will lead to domestic violence

Because if one in every class or two of those kids see daddy beat up mummy every week and gets hit themselves when they cry, so maybe some psychoeducation might be a good thing? You think kids aren't exposed to this s***? I heard about this Victorian government stuff on the talkback radio today and the announcers were raving on about political correctness gone wild, and started their segment with 'I hate experts' and finished with them trying to make fun of why black sheep nursery rhymes are actually great because black sheep are just black, and being a black sheep only makes you a defective minority. and there's nothing wrong with that, because it's just black. ....lol?

You cannot claim that is a comparable state of affairs to a women being charged with capital blasphemy for drinking out of a mans cup.

I'm saying that it -isn't- a comparable state of affairs. The two shouldn't be compared. What use is it?

Lazy people tend not to take chances, but express themselves by tearing down other's work.

wat? I was just saying I don't watch videos, not making a complex or subtle point

Somehow feminists hurt the MRA agenda, but certainly not vice versa?

He didn't say that. He said MRA's have no problem with the equality of the sexes. Seems to follow if that is true and they run into trouble with feminists, feminists may not stand for the equality of the sexes. just a thought.

I'm not saying either of those things - I've said, for instance, that facebook isn't directly regulated or even located in Australia, and discussions about 'what we can do about it' aren't useful. What can we do, as Australians, about Pakistan or Boko Haram? Economic sanctions won't be very effective and I feel that you haven't even really mentioned a solution, in fact you've mentioned a particular topic where a solution for us would, in all likelihood need to be extreme and goes to higher levels of military/police.

here is where you said exactly those things. I don't care about women's rights because I see a condemnable difference between the specific situation in pakistan and the broader picture of domestic violence in australia. This was your response

Yes I am, and yes I can.

No you can't.

We can't sail in and save everyone. What we can do, at least in the case of facebook, is point out that a desire to be politically correct and a desire to be seen to be politically correct is what is driving the decision. I wonder what effect individuals could possibly have on an image conscious corporation? We must be totally powerless, the only possible response is military. It is the desire to be seen to be tolerant that is driving this insufferable nonsense. you have everything you need to alter that desire.

Here is my simple statement to you. Tolerating that isn't moral enlightenment, and neither is equivocating between that and the existing dv situation in Australia or the US. They are acts of utter moral cowardice.

Bill Nye is pretty cool - but as is representation of the genders in things like science.

Bill Nye is very cool but saying he can't front the march for science when he has been a tireless and fearless advocate for science because he is white and male is racist and sexist end of discussion.

I see no reason whatsoever science should be "representative" it should be discovering everything possible about the natural world. Science should be open to all comers, and in my experience it is (and it not having a equivalent demographic break down to society at large is not evidence that it isn't). It hasn't always but the idea that you are institutionally blocked from entering a scientific career in Australia or the US because of your race, gender or any other reason is laughable.

You can view it as unimportant, but I hear constantly about how trump is hostile to science and going to cut funding like it is going out of fashion. The way to stop him (if that is true) is to have narrow demands with broad popular support. kicking bill nye out of the march is a pretty good way to ensure you do neither and trump (if he is going to) will pass his cuts with little or no credible opposition. meaning science in the US will have less funding and I can't imagine that will help representation in science. so if you were trying to undermine both positions (funding and representation) the science march as it is currently organised is how I would go about doing it.

how is the discussion of statistics a radical disaster zone?

You berate me for not taking seriously enough domestic violence in Australia and as such I don't care about the political equality of the sexes. you then don't discuss statistics and instead link to a fact check stating reliable statistics don't exist, and a opinion piece saying activist research inflates stats to create a societal level explanation which is wrong and unhelpful, or in other-words two articles which support the claim the current approach to dv in Australia (especially in Victoria) needs to be rethought. and the abc article includes this:

But in the words of the 2016 Australian of the Year David Morrison, speaking on a recent episode of Q&A, "it's not about the statistics".

oooooo my ideologue sense in tingling, it may have just exploded. the data about DV isn't important to addressing DV.

I don't think it is possible to take a problem seriously in the absence of a clear idea of what it is, and that is impossible without accurate stats. The current approach in Australia according to rukh and every single DV ad or activist site I have seen and indeed in the opening passages of the Victorian and Queensland royal commissions (and it is a big f*****g problem these are quoting activist research verbatim) says that "gender inequality is the cause of domestic violence". You linked to two article which cast serious doubt on that claim in my mind in an effort to convince me I should take that claim (by proxy) more seriously. Well done. if that isn't a disaster it'll do till one turns up.

Because if one in every class or two of those kids see daddy beat up mummy every week and gets hit themselves when they cry, so maybe some psychoeducation might be a good thing? You think kids aren't exposed to this s***? I heard about this Victorian government stuff on the talkback radio today and the announcers were raving on about political correctness gone wild, and started their segment with 'I hate experts' and finished with them trying to make fun of why black sheep nursery rhymes are actually great because black sheep are just black, and being a black sheep only makes you a defective minority. and there's nothing wrong with that, because it's just black. ....lol?

So because one or two children in a class may have seen DV, (which concedes my point, if they are suffering trauma from violence in the home by definition "society" is not to blame) what we should do is not send those kids to get the professional psychological help they are clearly going to need. We should instead have teachers (with no formal psychological training) force them (and all the people who haven't been broken by violence) to point out the gender roles in Cinderella and prevent them playing with fire trucks or dolls because the reinforcement of gender roles and not the the f*****g violent trauma in their lives is what causes DV. oh and we should spend over $20m to do it, $20m that now can't be spent on actual professional help.

you're going to have to make your point leap a little higher, because I am seriously not getting it.

To tie it all back to your OP. I see this as the true danger of political correctness. it is driven by activists in attempt to say that the way we speak to each other is more important that what we do to each other. but more importantly it allows equivocation between positions which are plainly contradictory.

Whether you like it or not, you have equivocated at some length now, between state execution of a woman for being a woman drinking from a mans cup in violation islamic law and a society which still has DV but is in such an anti DV frenzy it will buy any magic beans it can in the hope of eliminating it completely.

They are as close as you are going to find to polar opposites, and you can't find a meaningful difference between them apparently (in virtue of telling me off because I can).

@Phooks:

[quote]
@Rukh A good post and thank you for not getting personal, I will try to respond in kind.
[/quote]
Thanks. While I'm human too, I do try to argue the message rather than the person but of course there will be times when emotion takes over.

