Yeah, it sucks that every state has a female-majority legislature and woman governor putting these laws into effect to oppress us men.

Or, you know, this system was set up by men and for men because:
1. A society that loses its humanity quickly falls apart, so you can't just have the state kill kids who are a burden because that leads to everyone seeing each other as expendable.
2. The destitute are a drag on society. They fall easily into crime, and as they exist at a subsistence level they contribute practically no demand to the economy's engine, and the fact they will do anything for a bite to eat means they can be used to keep wages down at that problematic subsistence level.

So what's the societal solution that best suits men? Make men primarily responsible for the economic well-being of their offspring and saddle the women with the physical upkeep. This way men are given physical freedom and retain some degree of economic freedom while the women are made to be completely dependent.

So quit your bitching about the repercussions to deadbeats. Do you want to be paying for their kids? Without them, you will be paying one way or another.

This meninist whinining when absolutely every last thing isn't a positive in favor of men is fucking aggravating. Life isn't a Disney movie, princess.

You completely fail to account for men who want to provide for their children in both the physical AND financial ways. My father was that way when my parents divorced. My mother wanted custody as well, and child support from my father, even though she had a job. Thus they battled for custody and whether or not he needed to pay her anything. Interestingly, the idiot judge tried to give my father custody AND make HIM pay child support... so that he was paying a portion of his paycheck to my mother for the 1 1/2 days we spent with her per week on average. How's that for dumb.

He (and many other men like him) would rather have their families than their money and "freedom".
The point is, the parent's capabilities should be evaluated REGARDLESS of gender, and the same allowances should be made for either... but that is not the case.

Except the problem here is that women have total control over the issue. They decide if they're going to be responsible for the physical upkeep. If they don't want to they can abort or put it up for adoption. And if they want to keep it, the man will be forced to pay for it without having a say in it. If they're not able to do so they're sent to the fucking jail. When women are not able to fulfill their roles they're offered support, not condemned for it.
So basically they get to chose what happens and they don't have to deal with the repercussions, while men have no say in it and are forced to deal with it. How is that advantageous to men or even fair?

>male legislature
>male governors
>male judge
>"Women have total control over the issue."
>meninist "logic"

Are you trolling? I mean, it doesnt look like thats a troll account, but surely no one can be this stupid and stubborn. Still, nothing amazes me anymore, so if you're actually serious about this and you think you're right I invite you to get out and move to tumblr or some shit, there's no point in you staying on this site any longer.
Yes, women have total control over the issue. Memearrowing some inaccurate facts that are completely irrelevant to the issue and hand is not doing anything to prove your idiotic ideas. What, are implying that all the government officials and judges are men? Have you ever open a TV? And even if that was the case, how is it contradicting my point? You don't have to figure out who makes and applies the laws in order to figure out who profit from them, because everybody is able to read the fucking laws and see them applied. But you're avoiding the subject and keep rambling about your stupid shit because actually focuses on the subject completely disproves your point.

thisnation.com/congress-facts.html

80% male House and Senate

www.acslaw.org/acsblog/male-judges-far-outnumber-women-judges-federal-court-graph-shows

75% male judges

Don't think I need a source here... obviously 100% male presidents

A woman can physically tie up a man, rape him, have his child and have him sent to jail for not being able to pay child support. There are precedents of this happening. Clearly this system is by men and for men.

Source?

Can't manage to find this specific one again, search results are too swarmed with articles of statutory rape victims having to pay child support.

Have this research paper though www.divorcesource.com/research/dl/paternity/99jan1.shtml , specifically this paragraph:

"The father argued that, because he did not have sex voluntarily with the mother, he was not liable for child support. The court disposed of the argument, comparing it to the arguments made in L. Pamela P. v. Frank S.: The wrongful conduct of the mother in causing conception did not obviate the father's support obligation. The court also compared the father's argument to the arguments put forth in statutory rape cases, concluding that the "rape" of the father could not preclude a finding of liability for support."

And why must the men always be saddled with the financial upkeep and women always with the physical upkeep?

Which part of "economic and physical freedom," didn't you understand?
- You still have all the money left over after child support.
- You're free to go wherever you want and do whatever you want with it.

