It’s not ire for women, it’s ridicule for you personally.
Well, “uterocracy” wasn’t - there was a specific context for that one.
Interesting. Feminism is admirable only if it doesn’t focus on women. Got it.
Well since you’ve already admitted that I’m right, I suppose I can stand a little ridicule for a good cause.
I’ll cast another vote for you to get over yourself. Women use the word “chick” nearly as often as men do, so are we being sexist somehow too?
Just so I’m crystal clear on the issue, Two Many Cats, are you saying that if rape were a crime with primarily male victims, then there would be more done in the fight against it?
Why don’t you send a letter to Hillary Clinton and say, “I think it’s great that you made it possible for chicks to aspire to the presidency.” Then get back to me with her response.
Let me be clear. “Chick” isn’t hate speech. It’s dismissive speech. And yes, it’s a pity then that women use it too. Although I certainly haven’t heard them use it very much.
Certain blacks also like to use the n-word amongst themselves. Also a pity. But that’s none of my business.
No, I’m not saying that at all. But certainly, men would not have to be careful to frame the problem as a crime issue instead of a men’s issue in order to avoid looking like a bunch of whiny bitches.
I think if there were a sudden epidemic of violent homosexual rapes, we would hear plenty about it. And no one would roll their eyes either.
What do you think?
Of course, if it was a sudden epidemic of women raping men…well, I’m not so sure there wouldn’t be plenty of joking about it. But men would be laughing the loudest.
Lisa Madigan’s hot in a nerd-chick way. I’d do her.
Actually, I’ve decided that this is a more interesting question upon further reflection. If, for whatever reason, there were a sudden explosion in the number of male homosexual rapes, so much so that there were more male victims than female victims of heterosexual rape, would there be a corresponding increased interest in funding the processing of rape kits into a national database?
Hmmmmm, I’m going to go out on a limb here and say yes. Quite possibly there would be.
I guess I really am one of those feminazi bitches. I’m so disappointed in myself.
You men of course will disagree with me on this?
I can name several posters on this board that seem to be man-hater’s or at the very least sexist women disguised as “feminists”.
However, until now there were never any as wacko as Der Trihs is when he discusses women in general or men’s rights/issues.
But now you chicks have your very own Crazy Crusader!
Excuse me, where have I said anything hateful about men? Or sexist about men?
I did suggest, reluctantly, to a question not my own, that men might have more of an interest in funding the processing of rape kits if there were more male victims of rape than female. Yes, I specified male homosexual rape because that is a more visceral senario then the prospect of a wave of female on male rapes. I fear that scenario would provoke more giggles than serious responses. And this thread has generated more lame jokes than it needs right now.
Do you disagree? If so, explain your answer.
Whoa, who put the sand in your vagina? 
ducks and runs
-A woman who proudly refers to herself as a chick
If as many men, were having test kits run, as women are, it would still bankrupt police forces to process every rape kit. Do the freaking math. Do you have the vaguest idea how much it costs to run one kit? It’s ain’t cheap.
You can cast whatever aspersions you wish, on whomever you wish, in pursuit of your agenda, but it won’t change that this is a simple math problem, Deary.
But you’re complaining about really, really nothing.
If you were complaining about how most people being exploited in those sucky part-time jobs (in huge hypermarkets, for instance) are women, then you might have a very good point.
But I’ve never heard a Western feminist complain about anything else than silly things like language-related stuff. Not about the gruesome situation of some lone-mothers unable to close their monthly budget. I guess that’s because being a feminist is a bourgeois pastime.
In a larger sense, I haven’t been talking about rape kits. I’ve already stated that the mere transportation of rape kits to forensic labs wouldn’t solve the problem. I’ve agreed with Bryan Ekers that it is more advisable to focus on funding the processing of evidence as a crime problem instead of a women’s issue.
I’ll go further. I’m not all that upset about the use of the word chick. I find it a dismissive term, but then, I think dude is a dismissive term too. Perhaps this is facet of my age. I tend to use the word girls when refering to women. You could argue that girl is a dismissive term. Girlie things, girlie girl. Dressed in frilly pink and inconsequential. But I still use the term. Incredibly, refering to myself a a woman takes a more concious effort on my part than refering to myself as a girl.
But the word girl implies not fully mature. This is how women have been regarded throughout history. And there is a lingering sexist mindset that not fully mature is how women should be. Why else would there be so much pressure for women to look younger than they are?
But returning to the issue, I find it odd that no one has disputed my answer to Hal Briston’s question about the funding of sexual crime forensics based on gender circumstances.
Hm, still no response. Apparently I’ve stumped the mob. Okay, I’ll help you.
“Well gee, Two Many Cats, if what you are saying is true, why isn’t there far more of a push to fund evidence processing of murder sites? Murder affects men far more than women.”
I can’t answer right now. I’m at my temp job, and taking a terrible risk posting just this much. But just consider that question for a bit. See if you can guess my answer.
Okay, but can we have longer than 90 minutes this time before you answer for us?
Yep. Homosexuals get so much more respect in our society than women do. :rolleyes:
Look, you’ve posted so much bullshit in this thread that it’s hard to believe that you’re not trolling. It’s almost like you’ve constructed a little fantasy world in your head so that you can feel self-righteous in your manufactured oppression.
But take a look at the world around you. In the past few years we’ve had not one, but two women make runs for the White House, and come pretty damn close. One of those was a governor, and the other is a senator. Women now go into combat alongside men. Women go into space. Women are doctors, lawyers, CEOs, and just about every other profession that you can dream of. Women pretty much run the office where I work. There are sexual harassment laws in place, and they’re pretty severe. Feel oppressed all you want, but over the past 50 years some pretty significant changes have been made.
Of course, that didn’t prevent you from calling men “whiny bitches” a few posts back. What was that all about?
Read that post again. I said men wouldn’t be called “whiny bitches”. That’s quite a difference.
For those of you still wondering about my murder question, I’ll leave a hint as to my answer:
“Feminism is only admirable if it doesn’t focus on women.”
You’re actual quote was
which could be interpreted in a number of ways. But interpreting it the way you meant, I’d have to disagree. If men said it’s a men’s issue and not a crime issue, there would indeed be a lot of accusations of whiny bitchiness. In fact, I’d almost say that we get accused of that far more than women are, and for far lesser “crimes” than being raped.