[quote]feminism
the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes. [/quote]

That's close enough to the original definition, yes. (Originally the second part was more along the lines of "on the grounds of social, political and economic equality")
Notice the "the advocacy of women's rights" part. By this definition, feminism is a movement/ideology for the advocacy of women's rights, much like how the MRM is a movement/ideology for the advocacy of men's rights.
One does not tend to advocate for a *reduction* in rights for their cause. Feminists don't tend to argue for reduced rights for women. MRA's don't tend to argue for reduced rights for men.
So what do feminists do (you can switch things with MRA's and get a similar effect) in areas where women have more rights than men? They don't tend to argue for a reduction of those rights to achieve equality of the sexes. Yes, you will *sometimes* get feminists that do just that like those few feminists in the USA who argue that women should also have to sign up for selective service but they're rare and not representative of the norm. So do they advocate for increased rights for men to achieve that equality of the sexes? Again a very few might, but in general no. First, it's *not in the mandate of feminism* which is advocacy for *women's* rights so it's no surprise that by this definition of feminism they wouldn't.

So my point from my earlier post stands. Feminism does not, by the dictionary definition have to do anything about helping men and their issues. Just like the MRM doesn't have to do anything about helping women and *their* issues. But here's the thing, by the dictionary definitions etc, neither group is mutually exclusive of the other. One could in theory be both a feminist (as per the dictionary definition) AND an MRA. Such a person might possibly label themselves an egalitarian but they might not. One could advocate for both men's and women's issues with the goal of equality of the sexes.

Of course the issue is that there's a lot more to what feminism *is* than the dictionary definition. Now I know that feminism is not a single unified whole. In facts it's rather diverse in its positions, "rules" and sub-groups. Just as a small sampling there are feminists that are sex-positive and those that are sex-negative (i.e. those that support sex workers and those that don't). You have trans-inclusionary feminists (MtF are women and so we fight for them too) and trans-exclusionary feminists (MtF are not real women and so we don't fight for them). You have feminists that believe that men can be feminists and those that don't (that the best a man can be is a feminist "ally"). You have gender feminism, intersectional feminism, "white" feminism vs "black" feminism and the list goes on.
There are some differences between individual MRA's of course. Some are against male circumcision. Some are okay with it. Generally though the difference is they have differences of opinions more to do with invidiual issues rather than about identity.


[quote]
Somehow feminists hurt the MRA agenda, but certainly not vice versa?
[/quote]

MRA's don't tend to protest feminist events or issues. There are certainly some MRA's (amongst others) who might roll their eyes at some issues or events, eg.: * feminists going on "slut walks" while the majority of slut shaming happens from other women and you also have feminists decrying men who stare at women's breasts
* Such pressing issues like "fart rape", "stare rape", "manspreading", "All PIV sex is rape", "the airconditioning is too cold, therefore sexism!"

There are MRA's who, in the eyes of feminists and maybe others, try to "derail" or "mansplain" online conversations on things like domestic violence, the pay gap, etc. Note, they don't try to shut down the discussion. They don't DDOS the websites, dox the posters, call up theatres threatening boycotts if they don't cancel screenings or call for speakers at universities to be disinvited. They just tend to bring up counter-examples, point out fallacies, present statistics and mention things like "Yes, DV effects women. More women than men. But it also effects men. Around a third of the victims of DV are men. Why is this not being mentioned, ever, in your tax-payer funded advertisements? Why are there zero shelters for male victims?". They don't call for there to be less funding for women victims of DV. They instead call for some funding for men victims too. Ideally in a proportionate amount to meet the needs of victims irrespective of sex.

I'd argue that bringing up such points on forums etc, is not hurting women's rights. I'd maybe agree that it might be hurting *some* feminist's agendas but it doesn't hurt women or their rights.

[quote]
I'd argue the majority of feminists do not try to sabotage the things MRAs advocate for at all, similarly to how you purport that MRAs seek simply equality.
[/quote]

And I'd agree with you. The majority of feminists I'd wager are those men and women for whom their personal definition of feminism is simply: "Men and women should have the same rights and be treated equally".
Maybe it's my biased viewpoint but I'd argue that when it comes to the general population or to a majority of feminists they simply *don't know* what MRA's advocate for. I prefer to assume that not *all* such claims that MRA's want the right to have sex with women etc. etc. are done out of deliberate maliciousness rather than out of ignorance for what MRA's actually advocate for. However there definitely are feminists, with political, academic or social power who claim that MRA's want things just like that. That the MRM is somehow sexist, homophobic, transphobic, racist, and pro-rape etc. despite there being no evidence to support such claims.

The CBC (Canada's version of the ABC) recently interviewed a University of Calgary professor and feminist about the movie The Red Pill. Note, this feminist hasn't watched the movie and CBC didn't think to interview the actual director of the film until a week later. Here's the link to the CBC article with embedded video: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/mra-political-parties-1.4016680 Here is the clip of Cassie Jaye, the director, being interviewed by CBC later: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ww1-DJxapZw

Notice how in the interview with Rebecca Sullivan, the professor, the interviewer didn't question her on her claims that the film and MRA's just want the right to have sex.

When you have mainstream media outlets, academics, politicians, etc. presenting an incorrect (be it out of ignorance or maliciousness) portrait of who MRA's are and what they advocate for, then yes, it can sabotage the efforts of those MRA's. When you call Elliot Rodgers an MRA (there's no evidence he even knew of the existence of the MRM) or Roosh V an MRA (he's a PUA and has stated repeatedly that he despises MRA's) or just conflating PUA's, MRA's, MGTOW's etc as all being MRA's and all being pro-rape etc, then yes, it can sabotage the things MRA's advocate for. When you pull fire alarms or blow airhorns to stop or silence discussions on male suicide it can sabotage the things MRA's advocate for.

[quote]
However, I would argue the size of the issues facing men and women differ.
[/quote]

Okay, let's talk about Australia, or even western democracies first.

Name the legal rights (either codified in law or practiced in courts or government departments via common law or bias) that men possess that women lack.
I can get you started:
* Women are not allowed to go bare-chested in most public places.

For rights that women possess that men have I can start with:
* The right to genital integrity. FGM is, rightly so, illegal, punished if discovered and rare where it does happen. Male circumcision is legal, not punished and common, though thankfully falling in frequency in part due to changing attitudes from the Australian doctors and other health care professionals. MRA's (that are against circumcision) want this addressed by making infant male circumcision illegal, NOT by making FGM legal.