If we saddled men with the 24/7 job of raising kids and let women go off to party after work you meninists would be screaming "oppresssion" 1000x more than you are now. "Why don't women have to care for the kids? Why do they get to be free and we're stuck changing diapers and helping with homework and cooking meals and keeping house?"

LOL @ the professional victim class.

>>#167
Reading this, and many other portions of your arguments here, I thought for sure you were a troll account.
But, surprisingly, you're still positive, so I must have been mistaken.

And yes, there is a line between "culture" and "religion"
Granted, many things from one side will influence the other, but at a certain point you begin talking about personal beliefs and faith in the unknown, rather than in the whims and opinions of the group as a whole.

And the idea that women only have a say in a subject because a man "gave" it to her is absurd.
Yes, for a long time our culture(s) have been led by many factors that are, in hindsight, quite ridiculous.
Religion, Royalty, Rebellion... there are more but I like alliteration
Among those, one could easily argue, is the overwhelming presence of men in leadership positions. That wrong, at least, is being undone as more and more women assume those roles that perhaps should have been theirs to begin with... that's another debate entirely.
My point is that men did not get together and decide, "Hey, let's take our rights and freedoms and give them to some women."
No, the women fought to make their voices heard, and it worked, and it's (more or less) working now. Sure, there are some radicals and idiots in the feminist camp, but in a lot of ways they're still trying to accomplish some good.
They have always had a voice, an opinion, a say in what should be done... it's just that for the longest time they were ignored.

Your argument that women are the weaker sex has a lot of validity to it... the presence of certain hormones and physiological differences DOES make the average man stronger than the average woman, partly because we tend to be larger and bulkier this, of course, is the result of somewhat unconscious selective breeding in society... petite women are found more attractive, as are larger and stronger men
But the advent of modern weapons, chemicals, devices, etc... these make the strength disparity pretty much moot. You know what will fix a hulking attacker? A goddamn tazer. Or pepperspray. Or a gun.

Your assessment that women only have rights because we fear them is ridiculous. And you fail to account for love, romance, and the relationships between people... You seem to think that society works based entirely on base, primal instincts which I think there's plenty of evidence to dispute.

Yes, many women are mistreated. But so are many other groups and factions. Overcoming that mistreatment with effort and passion... that's the trick. Women are not a "second class" citizen. They may not always receive equal treatment; in fact, it is possible that they receive worse treatment more often than they receive better... but this doesn't make them second class citizens.

Men and women are not animals. Your cat/mouse example is blatant fallacy and completely irrelevant, albeit impassioned and moderately well-worded.

Also, I think your whole "we need more money so we can get off the planet and keep surviving when the sun dies" argument is... out of place.
I get that there's something to be said for the total wealth being important, and that it does us no good to keep most of the wealth in the hands of a wasteful few, but I don't see what that has to do with the comment platinumaltaria made about you being pants on head retarded (paraphrasing there).
While it's in some way admirable for you to take the white knight approach and fall on your sword in the name of modern feminism, I think you are misguided.

We should be trying to get everyone the same rights, elevate everyone to a position of privilege, in order to progress as a culture. Taking away, or maintaining the deprivation of one group's rights as a ransom for getting another group more rights is wrong.

This is, obviously, only my opinion.

>Men and women are not animals.

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Suborder: Haplorhini
Family: Hominidae
Genus: Homo
Species: H. sapiens

And further:

>Men and women are not animals.

I just stepped in mouse. Neatly beheaded.
Do you need a link to an ISIS beheading video?

Humans are animals quite capable of doing to each other what my cat did to that mouse.

A religion is a shared set of beliefs. Your individual musings do not constitute a religion.

"Look what batshit idea I just had! That makes me the Pope of my own religion!"

We don't need another word for, "You thought up something stupid." "Kytonlord," suffices for that.

>And the idea that women only have a say in a subject because a man "gave" it to her is absurd.

Name something a woman can do that cannot be forbidden by men.
Men can and do kill women quite easily. Death puts an end to disobedience.
Men make the laws. Crimes are whatever we say they are. Capital crimes are whatever we say they are.

The weak cannot force their will on the strong. Women are weak. Women cannot force their will on men. Anything they receive is only because a man allowed it to be.

This isn't rocket science.

