Feminism.org hijacking -- The site is back.

[Eluxsam]

I would love to converse with you intelligently but you have not given me a single argument to debate, all you've done is whined about how I've ruined the thread while in every post I've insisted that I haven't and explained why. Meanwhile there's people here trying to debate feminism. Good show.

Since page 6 you've been purposely stirring up argument and trying to derail the thread, warping facts to make for a better argument. Though you've made a few really good points, that doesn't change the facts that you were willingly participating in "ruining the thread" and now you're trying to play the innocent card.

[Ad Bot]

[Garnavis]

Now don't get me wrong. I support equal rights. What I don't support is giving women special treatment. If a women wants to do a mans job she better be able to preform the work a man can do also well as have the same rules and expectations as a man would. If they are some sort of eastern europe heavy steriod-estrogen user, well good for them.

We're not talking about special treatment.  You're just making the broad assumption that if we expected women to behave as our equals, they wouldn't be up to it, and that a woman who is must be some kind of steroid-using freak.  That kind of stuff is called prejudice and it's exactly what prevents women from having an equal opportunity in the first place.

[Wedge]

There was a point in time where women almost achieved equal rights, but then the Vietnam War came and many women didn't want to go to Vietnam to fight with the men. Yes there were women serving in Vietnam, but not in combat roles.
A. Yes I am sure. B. I am aware of. There are many women who can talk the the talk, but can't walk the walk.

Now don't get me wrong. I support equal rights. What I don't support is giving women special treatment. If a women wants to do a mans job she better be able to preform the work a man can do also well as have the same rules and expectations as a man would. If they are some sort of eastern europe heavy steriod-estrogen user, well good for them.

I don't know anything about the Vietnam War. In the Gulf Wars there were women serving in combat roles and some where taken as POWs. Obviously nobody is suggesting some kind of gender quota system that would put people not prepared for combat in combat positions.

Sojourner Truth gave a speech in 1851 that I think is especially relevant and worth reading.

Since page 6 you've been purposely stirring up argument and trying to derail the thread, warping facts to make for a better argument. Though you've made a few really good points, that doesn't change the facts that you were willingly participating in "ruining the thread" and now you're trying to play the innocent card.

We didn't ruin the thread. We made it better. Also you can't make a better argument by warping facts, that's silly. And I'm not playing the innocent card, I didn't do anything wrong to begin with. I really don't understand what your problem is with the discussion.

[Eluxsam]

We didn't ruin the thread. We made it better. Also you can't make a better argument by warping facts, that's silly. And I'm not playing the innocent card, I didn't do anything wrong to begin with. I really don't understand what your problem is with the discussion.

How did you make the thread better? Please, do explain that to me. All I see is you trying to promote some argument about prejudice that has nothing to do with this topic. This is about a website getting hijacked, not the feminism debate.

[Harm94]

We're not talking about special treatment.  You're just making the broad assumption that if we expected women to behave as our equals, they wouldn't be up to it, and that a woman who is must be some kind of steroid-using freak.  That kind of stuff is called prejudice and it's exactly what prevents women from having an equal opportunity in the first place.

>Woman working in a construction job and is expected to carry atleast 50lbs or equipment, but can only care 30.
>Does not get the job and sues the company for prejudice.

Now if it were some sort of office job and she was prevented from a promotion because of her gender then I could see the reasoning in the last sentence.

[Wedge]

This is about a website getting hijacked, not the feminism debate.

And that's where you're wrong. Discussions emerge in threads naturally. I've been trying to tell you this over and over and you don't seem to be getting it. If it was a general discussion thread, or mod discussion or something, then yeah, I'd take it elsewhere. But it's an off topic thread. Threads change. It was about some dumb thing happening to a website. Then it was about people talking about how dumb feminism was. There were a few pages about people wondering if the FBI would firebomb Badspot's house or something dumb like that.

There is nothing stopping you from having another conversation in the thread simultaneously. If you have something interesting to add about the feminisim.org hijacking, or Badspot's house blowing up, or whatever else you want to talk about, post it, and if someone wants to respond to it, they'll quote you. Threads aren't exclusive. You need to chill out.

[Wedge]

>Woman working in a construction job and is expected to carry atleast 50lbs or equipment, but can only care 30.
>Does not get the job and sues the company for prejudice.

Now if it were some sort of office job and she was prevented from a promotion because of her gender then I could see the reasoning in the last sentence.

Here's where you made the mistake. A woman cannot sue a company if they can't meet the physical requirements. Nobody can. That's a basic legal protection provided to employers.