* The right to choose parenthood (except, maybe legally speaking, if not in practice, in Queensland...). Women cannot be coerced or forced into having a baby if she falls pregnant. She has the right to have an abortion (I'm pro-choice before you ask), can utilise Safe Harbour laws to drop off a newborn at a hospital etc. and walk away or adopt it out, sometimes without having to notify the father. If she's not ready to be a mother she doesn't have to be. A man who gets a woman pregnant has no such rights. If he's not ready to be a father, too bad (and I've heard often enough that "he should have kept his pants zipped"). He can be held financially responsible for that child, *even if he was raped*. He of course has no say on if the mother has an abortion or not, and note, that the majority of MRA's agree with that position (most MRA's I've encountered have been pro-choice, and for context, there do exist pro-"life" feminists). MRA's want this addressed by things like giving men the right to "legally" abort or have "legal paternal surrender" that is, giving up all responsibilities AND rights to an unborn child that they don't want. The child might still be born, if the mother doesn't want to have an abortion, but if the father doesn't want the child then, subject to whatever regulations there might be in place, maybe to mirror the window of opportunity that a mother has to abort or give up the child, then he can also from a legal standpoint also give up the child.

* Something that is less so the case nowadays in Australia (though definitely is the case in the USA) though it can still happen, is the right of men to have a defacto finding of shared custody in custody disputes. Predominately either due to court bias, directives or false AVOs in such custody disputes courts tend to award primary custody to the mother. As I've said this is becoming less of an issue here, but in the USA for example it is feminist organisations like NOW that are actively lobbying against defacto shared custody.

* As I mentioned in my previous post, there is bias in the legal system when it comes to being arrested, convicted etc.

* Australia doesn't have an equivalent of Selective Service which formalises the gender discrimination against men with regards to the draft. How likely however do you forsee Australia, in the case of some emergency instituting the draft for men but not for women vs only doing so for men?

* There's also of course things like gender quotas and scholarships with almost without exception favour women even when women are already in the majority (like at Universities)



[quote] I haven't been to or heard of one, but I imagine there aren't many 'MRA-allies' (women) in the latest MRA march?
[/quote]

Not that it *should* matter if a feminist is male or female or if an MRA is male or female, but I think you'd be surprised. For a lot of MRA's the most respected voice for men's rights is a woman, Karen Straughan aka girlwriteswhat, channel here: https://www.youtube.com/user/girlwriteswhat . There's also Erin Pizzey, the woman who started the first women's shelter in London. There's the rest of the Honey Badgers (predominately women who are all MRA's). Note that these women aren't "MRA-allies". They're MRA's. The whole "ally" thing is frankly stupid in my opinion when it comes to supporting a movement or ideology. I can understand ally in the sense of being an ally to the LGBT+ community if you support their rights but aren't actually LGBT+ etc, but supporting feminism makes you a feminist. Supporting the MRM makes you an MRA. Karen is a butch looking bisexual divorced mother of three children (two boys and a girl) who worked until recently as a waitress. She's also an eloquent and informed speaker for both men's rights and anti-feminism in general (for the confused, she is still pro-equality, she would support the dictionary definition of feminism but not feminism as it actuall is practised).

At the screening of the Red Pill I attended (the first such MRM "event" I've ever been to), yes, the majority of the viewers were men. However I saw couples (man and woman be they married or just friends), I saw women by themselves, I saw women in pairs etc. I dunno, maybe 20% of the viewers were women. Most of the organisers of the event had female partners with them there too.

Are there as many female MRAs as there are male feminists? I doubt it. Certainly not in absolute terms as the MRM is *far* smaller than feminism is. In relative terms? Probably not. As studies have shown, women have a stronger in-group bias than men do and men express a larger bias towards women than women do towards men. Which, from an evolutionary psychology point of view makes perfect evolutionary sense. Of course you're a psychologist so you'd probably know a lot more about this than I do.

Male MRAs most certainly *do* recognise that value of having female MRAs. It's not as easy to dismiss MRM arguments as the ravings of some neckbearded, misogynistic loser if its a woman saying it rather than a man.

But yes, female MRA's definitely do exist and amongst MRA's they're treated with respect.

[quote]
I imagine you're also in the first part of your post talking about issues like workplace quotas and benfits, maybe mens right to force women to get abortions etc;
[/quote]

Workplace quotas etc, yes. That's social engineering and gender discrimination all in one. There are, across the population, differences between men and women in their desires and expectations. Even newborn babies show gendered preferences. It's not all a case of social conditioning. There are fewer women interested in becoming engineers now and likely always will be (for the foreseeable future). You can institute quotas and you might get a few more women engineers but you'd also be disallowing men who *want* to be engineers but because they don't identify as being women will miss out. That is *sexism*.

As for "mens right to force women to get abortions", I don't know of any MRA, ever, who has argued for this. You might have a few pro-life MRA's (but they obviously wouldn't argue for a woman to *have* an abortion, they'd argue the opposite), but most are pro-choice, and they believe that when it comes to the pregnancy, while some might like to be able to at least discuss it with the woman that the choice should be hers and hers alone on if she wants an abortion or not. Where did you get the idea that it's an MRM issue to force women to have abortions?

[quote]
For instance, it's not a childs fault that his parents have issues - the child is the important/unprotected party here
[/quote]

If it's legal for a mother to give up her newborn child under safe haven laws or to adopt it out even without the knowledge of the father, then it should also be legal for a father to give up on his own parental responsibilities (and rights) subject to equivalent conditions. That's equality. That thing that feminists claim to be fighting for (but as I mentioned earlier they are only fighting for women's rights, not for actual equality).

[quote]
Disregarding the fact that the statistics I can look up say the exact opposite of yours for some reason (can you provide a source?)..
[/quote]

Here is an article with links to two studies by the same author, one on the gender gap, one on the race gap: https://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/features/Pages/starr_gender_disparities.aspx

[quote]
You're arguing that because women, who commit a type of crime less than 1% as much as men (i.e. sexual violence), get off easier and so this means we should focus on this horrible injustice towards men?
[/quote]

I'm arguing that if a woman commits a robbery and a man commits a robbery that it shouldn't be the case that the man should be more likely to be arrested for the crime. That if both are arrested, that it shouldn't be the case that the man is more likely to be charged. That if both are charged that the man shouldn't be more likely to be sent to trial. That if both are sent to trial that the man shouldn't be more likely to have a conviction recorded if found guilty. That if both are found guilty that the man shouldn't be more likely to be given a custodial sentence. That if both are given a custodial sentence that it shouldn't be more likely for the man's sentence to be around 66% longer than the woman's. That the man shouldn't serve a higher proportion of his sentence than the woman.

I do see that as a horrible injustice against men, yes. As should *anyone* that believes in aiming for equality of the sexes. If you commit a crime you should be treated equally under the law irrespective of your genitals or which gender you identify as.

