Real Misogyny: Debunking the War on Women

[TemplarKormac]

not knowing what he is talking about ....never stops simple......if he doesnt have facts he will just lie...and go with it....the simple and shielded mind....

And you will never come up with a cogent argument.

1) Prove that I lied.

2) Prove that I have a "shielded mind"

It appears you have the shielded mind, just as all the far left individuals do about about women. "War on women" you say? Can't be any more shielded than that, my friend. For there to be a "war on women" there needs to be a "war." For that, you can shift your gaze to the middle east, not within our borders.

In America Women:

1) can vote.

2) can drive.

3) can marry someone of their choosing.

4) can get a job

5) are treated as full fledged human beings, not as 1/4th of one.

6) Do not live in fear of being publicly beaten or stoned for speaking out.

So bones, are you going to insult me as a means to an end, or are you going to grow a backbone and argue me?

 

[Disir]

Based on what? Your feewings that American women are abused and mistreated? Whatever.

Nope. Based on the legislation via the states. It's ok. He could not wrap his brain around it either. His argument seemed to be quite emotional and so is yours.

Ad hominem does not an argument make. If all you can do is sit there and insult my intelligence, then by default you are conceding defeat to my point. See, I wasn't referring to "legislation in the states" which as far as I can tell, do not involve banning women in America from getting jobs, an education, driving or otherwise depriving them of "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness." Nor have I ever seen a state passing legislation that requires all the men to sodomize them at an early age, or mutilate their genitals. Your argument is preposterous.

I'm beginning to think you can't wrap your brain around the fact that women here in the states are far better off, that they aren't being mistreated by conservatives, and don't fall in line with your definition of "abused" or "mistreated." There is no war on women in America. Deal with it.

No, what you did was start from a position of alleged myth busting by not addressing the "myths". Further, not only did you not comprehend what it actually means, you attempted to make a comparison with something else that you did not fully grasp. In fact, you were given a specific meaning as it what the war on women entails. Legislation via the states and rhetoric.

You don't have a case because you couldn't even figure out how to address the issues. That's a you problem not a me problem. Frankly, you just look silly.

 

[Toro]

I don't know much about this topic so I'm going to check my binders full of women and ask them.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Nope. Based on the legislation via the states. It's ok. He could not wrap his brain around it either. His argument seemed to be quite emotional and so is yours.

Ad hominem does not an argument make. If all you can do is sit there and insult my intelligence, then by default you are conceding defeat to my point. See, I wasn't referring to "legislation in the states" which as far as I can tell, do not involve banning women in America from getting jobs, an education, driving or otherwise depriving them of "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness." Nor have I ever seen a state passing legislation that requires all the men to sodomize them at an early age, or mutilate their genitals. Your argument is preposterous.

I'm beginning to think you can't wrap your brain around the fact that women here in the states are far better off, that they aren't being mistreated by conservatives, and don't fall in line with your definition of "abused" or "mistreated." There is no war on women in America. Deal with it.

that isn't an ad hom....

you should probably look up the term.

misogynists really need to stop telling women what they should find offensive.

and he didn't say american women were abused and mistreated. cesspit did.

and she's into S&M so her judgment as to what abuse is might not be a credible basis for discussion.

Ad hominem is when you attack the person's character instead of their argument. I know what it means. You on the other hand just made a "tu quoque" argument.

You are being the misogynist, for telling women what they should and should not get offended at. You robbing them of the ability to think freely and make their own judgements about what's misogynistic, is misogynistic by itself. It's just as misogynistic as it is racist for someone to tell a black man how to act or think or vote.

Your reaction is quite telling, jillian. Is there some sort of hierarchy with feminists or something? Must you shepherd women into one mindset or another? Yeah...

Nevermind the fact that the rest of your post didn't make one iota of sense.

 

[JoeB131]

I don't know much about this topic so I'm going to check my binders full of women and ask them.

You were the one who thought he was a great candidate...

 

[TemplarKormac]

Nope. Based on the legislation via the states. It's ok. He could not wrap his brain around it either. His argument seemed to be quite emotional and so is yours.

