LinusK
February 21, 2017, 10:15pm
201
raventhief:
I am not at all complaining. You were asked several times what your protest was meant to accomplish. Apparently you will only answer if you see a reason to go after women, so i provided one. Strike away.
I’m not planning on striking on march 8. Knock yourself out though.
You’re not complaining? That’s good to hear. That’s sort of the point of A Day Without Women, though - isn’t it? - to complain about how unfair it is.
So I’m glad you don’t think it’s unfair.
Actually I’m thinking of opting out of A Day Without Men - too many people depend on me. I can’t just take off for no reason.
No, not at all.
Complaining without suggesting a solution is simply whining. Complaining to bring attention to a problem is productive, even if you personally feel that other problems also deserve attention.
But please, be our guest and arrange whatever counterprotest or demonstration you like.
ETA: I do thank you for bringing this day to my attention. Despite being married too woman and the father of two others this particular demonstration would have gone completely unnoticed by me if it were not for your efforts.
Well, there you go. Never let everyone say LinusK can’t serve a purpose.
16 females died in WW2 as a result of enemy fire. The Holocaust killed another 2 million. Nazis also killed other women who belonged to groups they were committing genocide against, such as women with disabilities and Rom women.
Hiroshima:
Nagasaki:
It makes sense that roughly 50% of those people were female.
Now, if you want to reframe your statement to only women in military combat and non-combat roles, feel free. But your “approximately 0” claim is untrue.
Superdude:
16 females died in WW2 as a result of enemy fire. The Holocaust killed another 2 million. Nazis also killed other women who belonged to groups they were committing genocide against, such as women with disabilities and Rom women.
Hiroshima:
Nagasaki:
It makes sense that roughly 50% of those people were female.
Now, if you want to reframe your statement to only women in military combat and non-combat roles, feel free. But your “approximately 0” claim is untrue.
Presumably, very few American women died in Nazi death camps, and extremely few were present at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so his statement is mostly correct.
And even if he hadn’t specified “American”, his point (that American men fought on the front line and women mostly didn’t) was pretty obvious, so dismissing it by mentioning civilian victims, when you know quite well what he meant, is rather disingeneous.
And now we’re back to the “standard” Linus thread, where we debate his numbers on custody, and child support, and jobs, and domestic abuse, and every other damn thing he can think to show that women are uniquely privileged over men.
Been there. Done that.
Just Fuck Off.
clairobscur:
Presumably, very few American women died in Nazi death camps, and extremely few were present at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so his statement is mostly correct.
And even if he hadn’t specified “American”, his point (that American men fought on the front line and women mostly didn’t) was pretty obvious, so dismissing it by mentioning civilian victims, when you know quite well what he meant, is rather disingeneous.
During World War II, approximately 400,000 U.S. women served with the armed forces and more than 460 — some sources say the figure is closer to 543 — lost their lives as a result of the war, including 16 from enemy fire.
American women in World War II became involved in many tasks they rarely had before; as the war involved global conflict on an unprecedented scale, the absolute urgency of mobilizing the entire population made the expansion of the role of women inevitable. Their services were recruited through a variety of methods, including posters and other print advertising, as well as popular songs. Among the most iconic images were those depicting "Rosie the Riveter", a woman factory laborer performing what ...
More than 0, certainly, though far fewer than American men.
LinusK:
You’re not complaining? That’s good to hear. That’s sort of the point of A Day Without Women, though - isn’t it? - to complain about how unfair it is.
So I’m glad you don’t think it’s unfair.
Actually I’m thinking of opting out of A Day Without Men - too many people depend on me. I can’t just take off for no reason.
( to take a page from your book) why, i never said anything about the plight of women. I didn’t even suggest reasons why women might be protesting. I merely suggested reasons why men might want to strike. Since i asked you repeatedly and you ignored it. You however did complain about how hard it is to be a man.
LinusK
February 22, 2017, 2:32am
209
clairobscur:
Presumably, very few American women died in Nazi death camps, and extremely few were present at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so his statement is mostly correct.
And even if he hadn’t specified “American”, his point (that American men fought on the front line and women mostly didn’t) was pretty obvious, so dismissing it by mentioning civilian victims, when you know quite well what he meant, is rather disingeneous.