By the way, I'm not sure where you got your <1% figure from. From Table 1 in http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/4519.02012-13?OpenDocument looking at the proportions of incidences where Sexual Assault was the principal offence, averaged across the 5 year period from mid-2008 to mid 2013, I get a figure of 4%. Those are from the crime statistics mind you. The ABS's PSS shows that men are less likely than women to report to authorities when they are the victims of sexual violence. Furthermore, as per my argument that women are less likely to be arrested and convicted etc. for the same crime, that further can skew the official crime figures.
By comparison (albeit for the USA), the CDC's report showed that when you include "being made to penetrate" with "being penetrated" etc as being rape, that men and women report being the victims of rape equally. But again, it shouldn't matter in the slightest if women are less likely to commit a certain crime than men. Just like it shouldn't matter in the slightest if men are less likely than women to commit another type of crime. If someone commits a crime then in the eyes of the law they should be treated the same. Equality.

[quote]
I cannot stress how extremely out of touch this type of statement is. A) Do you have any idea what a womens shelter is actually like? Shelters are not a preventative tool, and B) Men who suffer things like hospitalisations and extreme impacts to their financial situation are in the minority of DV.
[/quote]

With regards to B), yes, women are more likely than men to be the victims of severe DV. But the proportion is not 0% is it? So why are there *no* such shelters for men? What options does a man have if he's the victim of DV and needs to get out but for one reason or another there's a constraint, be it financial or maybe not wanting to leave his children in the care of an abusive mother? There's no shelters for him and his children. No real support at all. If he calls up helplines in the wrong place he might find the situation escalates as his partner is alerted by police to his attempt to get help. What does he do? Give up on his children and just leave (thus demonstrating to the courts that he's not fit to be a custodial parent and loses custody rights)? Does he commit suicide (happens often enough)? Does he retalitate against his partner (and be labeled as the one who is abusive and the sole DV offender)? What should he do? "Man up"? "Get in touch with his feelings"?
With regards to A), no I've never been in a women's shelter and while its certainly *possible* that you have, as a psychologist, you also might not have, as you're male and a lot of them have very, very strict rules about allowing men in them. I do know of the experiences of Erin Pizzey mind you and what she has to say about the shelter she founded.

But you seem to be acting on the assumption that I'm against women's shelters (correct me if I'm wrong). I'm absolutely not. They fulfill a sadly needed, but vital purpose. I'd just like to see shelters made available for men too. So that they *can* get themselves out of a violent situation possibly with their children. So that they don't feel compelled to become homeless, never see their children again, commit suicide or snap and murder their partner. If X% of the victims of (insert severity) DV are men, then approximately X% of the beds available should cater for men too. Again, *equality*.

[quote]
You must remember men who abuse their partners and children simply do more physical, emotional and financial damage. In chronic cases, they easily evade and lie the cops and child services for sometimes up to years, and as a result the women and children have to leave the house (and everything they own), while the man gets to live in the house and roam free.
[/quote]

They certainly can do more physical damage. Emotional damage, I dunno, got some evidence? Financial damage? They're more likely to be the ones earning so certainly potentially so, yes. In terms of ancedotes, I have a brother who has an ex-partner who most definitely has easily evaded and lied to cops and the courts for years and gotten away with it. We can thank changes to the family court laws from Prime Minister Gillard's government which removed perjury as a punishable crime for making it all the easier for her to get away with it too. She was also physically, emotionally and financially abusive to him as well. Just an ancedote I know, but don't for a second think that women can't *also* be manipulative or abusive. And again, anecdotes but I've heard of plenty of situations where someone files for an AVO either with or without cause and its the accused that gets tossed out of the home and denied the seeing of their children, which then has an effect on later court appearances. When my brother managed to escape his relationship he was very lucky that he had a family to go to. As he left with nothing. She kept the car he had bought. She broke in and *stole* his clothes from a place he had been staying. Without his family he would either of still been stuck there, or worse...

[quote]
This is why shelters exist - because women are fearing for life and livelihood. Men who go through DV do not, on average, suffer as much or in the same way. Men simply need different types of support.
[/quote]

40% of the victims of DV homicides are men. Maybe that figure would be lower if they *did* have a way out. Of course some proportion of that figure would be cases of a woman killing her abusive male partner. But likewise some proportion of the 60% of the female victims of DV homicides are likely killed by men that were retaliating from their abusive partners and had nowhere else to turn to. You'd save the lives of women if those men had had shelters.

Do men and women express their suffering differently? I'm sure they do to an extent. Would there be some differences in the types of supported needed? Sure. But I can tell you now, that if my brother had had access to a shelter he knew he could safely take himself and his daughter to to escape his partner he would have done so, and saved himself a lot of phsycial and emotional damage (some of which persists to this day). And what of those men that don't have families they can fall back on? How many men simply have no escapes? Providing shelters to men for themselves and their children is important.

[quote]
Because this happens so often enough that it is actually warranted.
[/quote]

That's selection bias right there. If you never question a woman's claim then you have both the false accusers and those in need lumped in with the women and you assume there are no false accusers. If you always question a man's claim then you are more likely to spot false accusers. Presto, all or the majority of false accusers of DV are men. That's shoddy practice and can only exist within a sexist system.

And it is actively discouraging men from seeking help, even in the form of phone counselling. How on earth is that productive? How does that help reduce DV?
Again, an utterly sexist and discriminatory practice.

[quote]
A link to John Oliver's bit on the wage gap.
[/quote]

I watched that episode and that bit. And frankly while I was not surprised that he had that slant on it, as someone who actually gives a damn about maths (and is doing a maths major at the moment), I cringed like hell during it and it made me doubt the veracity of a lot of his other stories. That story is not a good explanation of the wage gap. No, women do not get paid 77c on the dollar for the same work as men. You're a trained psychologist, so you've done at least *some* work with statistics, even if not from a strict mathematical point of view. Tell me yourself, in your own words, what the wage gap is and what you think should be done to "fix" it.


[quote]
No I haven't, could you share a link?
[/quote]

If you want to be legal: http://theredpillmovie.com/screenings/buy-rent-stream/
If you don't, search for The Red Pill on that site with the sailing ship....

On the other hand, using TheRedPill as a reference loses you as much or more credibility as citing the 'Women make 77c to the the dollar men make' stat.

I didn't read the whole post but happened to see this line:

So why are there *no* such shelters for men?

FWIW they do in the UK

A quick google search turned up this: http://new.mankind.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Refuges-for-Male-Victims-of-Domestic-Abuse-Briefing-July-2016.pdf

Which has the following:

Despite 500,000 men suffering from partner abuse every year and 36% of male victims living in a household with children and another adult(s), there are only 19 organisations offer refuge or safe house provision for male victims in the UK - a total of 78 spaces. Of these spaces, only 20 are dedicated to male victims of domestic abuse (the rest being for victims of either gender).