Ad hominem does not an argument make. If all you can do is sit there and insult my intelligence, then by default you are conceding defeat to my point. See, I wasn't referring to "legislation in the states" which as far as I can tell, do not involve banning women in America from getting jobs, an education, driving or otherwise depriving them of "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness." Nor have I ever seen a state passing legislation that requires all the men to sodomize them at an early age, or mutilate their genitals. Your argument is preposterous.

I'm beginning to think you can't wrap your brain around the fact that women here in the states are far better off, that they aren't being mistreated by conservatives, and don't fall in line with your definition of "abused" or "mistreated." There is no war on women in America. Deal with it.

No, what you did was start from a position of alleged myth busting by not addressing the "myths". Further, not only did you not comprehend what it actually means, you attempted to make a comparison with something else that you did not fully grasp. In fact, you were given a specific meaning as it what the war on women entails. Legislation via the states and rhetoric.

You don't have a case because you couldn't even figure out how to address the issues. That's a you problem not a me problem. Frankly, you just look silly.

Your argument in summation:

"Your opinion didn't jibe with my opinion, therefore your opinion is wrong and you look silly."

Really? Is it really that hard to comprehend that women in America aren't being mistreated as badly as those are in the middle east? Do I need to pull some actual evidence of women who have had vats of acid thrown in their face? Or of women with their noses chopped off? I can get really graphic if I need to. I can cite Malala Yousafzai as a prime example.

The myth here, is that in America, there is a "war on women." Myth busted.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I don't know much about this topic so I'm going to check my binders full of women and ask them.

You were the one who thought he was a great candidate...

And you were the one who voted for Obama...

 

[DriftingSand]

How odd that they all have the same victimizes, heterosexual men.

LOL. Dude comes to the "rescue" of homos but remains eerily silent concerning the OP. Who can spell A-G-E-N-D-A?

 

[Disir]

Ad hominem does not an argument make. If all you can do is sit there and insult my intelligence, then by default you are conceding defeat to my point. See, I wasn't referring to "legislation in the states" which as far as I can tell, do not involve banning women in America from getting jobs, an education, driving or otherwise depriving them of "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness." Nor have I ever seen a state passing legislation that requires all the men to sodomize them at an early age, or mutilate their genitals. Your argument is preposterous.

I'm beginning to think you can't wrap your brain around the fact that women here in the states are far better off, that they aren't being mistreated by conservatives, and don't fall in line with your definition of "abused" or "mistreated." There is no war on women in America. Deal with it.

No, what you did was start from a position of alleged myth busting by not addressing the "myths". Further, not only did you not comprehend what it actually means, you attempted to make a comparison with something else that you did not fully grasp. In fact, you were given a specific meaning as it what the war on women entails. Legislation via the states and rhetoric.

You don't have a case because you couldn't even figure out how to address the issues. That's a you problem not a me problem. Frankly, you just look silly.

Your argument in summation:

"Your opinion didn't jibe with my opinion, therefore your opinion is wrong and you look silly."

Really? Is it really that hard to comprehend that women in America aren't being mistreated as badly as those are in the middle east? Do I need to pull some actual evidence of women who have had vats of acid thrown in their face? Or of women with their noses chopped off? I can get really graphic if I need to. I can cite Malala Yousafzai as a prime example.

The myth here, is that in America, there is a "war on women." Myth busted.

No, hon............it has a specific meaning. In fact, your entire argument is that of a misogynist. You are going to ignore the meaning because you don't like it and then make up what ever meaning that you want inside your head and pretend that is what it is all about.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

not knowing what he is talking about ....never stops simple......if he doesnt have facts he will just lie...and go with it....the simple and shielded mind....

And you will never come up with a cogent argument.

1) Prove that I lied.

2) Prove that I have a "shielded mind"

It appears you have the shielded mind, just as all the far left individuals do about about women. "War on women" you say? Can't be any more shielded than that, my friend. For there to be a "war on women" there needs to be a "war." For that, you can shift your gaze to the middle east, not within our borders.

In America Women:

1) can vote.

2) can drive.

3) can marry someone of their choosing.

4) can get a job

5) are treated as full fledged human beings, not as 1/4th of one.

6) Do not live in fear of being publicly beaten or stoned for speaking out.

So bones, are you going to insult me as a means to an end, or are you going to grow a backbone and argue me?

