I don't think you understand what "together" means.
Again, this knee-jerk defensiveness doesn't help accomplish anything. Are you saying that the idea of "patriarchy" is being given too much credit and being blamed for things it's not responsible for, or are you saying patriarchy doesn't exist at all? Protip: If it's the latter, you're retarded.
That cracks me up. A bunch of poor, fat, ugly, angry women are going to change the world!
I am a mechanic and I was at work, I don't go to your job and tell you to wipe the jizz off your back.
Excuse me, I teach English to first graders. All the jizz is on my front, thank you very much.
Her entire conclusion is literally a list of how everything that is bad is part of patriarchy and that all of the issues that the Men's Rights Movement is seeking to advance are subsumed by Feminism. It's callous and it is offensive. Feminism is doingzeroto address male suicides, male workplace deaths, the draft, for men to be treated equally in custody battles, male homelessness. Oh, that's all patriarchy and because you are fighting that entirely new and made up concept you are on the side of men? All those issues are being tackled? Because patriarchy? I'm sure there are numerous feminist leaders that have demanded they too be available for forced conscription into the armed forces.
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.
When you turned 18 did you have to fill out a selective service card, failure of which to do so is punishable by up to five years in prison and a 250,000 dollar fine? Did you know that when women were getting the right to vote men were still being executed for refusing to fight in the first world war? For the U.S. the war in Vietnam had a death total of almost 60,000 people. Guess what gender almost all of them were. Guess how many of them were there against their wishes.
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.
The author is patronizing, condescending, arrogant, passive aggressive, and most importantly, wrong. The article is poorly written, the analogies used are insulting, and it makes the all-too-common mistake of referencing made-up, horseshit feminist concepts as though they were scientific laws, which they are not.
so you'd have no problem with forcing women sign up for the SSA when they turn 18?
God damn canadian.