Cool. I suspect the problem is lack of demand rather than lack of need or lack of political willpower. Are there any details of the demand & utilisation of existing shelters?

The biggest problem seems to me to be that males are bad at self-reporting incidents & acknowledging they have a problem & looking for solutions.

"Equality" means building equal amounts of shelters for men & women but I am not convinced we should be building (or funding) equal amounts of male shelters to sit empty until we fix that problem. I agree there should be some though & that it is a problem that needs to be addressed.

These things = yes, how nice. In fact, under the current system, it's actually cheaper to buy each homeless person their own roof than what we're currently doing. Bit that's just my opinion, or something

It might be cheaper, but as a psychologist, I'm sure you can understand that some homeless people don't necessarily want to be in a house. It isn't a straight comparison about how much spending on X could be spent on Y. Spending money on Y still means you may have to spend money on at least some of X. In the end the total may be more for a similar result (but surely it would have better results.. or would it?)



As for feminism/men's rights/whatever.
I've been f***ed over by the patriarchy and by feminism. I've had Bro's tell me that if I behave like this or that, or feel that or this then I must be a b**** and to man up or whatever. I've had Ho's tell me that if I behave like this or that or follow these feelings or those, then I'm just a misogynist and hurting feminism.

As far as I can tell, there isn't actually much difference between men and women. Some minor cognitive stuff, a bit of immuno-stuff, a bit of body mass stuff and what is mostly genital rearrangement seems to be about it.
The rest is due to society, generations of deeply ingrained cultural beliefs that are strongly present right from conception.

It seems that much of the disparity between 'men' and 'women' is our cultural insistence on an artificial dichotomy of sexuality. You are either Man or Woman both is sex and in gender. Men must want sex, and women must be selective. Men must pursue wealth and power in order to be the ones selected, women must be sexy and receptive to wealth and power in order to be desired.
That's the general gist of what we are taught and it's thoroughly broadcast to our minds through mass media and through our peers who in turn are highly influenced by the same.

To men, feminism only serves to highlight and strengthen the dichotomy. By focusing so much on women's rights, people who resist will strongly advocate men's rights. The false dichotomy is strengthened and people suffer because of it, except those people who happily sit in the 'traditional' male and 'traditional' female ends of the spectrum as that is who they are.
It's something similar to the Barbra Streisand Effect.

To me, people should just be allowed to be who the f*** they want to be, wherever their gender lays without fear of being judged or coerced into being something they are not as it makes others who feel forced into the situation (and suppress the conscious awareness of that as a method to cope with the anxiety it creates) uncomfortable.
People need to drop this bulls*** 'Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus' tripe that is so prevalent in our culture. It's wrong and it causes serious harm. Some men want to have lots of sex, some don't. Neither are less 'manly'. Some women want lots of sex, some don't. It doesn't make them less womanly. Some men are strongly paternal, some are not. Neither is more or less manly. Women are the same.
Except Men are almost expected to be less paternal, they keep getting told that is what men are, through jokes, stories, movies, bullying, etc. So they act accordingly, as women act their roles. Except .. there are a lot of women who aren't maternal, and a lot of men who aren't. and vice versa.

"Equality" means building equal amounts of shelters for men & women but I am not convinced we should be building (or funding) equal amounts of male shelters to sit empty until we fix that problem. I agree there should be some though & that it is a problem that needs to be addressed.

I sometimes wonder:

Are women's toilets the same size as men's? Do they have the same dimensions (the overall restroom, not just the individual stalls). A common complaint is that women are often waiting in line at toilets at busy events/venues of equal male/female participation. I bet the floorplans for the restrooms are similar. Male genitals allow for pissing against a wall. Far more efficient then having to use a standard toilet. Although, I must confess I'm unsure if a woman's genitals are capable of pissing against a wall and keeping it off their cloths without assistance of a device.

So it only makes sense to have smaller restroom footprint for men's toilets than women's and using the added space for women's toilets .. except I bet that isn't the case for the majority of floorplans.

I cannot stress how extremely out of touch this type of statement is. A) Do you have any idea what a womens shelter is actually like? Shelters are not a preventative tool, and B) Men who suffer things like hospitalisations and extreme impacts to their financial situation are in the minority of DV. You must remember men who abuse their partners and children simply do more physical, emotional and financial damage. In chronic cases, they easily evade and lie the cops and child services for sometimes up to years, and as a result the women and children have to leave the house (and everything they own), while the man gets to live in the house and roam free. This is why shelters exist - because women are fearing for life and livelihood. Men who go through DV do not, on average, suffer as much or in the same way. Men simply need different types of support.

You're a psychologist right? You said so, so I assume you know your trade.

Why do men need a different type of support? If their (generalised for males) external symptoms are different to the generalised female external symptoms, yet the underlying cause is essentially the same ... why would they need to be treated differently? Unless you are only trying to treat the symptoms, or more so contain them, then I suppose different treatment would be perceived to be the strategy to take.

Yet .. a male is a human and a female is a human. Their brains are remarkably similar, their pathologies are too. The underlying issues that cause external symptoms should be treated the same, treat the pathology not the gender.
Sure contain the symptoms in order to get to the underlying issue. However men can benefit from a Safe environment just as much as women.
A man (or woman) who has abused their family to the point they leave him alone in his house is in no more of a healthy state than before. Self isolation is incredibly damaging, as I'm sure you know.
Emotional isolation can happen in the presence of people. A person can go to work, do their thing, go home and drink themselves to sleep for a long time. Slowly erroding their emotional support and emotional connections, becoming more and more isolated, yet putting on a 'front' or a 'face' of Everything Is OK.
Then they kill themselves.

Just because they did it in private doesn't mean they couldn't benefit from programs such as 'Men's shelters'. Oh but wait, society teaches us that men must be manly in order to be men. They can't show emotional weakness or some s*** like that.

It's such a f***ed up situation.

The walls keep the mexicans out.

The walls keep the mexicans out.

LOL

true.

Same species different planet.

We were a Patriarchal Society but times are changing.
Women must prove they are capable of competing with Men.

What annoys me is that Women have two chances, they can try to compete against Men as equals but they also get to claim they are Women and use the advantages they had from the Patriarchal Society.

If a Man took advantage of Patriarchal Society norms he would be called a Chauvinist. A Women is considered smart for doing it, thats not Equality.

Righhhhtttt.... So posting a satire clip of some guys that seem to be more MGTOW than MRAs is somehow pointing out how MRAs are silly?

https://www.pedestrian.tv/news/arts-and-culture/bondi-hipsters-rip-brissy-based-mens-only-workspac/f3aa3d12-11cb-4452-8d47-2e998f3005dc.htm

This actually happened too.