>My point is that men did not get together and decide, "Hey, let's take our rights and freedoms and give them to some women."
>No, the women fought to make their voices heard, and it worked,

Those women did not force men to give them rights, men simply decided that the point wasn't worth the energy it would've taken to suppress them.

Child: "I WANNA COOKIE! I WANNA COOKIE! I WANNA COOKIE!"
Parent: "Fine, have a cookie."
Child: "I WANNA COOKIE! I WANNA COOKIE! I WANNA COOKIE!"
Parent: "Fine, have another cookie."

Is the child forcing the parent to give them a cookie? Let's see:

Child: "I WANNA COOKIE! I WANNA COOKIE! I WANNA COOKIE!"
Parent: "No."
Child: "I WANNA COOKIE! I WANNA COOKIE! I WANNA COOKIE!"
Parent: "No."
Child: "I WANNA COOKIE! I WANNA COOKIE! I WANNA COOKIE!"
Parent: *smack*
Child: "WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!"
Parent: *wrings child's neck*
*Blessed silence*

Apparently, no.

You didn't read what I said. At all.

Why must it always be the man who pays, and always the woman who watches? Isn't that quite the sexist belief?

>"society set up for men"
>only men eligible for draft
>men exclusively sent to war to die for centuries
>men made to work in inhumane conditions, women handled with silk gloves
>women want vote, men say yes (obviously just the patriarchy trying to throw you off)
>women are the sole possessors of reproductive rights
>mothers have automatic bias towards them in custody cases
>women receive fewer, lesser sentences.
>women, who are so oppressed, can openly criticise this supposed patriarchy

Now that that's out of the way...
People who have fallen on hard times only descend into crime out of necessity, which says a lot about our society. You need benefits to help the weakest members of society.

Women aren't even made to look after children, fathers have a huge role in raising a child, plus mothers are more likely to abuse children, and almost exclusively the people who kill their own children.

#152
First of all, the very idea that they were treated as property shows a deep injustice. Secondly, you cited slavery as a reason males had the short end of the stick, and weren't slaves property, too? But slaves usually weren't treated well.

Some cultures today murder female children because males are better for the family... Culture is odd.

They murder female children? Males are better?! So women are viewed as inferior and treated accordingly? And that's TODAY? Oh man, and I thought we were talking about hundreds, thousands of years ago when women were oppressed?

Seriously how thick are you? Culture does stupid shit all the time, but women are not the sole victims of life.

I never said women were the sole victims. Certainly men have plenty of gender-specific problems today, and certainly male-specific problems have historically existed. What I'm arguing is that women's problems have historically been generally greater due to a male-dominated nearly global system. But now you're just bringing out insults, and you seem to have skipped over the comment that asked you to prove women haven't been subservient. I'm done wasting my time, so unless you have any groundbreaking evidence to bring up, this will be my final comment of the night.

>>#121

It heavily implies women had it easy.

dont add the pound symbol
>>#121

My man!

>>#94

What?

he asked how to link comments
i may or may not have replied to the wrong comment

So like

>>#173

Well as opposed to working in the coal mines I know what i'd pick.

So you do think women had it historically better than men?

also, do you know how to link comments?

Nope!

Coal mines, the draft, slavery... yeah not a fan of the dick.

If you're honestly telling me that men have generally had worse lives than women in patriarchal societies, and I've already cited women's clear subservient role, I don't know what else we have left to discuss. Men were sent to work in the coal mines and off to fight because women are weak, and should aim to please men, and shouldn't have jobs, and their domain is a domestic one. I can see where you're going with that, but it's a basic line of thought that doesn't consider why women weren't sent to mine or fight. As for slavery, that's just bull. You know full well that women could be slaves just like men. And besides, the chances of a female slave becoming a sex object were considerably larger than that of a male slave's.

I will take being raped over being killed any day of the week. Millions of men have died by sword, by axe, by the war machine of humanity.

The draft was not a prominent feature of societies until the past hundred years. Meanwhile, slavery has existed since ancient times.

Well actually peasants were basically disposable soldiers...

Yeah, but tell me, who told the peasants to go fight?

The lords of their land...

The male lords?

Oh, I see! You're a collectivist. To the lords of the land, peasants were just cattle.

And to the men of the land, women were just servants.

No they weren't, women were women.

Women were women who were subservient to men.

Can you provide evidence that shows all women were subservient to all men?