You must understand: logic, common sense, independent thought - these are not things of value here. Herd mentality rules. You must follow the herd.
Making fun of a typo - hilarious!
Facts - boring. (And probably racist.)
LinusK
February 22, 2017, 2:35am
210
Sunny_Daze:
And now we’re back to the “standard” Linus thread, where we debate his numbers on custody, and child support, and jobs, and domestic abuse, and every other damn thing he can think to show that women are uniquely privileged over men.
Been there. Done that.
Just Fuck Off.
Actually, this is my thread. Nobody forced you to click on it, or leave your childish comments. If you don’t like it, you’re cordially invited to go somewhere else.
LinusK
February 22, 2017, 2:40am
211
raventhief:
( to take a page from your book) why, i never said anything about the plight of women. I didn’t even suggest reasons why women might be protesting. I merely suggested reasons why men might want to strike. Since i asked you repeatedly and you ignored it. You however did complain about how hard it is to be a man.
It is hard to be a man. It’s easy to be male, but hard to be a man.
LinusK
February 22, 2017, 2:44am
212
Take those two whose names I don’t remember, who said they wished there were no men. Imagine, for a moment, if I said such a thing?
In any case, I wouldn’t, because I like women.
Except those who hate me for being male. They’re just hateful bigots.
bobot
February 22, 2017, 3:08am
213
Aint we a fuckin’ martyr.
Linus we don’t hate you for being a male. You could be a male, female, human, chimp, duck, or space alien. It wouldn’t matter.
We hate you for your other qualities.
LinusK
February 22, 2017, 3:30am
215
Raventhief, I’m confused. First you said:
Do woman make laws that affect men without hearing the men? Is gender inequality in the workplace a heavy burden for men? Do you find yourself having to explain that just because you work outside the home, that doesn’t mean what you do isn’t “real work”? Are your health issues not addressed because you’re a man? Did the President say he can do anything, including grabbing you by the dick? Is the matriarchy bringing you down?
Which sounds like you’re arguing women are oppressed.
Then you said:
Finally:
So what is your position, really?
No i was merely suggesting ways men may be oppressed. As i said.
clairobscur:
Presumably, very few American women died in Nazi death camps, and extremely few were present at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so his statement is mostly correct.
And even if he hadn’t specified “American”, his point (that American men fought on the front line and women mostly didn’t) was pretty obvious, so dismissing it by mentioning civilian victims, when you know quite well what he meant, is rather disingeneous.
Disingenuous? Damn. I was going for pedantic.
LinusK
February 22, 2017, 4:16am
218
I think you’re being disingenuous. But that’s ok. This is the place for it.
But seriously, what would it hurt to say what you really think?
I find it fairly easy, myself. Perhaps you’re not doing it right.
raventhief:
Linus?
raventhief:
Somehow, I dont think Linus is going to answer me. But I really am curious as to what prompted him to start this thread three times, and **what he thinks the Day Without Men will accomplish. **I understand what a Day Without immigrants and a Day Without Women is meant to say, but what does this protest mean?
Oh! is this an answer? No, it’s not.
LinusK:
Well, I read about “A Day Without Women,” and I was curious what the reaction would be if I proposed a “Day Without Men.”
The result was disheartening, but not surprising.
I was labeled a misogynist troll.
The logic, I guess, is that suggesting the same thing for men, as for women, is misogynistic.
raventhief:
So do you understand why there might be a “Day Without Women” and what it might be trying to accomplish? **What would a Day Without Men accomplish? **
And the gratuitous dig re tech support might not have helped your “cause,” whatever that might be.
raventhief:
So explain it! Air your many grievances and make your voice heard! Do woman make laws that affect men without hearing the men? Is gender inequality in the workplace a heavy burden for men? Do you find yourself having to explain that just because you work outside the home, that doesn’t mean what you do isn’t “real work”? Are your health issues not addressed because you’re a man? Did the President say he can do anything, including grabbing you by the dick? Is the matriarchy bringing you down?
Come on, make your voice heard! What do you want to accomplish with your Men’s Strike?
LinusK:
I think you’re being disingenuous. But that’s ok. This is the place for it.
But seriously, what would it hurt to say what you really think?
I don’t know, Linus, what would it hurt to say what you really think?