Butthurt white guys, an Asian virgin and an angry lesbian walk into a bar...

This is mainstream feminism



Gaze into the abyss and despair!

Tbh, I'm kinda surprised that they letcha. I haven't thought about it much. I don't see why they wouldn't let you.

I suppose they respect the desire to kill.

Mist_sl said:

I was very close to signing up as well. The whole rapeyness thing was a serious dealbreaker. And yes, I do realize that more men get raped in the military than women, but that's a meaningless statistic because the odds of any given male being raped is still ~1/6th of the chance of any given female being raped.

Click to expand...

It's also kinda like saying that more men get raped in federal prison. I mean.. I would expect so.

Mist_sl said:

Really? In order to have a draft, the need for soldiers would have to exceed the number of eager volunteers that the marketplace can create via economic desperation. I don't see that ever happening.

I mean, there's some assumptions here. Assumption #1 being that whatever global situation that would require the draft would have already created plenty of economic desperation long before that point.

Click to expand...

Do you often make absurd claims and rocket them out your asshole at the speed of light, with utterly no qualifier other than your own--on the spot made up bull shit?


Oh right yeah that's you for the entire length of this thread.


You couldn't sound anymore like a kid with no life experince if you tried.

A draft isn't as unrealistic as you think since the armed services have been seriously hurting for non retarded enlistees. With our overseas shit winding down the chance is pretty much past, but if we had elected Romney and ended up at war with more people, a draft would have been a very real possibility.

Tanoomba_sl said:

Please elaborate, without resorting to "But look what THIS 'feminist' says" and linking to the aforementioned redhead.

Click to expand...

She runs through a list of MRA gripes, like higher male worker deaths, disproportionately dangerous positions, unfair court bias, And we could go on--like the massive differences in federal grant money for male vs female diseases ect); and says "those are part of patriarchy andFeminism doesn't like them!" (I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with this being a problem, mind you--just stating the typical MRA gripes). However, the reality is that there is a very powerful group of radical, or highly ideological feminists that view the "system" as zero sum gains--and so actively try to dissuade any progress in these areas of "unfairness" because they believe that any aid to men will begin a back lash against "women" and destroy the gains made.

You'vewritten these protests and lobby efforts off as some"radicals that don't represent "us"("Normal" Feminists who genuinely want equality and view female favoring disparities as vestiges of chauvinist patriarchy).Butthe problem Tan, and the problem with that article, is just like in politics--typically the most radical elements of any group, are ALSO the most active. So while, I have no doubt, the vast swath of feminist believe in what that person said--the most active and far more radical "feminists" will be the ones actually dictating policy in the real world.

Really, man. It's amazing you said the Tea party comparison was a good article--and then link the "feminism" article was ALSO good. Don't you see how they are completely at odds? Groups are almost ALWAYS slaves to their most radical members (Again, mainly due to their political capital being spendable 24/7, 365, while moderates lose support outside of elections or important events); and there are plenty of logical reasons that this happens (I could expand if you want in another post, but it would be long). Hell, for the last 30+ years the dominant political campaign strategy, designed by Rove, has been exploiting that trend amongst political groups. And you know what? It works.

So denying on one hand that the radicals aren't "real feminism", like that article states--while then acknowledging that the radicals have hijacked your ideology seems like an instance of you explaining to yourself why that article was crap. Again, don't get me wrong--I'm a big picture kind of guy, those gripes in the greater context,

Also you should slam the door in a woman's face instead of holding it open for her.

Whoa there little lady, you don't want to start down the road of male disposability even accidentally.

Here thar be dragons.

Mist_sl said:

The world has changed, and there's no going back to that world without the collapse of modern civilization. Whatever massive breakdown that would get us to that point would have already knocked global capitalism on its ear, and brought markets to a halt.

We'd be so way fucked that people would be begging to join just for 3 squares.

Click to expand...

Wait until ACTUAL peak oil; you'll see another draft. The moment the fields need to be controlled militarily, instead of by proxy through destabilization efforts--we'll need more troops. Unless drones can do the job within 30 years (Which might be possible), it's entirely reasonable to see another draft without the need for a civilization collapsing war. Policing third world shit holes takes a lot of man power.

Mist_sl said:

CURRENT SOURCE PLZ. The last time we were scraping even close to the bottom of the barrel for was 2005, because the economy was still rolling along decently in most parts of the country. They're back to turning people away again.

Further, your point makes no sense. Romney being elected would not have magically created the money for another war of that scale.

Click to expand...

Admittedly I'm out of touch, so I wouldn't be surprised if we're back to turning people away, but I assume that mostly has to do with our overseas presence being scaled back.

What the fuck does us having the money for a war have to do with anything? We didn't have the money for the shit Bush pulled, but since when does reality get in the way of a Republican?