Are you actually denying this? Haven't you taken a high school global history class?

Women were treated as property, but property is treated well.

Not every single woman, but the vast majority. Like I said, the Laws of Manu in India. See also women binding their feet to appeal to potential husbands in China, who would then move into their husband's house and serve him while hardly ever leaving his property. If you want more, I'll ask you to prove me wrong.

You'd pick being a weak object that needs a big, strong man to protect you?

Women are not weak, they are weaker.

>thousands of years of male rule

Just two days ago on front page: "Hurr durr white men built civilization and women have us to thank for the fact they're not being raped!"
Now, "WAAAAH WOMEN HAVE MADE THE WORLD IN THEIR IMAGE! MEN HAVE NO SAY IN ANYTHING!"

Which is it? You don't get to play the supremacist AND the victim card.

I had no hand in any post claiming any gender's supremacy, so put that strawman away.

No one is the victim, society was built by the people who lived in it, male and female. You might not like how it turned out, but you don't get to retroactively assign blame to an entire gender who are only linked to the people you dislike by the fact they have a penis.
It's a simple fact that in the modern world men are the most disenfranchised gender in the west. If you don't think so, keep in mind it is perfectly legal and rather normal to slice up a baby's dick so it looks "prettier".

>Every single fucking law has to be passed by a male-dominated legislature
>women couldn't even vote in the US until 1920
>"Men are the most disenfranchised, and my proof is that a Abrahamic religion that literally says that women are to be obedient and silent also prescribes male circumcision, which men have been performing on men in patriarchal societies for thousands of years!"

The fucking pretzel logic.

"Wow, men did something, they must have done it to somehow benefit men in some underhanded way..." Are you a psychopath or just a narcissist?

>Well men are still legally required to sign up to the slaughterhouse in some places today.

>Women being obedient is pretty much a staple of all societies throughout the world, of which 50% of the populace were women. If they really didn't want it they could have changed it. See: Bug's Life.
Of course, blame circumcision on men, it totally makes sense to mutilate someone because men are evil!

>women could have just changed the male domination of societies if they wanted to

Well women currently make up 50.1% of the population, so they are technically a majority, and thus are oppressing men.

Simply being a majority =/= oppressing a smaller demographic

But on feminism, it is!

Since there are more women than men in the world, feminism says that men are oppressing women?

Rule 1 of feminism, it's always men's fault. even in situations involving no women, there's "internalised misogyny".

Dear.

Feminism is stupid in developed countries today, yes, but the thing I addressed was that women around the world couldn't have just gotten together and taken control of society.

Bug's Life mate... a group that large can do literally whatever they want.

Then why didn't they?

Who says they didn't. Didn't have to work, were treated like princesses for generations...

Are you honestly arguing against a general global male rule in past history?

No, I'm very for it?

But you just said that women didn't have to work and were treated like princesses.

So?

Treated like princesses, made to stay in the house? Treated like princesses, when in India they were literally told in the Laws of Manu that their life goals are to bear children and care for their home, and that their father/husband/son is who they live to serve? Treated like princesses, when in Greece the first woman was an evil thing who released all of mankind's troubles and gave all women an evil nature? Treated like princesses, when in China women lived as objects whose worth lied in first how pretty they were, and then how well they served their family from inside the house, where they'd spend most of their life? Preparing food for the whole family, taking care of kids, making clothes, etc. Just because women usually didn't have "real jobs" doesn't mean they weren't pressured to work.

CAN, not did.

Yeah, but I asked why they didn't of they could, and you asked who said they didn't.

Probably because they didn't think of it.

>"Wow, men did something, they must have done it to somehow benefit men in some underhanded way..."

Hello, people are self-absorbed. We view the world as though we are the center. Something bad happens to someone else? "That's life." The same thing happens to us? "THIS MUST NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN!"
Handing out rights?
"One freedom for me. One responsibility for respecting that freedom for you. One freedom for me. One responsibility for respecting that freedom for you."
This isn't rocket science, kid.

We want tarball vision and teflon skin -- if our eyes land on a person and we make a judgement, we want it to stick. Someone judges us? We want it to slide off.
"My feelings determine what's right."


The system is heavily preferential to men. That you can't see it because you're so self-centered that you are completely absorbed with cataloging everything real and imagined that isn't 100% in your favor to create this fantastic and self-serving male victim narrative is quite amusing to watch.