You can only sue if you can prove that you were discriminated against based on gender (or some other reason). The 50lbs problem can be pretty easily disproved in a courtroom by asking someone to lift a bag of concrete. It will be obvious to the jury who's in the right so this argument just doesn't really have any merit to it.

[Harm94]

Feminists are also hypocrites.

[DnaUnstable]

Tl;dr:

Feminists are full of stuff (Don't hit on me silly boys or I'll rip your testicles off and tell the police you raped me~) and a bunch of teenagers and neckbeards did something stupid to their site so the owner started throwing a fit so the guys at the police station are saying "Oh yes Ms. we'll help you!" When really they couldn't care less about a few tabs getting renamed and are laughing amongst themselves when they found out the username and password were on default.

EDIT: I mean, what if men made a malinist thing. WE FEEL THAT WOMEN DONT RESPECT US, THEY GROUP US ALL INTO ONE BIG GROUP LABELED 'PIGS' AND THAT HURTS OUR FEELINGS. THEY ARE TRYING TO TAKE AWAY EVERYTHING WE CARE ABOUT; VIDEOGAMES, TOYS, CARS, AND MAKE THEM ABOUT THEM. WE SHOULD HIT THEM WHERE IT REALLY HURTS- IN THEIR CLITS- YEAH BOYS WE THE BIG ONES NOW!!!!

[Garnavis]

>Woman working in a construction job and is expected to carry atleast 50lbs or equipment, but can only care 30.
>Does not get the job and sues the company for prejudice.

Coming up with stupid hypothetical situations doesn't prove anything.  The problem is the assumption that women can't keep up with men in a job simply because they're women, and that's the assumption you are making with comments like "There are many women who can talk the the talk, but can't walk the walk."

[Eluxsam]

And that's where you're wrong. Discussions emerge in threads naturally. I've been trying to tell you this over and over and you don't seem to be getting it. If it was a general discussion thread, or mod discussion or something, then yeah, I'd take it elsewhere. But it's an off topic thread. Threads change. It was about some dumb thing happening to a website. Then it was about people talking about how dumb feminism was. There were a few pages about people wondering if the FBI would firebomb Badspot's house or something dumb like that.

There is nothing stopping you from having another conversation in the thread simultaneously. If you have something interesting to add about the feminisim.org hijacking, or Badspot's house blowing up, or whatever else you want to talk about, post it, and if someone wants to respond to it, they'll quote you. Threads aren't exclusive. You need to chill out.

So you want me to chill out, even though you're the one who launched the first insult?

[Menen]

Why to females complain about not having equal rights, but then you dont see males in jobs like Banks or Groceries Store Clerks or Waiters or Flight Attendants or Banks

[Garnavis]

Feminists are also hypocrites.

"Some awful women on a stuffty talk show said some bad things, therefore all feminism is invalid!"

Feminists are full of stuff (Don't hit on me silly boys or I'll rip your testicles off and tell the police you raped me~)

[Harm94]

Coming up with stupid hypothetical situations doesn't prove anything.  The problem is the assumption that women can't keep up with men in a job simply because they're women, and that's the assumption you are making with comments like "There are many women who can talk the the talk, but can't walk the walk."

So equally to you is where a woman can do anything a man could, only less while still having protection from men? Or is it something else. Since almost everything you said is about me "being wrong and a typical opressing", tell what this man-woman equality thing is to you.

"Some awful women on a stuffty talk show said some bad things, therefore all feminism is invalid!"

You failed to watch the whole video because there is much more he is argueing about than the talk show.

[Wedge]

Feminists are also hypocrites.

So he uses a single example of something that happened in the media as an example to discredit an entire movement when the very depictions of mutilation he described probably occur in some flash video on newgrounds. If that's seriously his argument then he's about as good as arguing as the average Blockland member. I don't know why he deserves the title the Amazing Atheist unless he chose it ironically and this is some big parody thing that I'm just not in on.

So you want me to chill out, even though you're the one who launched the first insult?

Yeah, well, sorry, but you quoted him and said "This SO MUCH." I call it like I see it. You also derailed the thread by talking about something other than the feminism.org hijacking.

Why to females complain about not having equal rights, but then you dont see males in jobs like Banks or Groceries Store Clerks or Waiters or Flight Attendants or Banks

What country do you live in because I have traveled all over the US and seen plenty of men doing these jobs too. This argument also doesn't make sense because you could literally rewrite it as "Why do slaves complain about not having equal rights, but you don't see whites in slavery" and it's pretty much intact.