Hmm, so your “cites” consist of
(1) a poster using the phrase “women’s equality issues”,
(2) a poster commenting that they’re involved in outreach to girls in STEM fields,
(3) the same poster noting that a male colleague objected to a woman director,
(4) the same poster making a statement in which you think you can read a biased “subtext”,
(5) my own reference to male equality in parental roles in the context of a discussion specifically about alleged lack of male equality in parental roles,
(6) the abovementioned second poster questioning the motives of MRAs’ focus on custody issues, which you completely gratuitously choose to interpret as the claim that “fathers want control” whereas “mothers are saintly self-sacrificers”, which the poster never said or implied.
These are the examples you’ve managed to come up with of posters in this thread allegedly “demonstrating their pro-woman/anti-man bias”. :dubious:
Well, I have to admit that these feeble attempts to support your original absurd assertion certainly deserved nothing better than that in response. Good on you for being self-aware enough to realize it, if only belatedly.
And you, in return, have failed to support your own assertions. I’m unsure why you think listing the few examples I fetched (we can extrapolate that there are many more) in any way refutes them. I was right though, that ‘rubbish rubbish rubbish’ would be breadth and depth of the feminist contribution to ‘adult, intelligent debate’. I admire your chutzpah in suggesting the prediction of that response was somehow ‘self’ awareness…
I Just came across an interesting article about women’s groups campaigning to get women drafted in the US. It’s from a good few years ago, and yet they still haven’t achieved it. Fancy that - when feminists can get good men sacked for a shirt or a quip overnight, they can’t ‘draft’ enough support for the draft.
The article makes for interesting reading:
*Feminist groups did not participate in the lower court proceedings, and for many the issue posed a dilemma. Many of the groups, including the National Organization for Women, which calls itself the largest feminist organization in the world, were opposed to any draft. The notion that the proposed equal rights amendment might require that women fight alongside men has long been raised by opponents of the amendment, a fact that injected political risk to any focus of attention on the issue.
On the other hand, as Eleanor Smeal, the president of the National Organization for Women, observed the other day, when she lobbies state legislatures in behalf of the equal rights amendment, male legislators frequently say to her, ‘‘When you women fight in a war, then we’ll talk about equal rights.’’ ‘Argument of Entitlement’
That ‘‘argument of entitlement,’’ as Mrs. Smeal calls it, was one of the factors that persuaded her that exclusion from the draft hurt the interests of women.*
Fascinating stuff. NOW on record as opposed to equality when they don’t want it, and only coming round to the idea when they were apparently surprised by the argument that equality should be applied equally. Fortunately for all those feminists who’d rather fight on twitter than the front line, NOW have failed to achieve that particular equality that they reluctantly accepted the need for decades ago. Bah, patriarchy!
I’d say that claiming that feminists don’t support drafting women, and then learning that the leading feminist group has supported it since 1981, and then pretending you found out (and ignoring the fact that you were wrong about it) and then blaming them for not getting it passed is desperate and craven.
It’s been 30+ years since Smeal said this, yet you still can’t bear to admit that NOW supports drafting women, and you have to dwell on the fact that it didn’t take this position until freakin’ 1981.
Do you go around bashing men for all the stupid arguments against letting women vote, and for not doing it until 1920 too?
Just be a man (so to speak) and admit you were wrong about something. Jeez.