It's because men are allowed to roam free, instead of being enslaved.

Well to be fair feminism is just about turning men into subhuman slaves... But hey, at least we aren't at war!

Actually people aren't all self absorbed, that's just you.

Actually I'm a girl, hence my caring about 50% of the human race is entirely selfless. But no wait, I've obviously internalised the misogyny so much I've become a man. yfw it's the other way around.

Let's be honest here, you want to have all the rights for your group. If white people did such a thing it'd be a white supremacy movement. It's no wonder then that some people consider feminism to be a female supremacy movement.

>But no wait, I've obviously internalised the misogyny so much I've become a man.

You're calling the Bible a feminist work. You've obviously internalized something pretty wacky. I don't recall God commanding Her Chosen People to circumcise their males because it looked sexy to Her. I don't recall Jesus complaining about how the Pharisees wives were conspiring to make the Pharisees interpret the Torah in a self-serving way. Was Jesus executed by Pontius Pilate at the behest of his wife who was angry because Jesus wouldn't give her the D?

Please, dazzle me with your narrative about how the weaker sex was really behind everything. History books and religious texts are a complete sausage-fest, so just where are you getting this notion?

>you're calling the bible a feminist work
When did I do that? Can you quote it please? Can you give me the exact string of words that said that?

Circumcision is a practice perpetuated by parents. Now, since no man would in their right mind allow the end of their penis to be cut up, that only leaves women.

And what is it with you feminists claiming that women are the weaker sex? You are literally the only people who think that. Women are just as capable as men, in fact they have societal bias on their side.

If you think history is a men's club you haven't been reading it right. There are hundreds of examples of women, from Gorgo of ancient sparta to Marie Curie.

Declaring circumcision, which is a religious rite dictated by the Torah and is in current practice in Christian nations because it was brought over in the Old Testament, a female-prescribed practice, is to call the Bible a feminist work.

>no man would in their right mind allow the end of their penis to be cut up

It's predominantly performed on babies by doctors are predominantly male. It is performed by Rabbis who are all male. Men do get circumcised as adults, too.
What gave you the fucking impression that men are in their right minds? THEY BELIEVE THAT THERE'S AN INVISIBLE MAN WHO LIVES IN THE CLOUDS WHO CONTROLS EVERYTHING.

>And what is it with you feminists claiming that women are the weaker sex?
You've never gotten laid, have you? If you'd had any interaction with men you'd know you're fucking weak. Your arms are like rubber. Pinning a girl is the easiest thing in the world. (>inb4 female MMA fighter) Yes, a woman who trains every single day can beat the average pudge-ball of a man. But the average pudge-ball of a man is like five times stronger than your average pudge-ball of a woman.
You are the weaker sex. You're only allowed to do anything because we men allow it. You have no primary say. You can't force a win over a man, we'll beat your ass into the ground. Women have never won a thing that hasn't come from a man deciding it wasn't worth fighting for.
Women are very, very, very lucky that we men like you.

Circumcision has been a secular practice for a long while in america.

Wow, really? And who authorises such abuse? Oh right yes the parents, of whom 50% are FEMALE.

I've actually not gotten laid, however I see no fault in my reasoning. The average woman being weaker than the average man does not automatically make women inferior.

I'm trans dear, thus I am cursed with the body of a man. If you even so much as suggest that I don't know what I'm talking about because of it I will gut you.

Oh shit you're a man? That's next gen levels of retarded then. Do you cut yourself to try and bleed out the cis white privilege?

>I'm trans dear, thus I am cursed with the body of a man.

And the mind of one who isn't too bright.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha no.

>Circumcision has been a secular practice for a long while in america.

News flash: There's no line between "culture" and "religion." What the fuck did you think religion was? Did you think gods were actually coming down and enforcing shit?
Religion is just a set of cultural beliefs. Religious beliefs evolve, and beliefs can stick around even after the foundations have been removed.

>Wow, really? And who authorises such abuse? Oh right yes the parents, of whom 50% are FEMALE.

You know what would be the quickest way to end circumcision? If women insisted on it.
"You just HAVE to circumcise him! Pee-pees look so much better that way!"
Uhhh... WHAT did you just say, bitch?