The War on Easter

Sydney schools have come under fire from angry parents after removing the word 'Easter' from annual hat parades to be more 'inclusive'. Public schools including Bondi and Batemans Bay caused controversy after changing the event's name to call it 'happy hat day' or 'crazy hat day'.

Some schools have reinstated the wording this year in response to parents' criticism, while others have stood by the decision, according to The Daily Telegraph.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4392376/Sydney-schools-fire-renaming-Easter-hat-parades.html#ixzz4ddy9tSLG

Godless Commies

If a black, gay, transgender, aboriginal, muslim, Mexican, feminist, left-wing, socialist, who is disabled with manic depression is discriminated against by another black, gay, transgender, aboriginal, muslim, Mexican, feminist, left-wing, socialist, who is disabled with manic depression - do either have the right to be offended?

Men's day is November 19th

Men's day is November 19th

Yes it is. But you wouldn't know about it from the ABC etc.

Compare the results from the following two searches on the ABC site:

ABC site search for "International Men's Day"

ABC site search for "International Women's Day"

why

well, if I was hazarding a random off-the-top-of-my-head guess, basically every issue anyone has, ever, these days is amplified way out of all proportion because of the echo chamber filter bubble that the Internet has become thanks to social media; this, combined with our feckless media chasing the next clickbait headline that they can frame in black-and-white by pulling quotes from Twitter and pretending it is journalism, means all opinions are considered equal, facts are no longer relevant and narrative is all, and everything is amplified itself via negative feedback loops until everyone is in a fever pitch frenzy of incoherent, inconsistent rage at everything and everyone that is not on their side

just a guess though

wait, do "MRAs" consider themselves to not be "SJWs"?

Not generally, no.

At least from what I've seen self-identifying SJWs don't refer to MRAs as being SJWs nor do MRAs self-identify as being SJWs.

Much like how one might describe feminism (or men's rights advocacy) as being a subset of a movement for equality, SJWs are a subset of those advocating for social justice. Not all those that advocate for social justice in one form or another are SJWs.

SJWs, at least in my experience, tend to have a strong belief in identity politics (taking it to the extreme), censoring those that they disagree with, think that universities should be places where the students shouldn't be exposed to ideas they find uncomfortable, and emphasise feelings over facts, personal anecdotes over statistics.

Would you label those people that push for an universal basic income as being SJWs? After all, they are in effect arguing for addressing a social justice issue that at least somewhat exists now but is expected to be a very pressing concern in the not too distant future.

Are there MRA "keyboard warriors"? Of course. Just like there are UBI keyboard warriors and feminist keyboard warriors.

That doesn't mean that all MRAs are SJWs anymore than it means that all feminists (or UBI advocates) are SJWs.

How do *you* define what an SJW is?

Me? No. I've been a software developer (IT degree) and currently doing a science degree (majoring in maths, minor in physics).

How do *you* define what an SJW is?

I read this definition of the term once and it is all I can think about when I see it

The pro-Feminism Religion strikes again
http://www.9news.com.au/national/2017/04/13/07/49/its-never-okay-to-hit-your-wife-ben-fordham-calls-out-islamic-group

When you cant criticize a Religion, an Ideology, a Faith, a Belief, you leave the most vulnerable people inside it without a voice, alone and at the hands of their Abusers.

Are you a psychologist?

Me? No. I've been a software developer (IT degree) and currently doing a science degree (majoring in maths, minor in physics).

I on the other hand did a Bachelor of Science (Computer Science and Software Engineering) (Honors) and did a ton of Psychology electives ;)

Here is an explanation (for SJW) I read last week:

The SJW originated in the mid 80's with the rise of dual income households, which forced many children into cramped day care facilities where the children were required to compete with each other for the attention of single, childless women, who teach them that masculinity is shameful and toxic. As those same children entered their teenage years in the 90s, parents began catering to their children's incessant demands. It was a time of economic prosperity, and rather than teach their children any form of discipline or self-reliance, they provided them with every luxury available in order to satiate their tantrums.

Enter the 2000s, and the real boom of the internet. No longer just for nerds, social media platforms emerged and created a new space where the still attention starved brats could receive it in droves. It was not enough to have a few close friends, one's self worth was measured entirely by the number of friend counts on various platforms. Children learned that sharing empty platitudinous remarks would earn them more shares, more likes, more friends. It was no longer enough to lead a moral and virtuous life, one must now demonstrate that virtue to others. Dyed hair, visible tattoos and piercings, and eye-catching fashion choices became cultural norms to express individualism collectively. The act of not expressing virtue gradually becomes reprehensible. Facts and logic become meaningless in the pursuit of self-worth and value.

Finally we reach today, where decades of pointless, undeserved accolades have created a multi-generational group of s***** writers, actors, and singers who were never really criticized for anything. They stare around the room, either still in their parents house or in a s***** 3BR apartment they share with 8 people, and wonder where things went wrong. They got the 4 year college degree in Art History after 9 hard years of study, but they can't find work to pay off the $300,000 private school loans they took. Gone is the free cable, the free internet, the free housing, the free car, the free food, and they regress to the same tantrums they threw in day care. This is not fair. This is someone else's fault. I want what I had, and you have what I had, therefore you should give me what you have because I deserve things. Instead of self-reflection on the choices they have made, they now discover an adulthood of incompetence. They have no intrinsic value to society, and extreme cognitive dissonance sets in. I have no value, yet I've been told by everyone that I do. My book goes unpublished, my job is being replaced by an LED screen, I am not famous, I own no home, I have no kids, but if I update my facebook profile picture to show solidarity with Paris everyone acknowledges how amazing I am.

This marks the arrival of the social justice warrior. An attention starved adult child who cannot come to grips with the terrible choices they've made under the lax supervision of absentee parents. Their self-perceived victim status elevates their need for more attention, finding solace with other like-minded individuals, and making unreasonable demands based solely on even more virtue signaling. Standards of success are kept shockingly low, as the goal is merely to garner attention and not accomplishments. Marches for rights already obtained ensue, selfies at environment protests, carefully framed to avoid showing their litter, flood the internet. Praise is showered upon them from their vapid, meaningless social media echo chambers. Today we accomplished nothing, and it was amazing how much people appreciated it.

Interesting read?

yeh it's a shame noone can criticise religion any more except in that f*****g link you just f*****g wrote right there of course stop trying to create a bulls*** narrative

Technically he didn't say (I dunno what his intentions were) that we're not able to criticise religions here in Australia. He said that if you can't criticise them then bad stuff happens.

But you most definitely cannot criticise religions in some countries. Blasphemy laws do exist in some places. In some places they attract *very* heavy punishments too.