That you and others on the social right are oblivious to the fact that your agenda is fundamentally hostile to the civil rights of women comes as no surprise, abusers are often unaware of their abuse.

And your inane argument about women fails for the same reason your inane argument concerning gay Americans failed: that gays or women might ‘have it worse’ in some other country doesn’t mitigate the fact you and other conservatives indeed seek to deny both classes of persons their civil liberties.

 

[Toro]

I don't know much about this topic so I'm going to check my binders full of women and ask them.

You were the one who thought he was a great candidate...

^^^^
This.

 

[Unkotare]

That you and others on the social right are oblivious to the fact that your agenda is fundamentally hostile to the civil rights of women comes as no surprise, abusers are often unaware of their abuse.

You realize, of course, that argument could be turned right around on you.

 

[JoeB131]

So now you are looking to the mal-adjusted dude for support? Really?

Hey, how'd that Romney candidacy work out for you guys again?

 

[Unkotare]

So now you are looking to the mal-adjusted dude for support? Really?

Hey, how'd that Romney candidacy work out for you guys again?

How's that rabid bigotry and shameless hypocrisy working out for you personally?

 

[JoeB131]

So now you are looking to the mal-adjusted dude for support? Really?

Hey, how'd that Romney candidacy work out for you guys again?

How's that rabid bigotry and shameless hypocrisy working out for you personally?

It worked out wonderfully. I said Romney was a shitty candidate in 2008, and I was right.

I said he was a shitty candidate in 2012, and I was right again.

The Hypocrisy was all the Evangelicals and Fundementalists who have been calling MOrmons "Heretics" and "Cultists" for a century suddenly getting behind one because there was a Negro in the White House.

This will be yet another concept you will be unable to refute or even comprehend.

 

[Unkotare]

So now you are looking to the mal-adjusted dude for support? Really?

Hey, how'd that Romney candidacy work out for you guys again?

How's that rabid bigotry and shameless hypocrisy working out for you personally?

It worked out wonderfully.

So you're comfortable being a shameless fucking hypocrite, a bigoted low-life, and a mouth-boxing pussy who will never - EVER - act on any of the silly nonsense he fantasizes about here? You're comfortable being all that rather than a real human being? How wonderful for you. You're fucking disgrace.

 

[Toro]

So now you are looking to the mal-adjusted dude for support? Really?

Does Unkatore blacklist people for their religion or fantasize beating people to death because they fired someone? That type of "mal-adjusted?"

 

[JoeB131]

So now you are looking to the mal-adjusted dude for support? Really?

Does Unkatore blacklist people for their religion or fantasize beating people to death because they fired someone? That type of "mal-adjusted?"

Do you read his posts, guy?

Are we going into another round of "Let's mischaracterize what Joe says in sarcastic humor"?

Because those are always fun to watch your butthurt.

Point is, a lot of you guys threw in with Romney because you thought you'd get something you'd want.

And you all tried to pretend he wasn't a greedy asshole with a crazy religion.

And then you wonder why he lost.

 

[Toro]

So now you are looking to the mal-adjusted dude for support? Really?

Does Unkatore blacklist people for their religion or fantasize beating people to death because they fired someone? That type of "mal-adjusted?"

Do you read his posts, guy?

Are we going into another round of "Let's mischaracterize what Joe says in sarcastic humor"?

Because those are always fun to watch your butthurt.

Point is, a lot of you guys threw in with Romney because you thought you'd get something you'd want.

And you all tried to pretend he wasn't a greedy asshole with a crazy religion.

And then you wonder why he lost.

Saying that all CEOs who outsource should be hung, that fired workers should be allowed to beat their ex-bosses with baseball bats in a locked room, and that union workers should be allowed to stalk kids is hardly attempts at sarcastic humour.

What you have written is some if the most odious things I've ever read here.

 

[JoeB131]

[
Saying that all CEOs who outsource should be hung, that fired workers should be allowed to beat their ex-bosses with baseball bats in a locked room, and that union workers should be allowed to stalk kids is hardly attempts at sarcastic humour.

What you have written is some if the most odious things I've ever read here.

Yes, a parasite usually finds it odious when the host talks about removing it.

Hey, guy, you put Plutocracy on the ballot in 2012, and people rejected it.

Maybe instead of fretting about working people, you need to actually start acting decently.

Just a thought.