Men do it for nonreligious reasons because it was done to us and we don't question it further. You know what would make us question it? You telling us your reasons. They're not ours, and that's definitely going to raise the question of just why the fuck we're doing it. You know what? Most are not going to come up with a satisfactory answer.

I find it hilarious that you think women decide anything. You have no say that a man hasn't given to you.

>I've actually not gotten laid, however I see no fault in my reasoning. The average woman being weaker than the average man does not automatically make women inferior.

"Inferior" is a value judgement. Value is objectively meaningless. The universe doesn't give a flying fuck about value. The universe operates based on what is, and what determines what is? POWER.
Men are stronger. Men are more aggressive. In any head-to-head competition, men win. Women cannot force a shape to the world that men disagree with. You can't rule us. If we don't like something, we just break out our fists and you fucking lose.
Women live in a man's world. Men do not live in a world ruled by women. The latter thought is comical.
Women are only granted any rights because you have more to offer than could be extracted if we created Rapeistan. A society where women are only used as sex slaves is going to destabilize. It's dangerous business to try to completely oppress someone who has personal access since they may take the opportunity to kill you. (Poison rather being known as a weapon of women.) Boys are also not going to like watching their mothers being raped, so they either might come out directly against their fathers or decide not to continue the practice themselves. But this is all a man's decision. Women can influence it, but they can't force anything to be.

Sorry to break it to you, but you were born second-class. But do continue with your, "Anything men can do, women can do too." I'm here for the funny after all.
While you're at it, tell the mouse my cat brought in that it's the equal of her. I'm sure it will rise up, proclaim that it has "Constitutional rights," and that will stop the slaughter, eh? I'm sure God will step right in to correct the "unfairness" of the situation.

My cat has power. The mouse does not. Guess how this is going to turn out?

>Oh shit you're a man? That's next gen levels of retarded then. Do you cut yourself to try and bleed out the cis white privilege?

This is an exercise in human advancement. The Earth has a finite lifespan and humanity needs to be able to gather a certain amount of wealth to grow beyond it. Humans existed for a couple million years before we managed to discover agriculture, so there's apparently some pretty workable systems that are pretty fucking poor. Chucking a spear at the "Sun god," isn't going to keep it going after it's run out of hydrogen.
The idea of the fundamental value of man is pretty recent, and its implementation has changed the world. It's caused the oppressed to overthrow their masters and rule themselves, to quite good effect. But this has not gone off without a hitch. Cliques formed. Groups with power have set things up to favor themselves at the expense of others. Now, the question is... (cont.)

... which direction is most beneficial? Towards increasing conflict or towards cooperation?
Resources used to keep others down to create a relative wealth gap are resources not used to better your absolute wealth. Underutilizing human resources to retain a relative wealth gap is also inefficient.

Religion is optional, culture is universal.
Yeah because when women speak the men get scared and do the opposite...

You know what, I don't even have the energy anymore. You're dumb, and wrong, and shut up please.

>Yeah because when women speak the men get scared and do the opposite...

When you say shit that has nothing to do with anything we value we certainly recognize it ain't from us.

>"I'm not self-absorbed!"

What a convenient belief you have. Look how nicely it aligns with, "My feelings are always right." Hmmm... where have I heard that before?

Damn, we'd better get right on voting Miss. I'm-not-self-absorbed as ruler of the world right away. Who better to lead us all than someone right out of high school who is quite sure that she knows it all!
Funny that I'm not concerned with you getting even 0.0001% of the vote.

I don't know it all, in fact I don't know most things. But the fact that I can admit that is a strength.

You, on the other hand, seem totally convinced of your religion. Nothing much to be done about that, I'm afraid.

>he told me I can't play both cards! I'M BEING OPPRESSED!

The circle-jerk of white male suburban teens. Whatcha gonna do?

yfw trans and mixed race. Your privilege disgusts me.

The correct one is a strange one around here.

Nah I think just in general

The correct ones are strange ones around here.

No?

I mean its not like it's in the very first sentence of this entire post or anything.
let alone the very first two words

Would you take a sit next to me?

Having nudes is different than doing it. childporn material.