What's stupid to me is how there self-described feminists are so pro-Islam and claiming that feminism and Islam are compatible etc. To my thinking it's not that they fundamentally care about Islam but as part of both intersectional feminism and Marxist feminism they see their "oppressors", The Patriarchy, as conservative christian cis-gendered straight white males. And so, because Islam is not Christianity and because its the right wing which is more openly anti-Islamic, then they take to heart the whole "enemy of my enemy" thing even though feminism and Islam are in reality ideologically opposed belief systems.

Please stop writing "The Patriarchy" with a straight face because it makes it hard to take anything you say seriously

You do realise right that that is exactly the term used to describe it?

I think it's bulls***. They don't.

Yeh well in this /specific case/ these are literally the people that are causing the problem.

Yes, they are the people in our society most likely to express anti-Islamic sentiments, and done so somewhat hypocritically at that. That doesn't however make Islam any good (nor Christianity) and it doesn't make it any less stupid for feminists to claim that Islam is compatible with feminism while demonising Christianity.

You know of course my view that all religions are bulls***...

Thats called Collectivism Rukh.

Having a newsreader give a lecture on not hitting Women is not an example of the freedom to criticize Religion, its an embarrassing admission that Government is not addressing serious problems with Islam and its inability to accept the Laws and Rights of people in this Country.

Keyser Trad said it was ok to hit your Wife.
President of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils.

Hizb ut-Tahrir is promoting violence against Women - Where are the Feminists ? ?

Ayaan Hirsi Ali cancelled a tour here because she feared for her life.

This is Australia - That is completely unacceptable in this Country.

But they have to tread hyper carefully because they can't risk alienating the vast majority of others by pointing out that all religions are basically the same

Care to put some flesh on the bones of that?

Of course you can criticize a religion. What law states you cannot? This is the same level of stupid that TheAustralian columnists spout. "Muh freedom of speech" which is not under threat.
This image needs to be posted again

Such a dummy.

PP looking into his crystal ball about exactly what would happen if Ayaan came to Australia.

And he has the gall to call me dumb. lol.

Conservatives suddenly throwing their support behind a former refugee is so f*****g hilarious. If she was someone spreading left based (or in other words, based in reality) views, she would suddenly have racism hurled her way and told to be deported back to Somalia.

I can look into my own crystal ball too!

PP looking into his crystal ball about exactly what would happen if Ayaan came to Australia.

And he has the gall to call me dumb. lol.

Conservatives suddenly throwing their support behind a former refugee is so f*****g hilarious. If she was someone spreading left based (or in other words, based in reality) views, she would suddenly have racism hurled her way and told to be deported back to Somalia.

It would have gone down like I said because it always does. You just don't know what you're talking as per usual. you are a moron, because this is the level you literally never rise above.

what does she say that is "right wing" like at all. I'd like to an essay she has written, but its got more then 10 words so there is no point. You won't understand because anything beyond "lol conservatives are so dumb" is as deep as you're capable of going.

I can look into my own crystal ball too!

Yeah I think you're confusing that with sitting on your own balls.

(On another note I find it hard to believe someone like her is scared for her life coming to Australia while living in the US)

Security concerns can stop someone from traveling before they reach life threatening levels. I seem to remember you've cancelled trips to the US recently.

I take it you are capable of understanding that this

If you read The Australian, you'll see how many articles have been written in support of Ayaan, and being a conservative newspaper, obviously this is a good indicator of support. Not to mention the comments from readers on that site.

does not respond to this

what does she say that is "right wing" like at all

*at all*

and that this

Right wing opinion is anything anti islam is good, anything involving reduction in brown people coming here is good, unless they support my racist views then they get a pass.
Oh yeah and Waleed Aly is a Muslim and supports terrorism for being a Muslim. And i support terrorism for being a leftie.

is instant and perfect validation of this

You won't understand because anything beyond "lol conservatives are so dumb" is as deep as you're capable of going.

Nah you're wrong as usual PP. I know many people who attend protests, and it actually rarely goes that way.

Try coming to coburg my ignorant moron. It *regularly* goes like that.

I have had to move floors to get away from the sound at uni five or six times.

What pointing out you couldn't have more perfectly demonstrated you are a f*****g idiot if you'd tried?

Vash seriously.

Islam is not a brown, left or right wing issue.

It is an ideology started by a medieval warlord and like all religions it has outlived its usefulness and divides society. The word "muslim" in reality means nothing, it is just a name to describe a human being that thinks a certain way.

In the end Islam is just an idea ( a self-evidently backward one ) and there is nothing wrong about speaking out against or discussing an "idea".

I hope in the future more people leave Islam and become atheist.

The women said it's ok to hit a woman in a symbolic way what ever that means.

but at a raw utilitarian level, clearly this would represent an improvement.

However, here is a point I think you'd need to address before this argument can be considered.

How stupidly low does this set the bar? and what is the reason for accepting the bar this stupidly low.

For example, does a western educated white convert at say age 25, get to say well the symbolic act is a step up for my belief system? its just discipline after all.

but what if we take Islam out of the picture altogether, hell lets take religion out. Just some guy says it is his deeply held belief that he can hit his wife, but recently he takes that to mean he can "symbolically discipline" his wife. would you accept that as a level of improvement that is praise worthy?

you can engage with this if you want but,

Justin Trudeau installed a quota of 50% women for his cabinet because it's 2015. Seems to me "you can't use religion to hit/discipline your wife because its 2017" is at least as persuasive.

but Canada is instead discussing how they should have blasphemy laws.

jesus the epitaphs dribble out of you like someone recovering from diarrhoea don't they.

What I'm sick of is people who clearly know nothing about actual Islam so desperate to leap to the defense of a perceived minority they'll through their professed values under the bus at the earliest opportunity.

Here is a question you don't have a convincing answer for Vash.

This guy has a PHD in Islamic studies. How is he doing Islam wrong specifically?

Notice the reference *only* to doctrine.

https://www.dawn.com/news/1326729

The joys of blasphemy laws.

So it's OK to discuss anti-islam ideas but not pro-islam ideas? F*** it, you all must think and behave like me. It's the only way not be divisive.

Oh so his interpretation, by that reasoning, is exactly correct and no one can criticise him, because its just a matter of opinion. Just a conversation. ISIS by implication have exactly as valid interpretation of Islam as anyone else.

Did you miss the part about there being many Clerics with differing opinions?
Clerics within ISIS say all Infidels must be beheaded. They have valid interpretation within their circles, i'm sure. But thankfully that is completely disregarded by majority of Muslims.

But im sure all Muslim men will now think its ok to behead infidels because some PHD guy said so, eh PP?