Age of consent is for having sex, age of adulthood (18) is for looking at pictures of her having sex

Typically there are stipulations saying that if you're more than 24-48 months older than the 16 year old (the stipulation varies between those months), then it's a felony.

when I was 19 my girl back in the day was 16. would that have put me in jail in georgia?

But the age of consent is 16. I think I do not get the concept. Or is the legal age 21?

how fucking stupid can you people get -.-

16 is the age of consent, for them to have sex
with other 16-17 year olds

they're still minors you fucking idiot

Actually it depends on the state. Where I am they can do the do with anyone within 3 years of age of 16.

ok
another moron
I'm replying to bluslenderman and his comment about 16 being the age of consent in many states

not referring to the content
fucking hell.

16 is the age of consent in many states (no age buffer, father time could fuck a 16 year old). only about 5 states say that there is a 5 year buffer (16-21), about 2 states still have age of consent at 18

doesn't matter. the age of consent is one thing. the age you can legally have nudes online (pornography) is always 18 years or older. Asking for nudes for a 16 year old is still illegal even though having sex with her might not be due to the age of consent.

They are still minors and any recorded nudity or sexual act with them is still considered child pornography

So you are saying your country allows 15 year olds to make porn and post it online? Dayum, which country is this?

Just looked it up, pictures is allowed if they explicitly gave you permission
So if you're dating a 15 year old, you can have her nudes
But no nudes on the internet.

Do you look at 16 year old pornography in your "country"?

this might be crazy - But what if he does!? It's not like Denmark is a super secret country you dumbfuck

Actually, here in MN, you can have DEX at age of consent so long as their age doesn't exceed 4 years more than the minor in question.

shit man things on funnyjunk get reposted for years, it is not out of the question to ask.

At least someone's asking the important questions here.

i don't know him anymore

Hi im posttwo, nice to meet you.

I bet you kiss girls faggot

im using kid in terms of psyche and not the legal age that you aren't a minor. 18 years old? you think an 18 year old is an adult? you must have went to a pretty advanced high school

Are you retarded? If the law says 18 years old is an adult, and the law is the only thing we have that even makes that distinction, then 18 years old is a fucking adult. How old do you think someone has to be for them to be an adult anyway?

So let me get this straight. an 18 year old 12th grader who is still in grade school, probably still lives with their parents, and may not have even gotten their first job yet holds the same standing as a 35 old who has finished puberty, lives on his own, and has a job and the responsibilities to maintain himself. So between 17 and 18 is the exact specific distinction in your mind that defines when someone is done being a child. being 18 means the court will try you as an adult, it doesn't mean that you are a grown, well experienced person.

well over in england that is the way it works legally

18 is adult

17 is a child

simple as

you're confusing legal terms with social terms. I speak in terms of social terms. I'm sure you have heard 35+ year olds call people from their 20s and younger kids. That is because they don't consider someone as immature and young as that to have the same standard as the connotative association of adult. And that is what i mean.
Either way we are arguing semantics. my point is that she is young, inexperienced, impressionable, dependent, and not done growing up.

she may be young but not young enough to not know how to act around a police officer

and yes I am talking in legal terms because that is how police look at things. It is kind of their job

1.) i am not referring to police as a whole. most officers I've known are perfectly civil and reasonable people.
also, you just changed the subject, to a completly different subject. I never said she was too young to know not to hit a police officer. she shoudl know, and she shouls pay the price as sentenced by a local court. But since we are talking legal terms lets look at how the national institute of justice defines how a police officer should act when using force:
"Law enforcement officers should use only the amount of force necessary to mitigate an incident, make an arrest, or protect themselves or others from harm".
I agree that he had no choice but to use force to move her, but his display of force was excessive and unncessary to remove her. This isn't a new story, in the tons of highschools across the US who each hold thousands upon thousands of students, a Disruptive, resisting student isn't new and they have been removed thousands upon thousands of times before in the past without dragging a students body across the floor. idk why this has to be the exception.

First off, 18 years old is the age most people learn to live on their own by, a fair amount that live with their parents do so strictly for financial reasons not an inability to live on their own. Secondly, Both Joan of Arc and Alexander the Great become military leaders at age 16, Joan was executed at 19 and Alexander became ruler of his empire at 20. By your logic you wouldn't call either one an adult at that point but they certainly were far more responsible and accomplished far more in their lives than any adult I've ever met, and I'm going to take a guess and say they've accomplished far more than you ever will as well.

18 years old is the age most people BEGIN learning to be independent and mature adults. Idk where you live but at 18 most of my friends in hs still lived with their parents.
So...you want to hold up Alexander the Great to the standard of every 18 year old high school students. thats just reidiculous, the circumstances and variables are just so different in every conceivable way that direct comaprison is ludicrous.
Also, lol. just rebute my point man, u don't need to resort to strawman. honestly, who will every be an alexander the great, including you?
but if you think every 18 year old in the us is a mature adult and isn't a kid in terms of maturity, we will never come to an agreement. you must have never been to public hs...or watched a senior year of hs movie like superbad....but 18 year olds are not adults in terms of maturity.

My point with Alexander is that he achieved great things from a young age and was mature enough to run military campaigns from age 16. I'll grant that most people, myself definitely included, could not do that at age 16, but that's my point. Maturity is something based on the person and age has nothing to do with it. I've seen some teenagers be some of the best parents I have ever seen and I've seen plenty of middle aged people throw hissy fits over the stupidest shit, with the most immature reasons. You can't say what age someone becomes an adult and you can't say no one is an adult by age 18, but the state can say that by age 18 you have learned enough that you can be deemed a legal adult. For that matter 18 is old enough to know not to hit a fucking police officer why the fuck is this point so hard to get across to you?

"Maturity is something based on the person and age has nothing to do with it."
by that logic you are implying that it is just coincidence that most children are immature and adults are mature. choosing extreme outliers like alexander teh great isn't indicative of a normal trend. there are 12 year olds in medical school, but that doesn't indicate anythign about what is normal

How about I redirect you to "18 is old enough to know not to hit a fucking police officer" because I don't see you refuting that point - even though it is the most relevant point - and I don't see how you could at this point. Ignoring how you perceive adults surely you don't think that it is normal for 18 year olds to hit other people, do you?

Im not refuting that point with you because what you initially brought up was "are you retarded? If the law says 18 years old is an adult." you brought up the distinction between how to define an adult.
And I think no one should hit an officer unless they are like raping them or something like that. but that isn't my argument either. my point is that it isn't right for a police officer to hit her out of anger or to use excessive violence when it isn't necessary. it should be used when necessary and even then they should use only the amount of force or violence necessary to detain that individual. i believe his response would be more appropriate if it were someone more daunting, but i think he could have detained her without the need to slam her. think about this, there are thousands upon thousands of students in each public hs everywhere. A student resisting to move and being aggresive isn't new, but its been handled with less violence in the past a million times over. idk why his reaction had to be as harsh as it was.

Or, maybe he was following protocol because she was a legal adult and being in public school doesn't make you immune to the law. I would get the exact same treatment or worse, and I am also an adult, so I can safely say the officer is just doing his job.

its obviously not normal protocol if almost every other school in America is able to handle these situations without throwing their students across the floor... but whatever. agree to disagree. thank you for the discussion.

Yes. When you are 18 no court will try you as a child. The law says that you are fully able to live on your own and make your own decisions concerning your life and well-being. At least in the U.S. The distinction of 18 to 35 holds little clout in this discussion since both are considered to be adults. You don't have to like it, you just have to accept it.

idk why er are even still discussing this. we are discussing semantics. I mean adult in the social sense and not in the "technically the law says" sense. but to assume that because that just because the law says 18 is when you are tried as an adult means that person is an adult is a logical fallacy (appeal to authority)
but whether you consider her a mature grown member of society or not, it is not his place to dole out punishment. if she hits him, it is to the court to decide how she is handled, it should be his perogative still only to restrain her, and he could have done that without snapping her vertebrae. People think he was fired for this one incedent but he has a record of violence against students. idk how you can defend him. but wv.

That's where you are wrong, if she hits him, then that is resisting arrest and assault of a police officer. But disregarding that, she was given every opportunity to leave and then some, but she remains and strikes the police officer. Additionally, you do realize that in certain instances, 12 year old or even younger can be tried as adults if they commit crimes so heinous and it is confirmed that the individual can distinguish right from wrong.

How can you defend him? You're probably one of those fucks that thinks Michael Brown dindu nuffin.

I'm glad too yo! It's good to be back~

sometimes the roll gods are kind