Better stop Vash, you are digging yourself a deeper hole, bro.

A valid interpretation is up to the people listening to the cleric's words. Their followers make it valid, there is no grand authority when it comes to religion.

Oh so the people in Syria are validly invoking Islam to behead infidels.

Please go on.

Lol vash

The source for that link is dodgy as f*** and even worse non clickable. Got a better one? Then I can find out about the sample size used to get the data for that graph and where that sample population was from.

Because I'm kind of thinking it would be incredibly misleading if the sample was in say Saudi Arabia, and the questions were asked by the friendly neighbourhood cleric fresh from their first pit stoning of the day. Knock knock is Sharia the way to go and should people be executed for adultery and leaving Islam they ask as their favourite rock is tumbled around in a pair of eager hands.

Or the information could have been objectively harvested from a diverse and large section of the Islamic population from all parts of the world by someone who definitely wasn't driven by some sort of agenda.

You would need to figure out whether the Muslim population aligns with it's Government's conservative views of Islam.
It seems once they arrive in the west, they abide by the laws of the land they're in, and don't care to try and change it.

as mentioned here:
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/09/23/explainer-what-sharia-law

‘As Muslims, we abide by the law of the land’
Do Australian Muslims want Sharia law to be implemented into the Australian legal system? According to Dr Krayem, that answer is a resounding no.

“The current assumption that Muslims want a separate legal system that is called ‘Sharia’ - that’s simply not true,†she told SBS.

I think Muslims that live under these Governments just want what anyone else wants. A higher standard of living, good education, etc.
And these Governments are using religion as another tool for authoritarian governance, just like the Nazis used Socialism to consolidate power.

Good bit of research there. Seems there's a huge variance in opinion as expected.
I wonder how you would get an accurate view of middle eastern opinion though, since the religious police there are pretty hardcore.. Wouldn't the people there be concerned about someone finding out how they answered the questions in the survey?
Much like the polls conducted in Russia, 90% approval rating kinda thing.

Islam will become moderate once Muslim living standards increase, just like with Christianity, i think.
They're trapped in a cycle of war & poverty, the oil money is flowing to the monarchy & elite.
After a few generations of living in the west, they quickly become moderate. It's the old conservative values the families have gained from their home countries that are a problem.
Though as long as countries keep invading & f*****g with the middle east, extremism isn't going anywhere. The U.S is just making the problem worse.

Islam will become moderate once Muslim living standards increase, just like with Christianity, i think.

What reason do you have to think that? Living standards in Saudi Arabia have coincided with a distinct growth in conservatism.

Same deal in Turkey. Their living standards are improving but they are becoming more conservative.

Good bit of research there. Seems there's a huge variance in opinion as expected.
I wonder how you would get an accurate view of middle eastern opinion though, since the religious police there are pretty hardcore.. Wouldn't the people there be concerned about someone finding out how they answered the questions in the survey?
Much like the polls conducted in Russia, 90% approval rating kinda thing.

Jesus what a hot mess.

good research but can't be accurate because the Islamic thought police are good at their job. a spectacularly dumb thought and really exculpatory for Islam there little plugger. Are you sure you don't read the Australian.

So far you've said

Islam can be validly invoked to behead infidels (by the mere fact of people doing it no less), and poll results can't be trusted because Islam prevents the true feelings of Muslims about Islam from being aired.

The post where you make a lucid coherent point is out there vash.

Islam doesn't have an organisation people can look to, that tells them whats right or wrong.

Interestingly on page 44 of the good but probably doctored research would seem to indicate that a comfortable majority of Muslims don't agree with that statement. They think there is only one way to interpret sharia.

Their followers make it valid, there is no grand authority when it comes to religion.

Guess by them all saying there is only one way to interpret sharia it must be true hey vash.

Where has that happened ?
The most wealthy Islamic countries are directly funding ISIS and apply Shariah Law themselves.

Everywhere. Europe, USA, Australia.
Muslims ruled under authoritarian government don't have any say on how they would like to practice their religion.
You can't even drink alcohol in certain Islamic countries, nor meet a woman in public. So people do live in fear of the religious police, and we cant say for sure if that research is truly indicative of what Muslims think in those countries, especially going by some ive spoken to who have immigrated from those countries.

Sorry you seem to misunderstand so easily, PP.
Maybe if you could think for a moment that there are huge differences in how conservative people are in Muslim societies, you could grasp that many do not agree with the level of enforcement the governments have over there.
Shock horror that there are varying opinions in Muslim societies, just like in the west!

Example; 70s Iran.
Only became regressive once a very conservative Islamic government took power, and forced the hijab onto women.

Islam is not much different to Christianity if you look at history.

Islam is not much different to Christianity if you look at history.

That was deliberate, Mohammed wanted Islam to appeal to Jewish Societies around Medina to spread his new Religion around 600 AD. Up until then he'd only managed to sign up family and some friends after ten years of promoting Islam.
Not much of a Prophet.

Out of interest, who else has watched The Red Pill?

lol The Red Pill is becoming too dangerous for the Public to see

Dendy Cinemas ... [reportedly told] organisers last week they were cancelling a screening of the documentary in Sydney’s Newtown theatre....

Parroting the dogma of feminist academics who admit they haven’t seen The Red Pill, the University of Sydney Union board justified its decision by ­arguing the film promotes “sexual violence”. No one who has seen the film could make such a ridiculously dishonest claim ...

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/red-pill-screenings-stopped-you-may-not-watch/news-story/2caf8a8592f4ee16a47cb1f4aa643a2a

What reason do you have to think that? Living standards in Saudi Arabia have coincided with a distinct growth in conservatism.

I don't really want to get into this thread, but despite massive wealth general living standards in SA are kinda s*****.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jan/01/saudi-arabia-riyadh-poverty-inequality

I don't really want to get into this thread, but despite massive wealth general living standards in SA are kinda s*****.

you can swap SA for SF and that sentence is still true :D

what was the big deal about that faceman

YaY internet.

imma get me some lezo food.

It is 100% true. I think it was called "The Leichhardt". Balmain Road Leichhardt, but now it comes up saying it is in Norton Street, which is a different location a street further west. They probbaly still in there smashing glasses in their own pub,

Maybe we should have integrated more.. Got out into the bar area and put some coins on the pool table.

Katy gets owned

I recon, you can't have a meaningful conversation with people about this type of thing if:

...

Names are used like racist/xenophobic/misogynistic beliefs nazi leftard, etc If people are throwing these terms around they are not ready to converse with.

...

and worked out you're in the lezo pub?

lol. I hope he meant to disqualify himself from the conversation on purpose.