Washington State Gets Rid Of "sexist" Language

Really? I guess all those pornos, erotic books, and role playing dealing with rape fantasies is illegal.
Please list this law where all men are rapists.

I don't give a ***if some random woman/man says all men are rapists. Just like I don't care if some random person says I shouldn't vote because I'm an atheist. Until it becomes a law, it's just freedom of speech. If you are offended by it well....

Guy says something offensive to a lady.
Lady slaps him and walks out.
Nothing more happens.

Lady offends a guy.
Guy slaps her.
The police are now involved.

Are you telling me you don't see a difference?

I swear you're intentionally trying to misinterpret what I'm saying.

The leaders of the feminist movement say they are. They lobby to create laws that punish men and reward women, either directly or via transfer of resources. They lobby against laws that would treat men and women the same if that law would remove female privilege. Custody & alimony are two prime examples, but rape, sexual harassment, and sexual assault laws are other places. They strive to shame, degrade and emasculate men whenever possible while spreading hate speech.

If you took what the leaders and spokeswomen of the feminist movement said and simply swapped genders there would be public outcry and demand for political retribution. Yet instead they get standing ovations, invitations to state events and special *awards* and *recognitions*. Misandry is so rampant and politically accepted that the old 70's and 80's feminists have started standing up and saying "this isn't right", some have even disavowed feminism all together.

Western society is about to go through a huge culture shock. Feminism has been successful in destroying the foundations that enable a society to be successful. That of convincing young males to work harder and create more work / labor then is required for their subsistence.

lolwut

You're grasping at straws man. Or was that strawmen?

So you can't find any laws that outlaw rape fantasies for men or name men rapists for just looking at a woman?

So did the NAACP. Look how much good that has actually done :)

strawperson

Neither. I stated exactly what was being removed. Humans work by incentive, they need a reason to do something otherwise they do the minimal possible to survive. For males it was the obligation to provide for family (wife + children) that created the expectation to work harder then required. Current family courts completely remove that requirement, men are better off not marrying nor having children. With male contraceptives a few years away there won't be anymore unwanted children.

What exactly do you guys think is going to happen to western society about 30 years from now? Aging population, not enough young children born to produce excess labor to fuel progress.

Me and you not wanting children doesn't mean the whole world moves in that direction. There's no impending extinction, don't worry.

And this folks is why feminists lose debates.

Find anywhere I stated there was a law against


I said no such thing. Kara's brain was unable to process rational information and instead substituted their own beliefs for my words. Essentially Kara is arguing against him(her)self while using feelings instead of actual logic. The only way to win is to simply ignore her(him).

What I stated was that feminist leaders believe the above statements and are lobbying for legislation that suspends mens rights while also transferring wealth to females, either directly or through government welfare.

No more unwanted children? You're completely ignoring the aaall too common situation in which an abusive partner will knock up their girlfriend/wife (usually by (marital) rape) and forbid them an abortion (or live in a place where it's not feasible to get one, makes this even easier) and they will be stuck being dependant on them, so they have to stay with said abusive partner.

I guess you really only meant "No more unwanted children for MEN"

You are completing overlooking immigration which is how the US has expanded its population so quickly the last 100 years +

Who decides if something comes under the criteria of rapists?

Oh, lawmakers and laws do.



Post the bill that is being debated.

Not extinction, that's extreme. Notice I said 30 years from now, not tomorrow.

It's a problem that's mostly been kept out of the mainstream news yet you can see article after article about the lack of available successful men in their 30's for marriage. Divorce rate is now north of 50%, unchecked female hypergamy means no marriage will be "happy" for very long. No man in his right mind is going to risk 50% of all his wealth (at a minimum) plus sizable future alimony payments on the hope that the women he's dating doesn't decide the grass is greener somewhere else. There is nothing that men get out of marriage and thus no incentive to enter into it. Further there is very little reason to have children and with RISUG already in human trials (with a success rate far outstripping any other form of birth control) there won't be anymore "accidentally on purpose" pregnancies used to shame men into commitment.

Really, you think that all men feel like you about paternity? Surely births see a decrease for obvious reasons that we don't need to discuss, but believing that men have no reason to have children or that they're out of their mind if they do is insane.

And this comes from a woman who doesn't want children. Please open your mind a bit if you really think that every man is like you and if he's not he's demented or something.

You assume that all men look at marriage logically or financially. People marry for numerous reasons and very little of it comes down to an objective look at dollars and cents because well love, partnership, social factors or any number other emotions come into play. The American drive to be married before ~35 also forces the hands of adults to pair off or risk being socially stigmatized as being damaged goods by their peers. This is one reason marriage fails, people jump into it because they are expected to rather than being prepared to.

Further your gross oversimplification of women is frankly appalling. For every headstrong woman who destroys any attempt at partnership by being an overbearing turd, there are women who are still subservient dolls to their male masters. I hear religion is quite effective at creating such women. The field is still ripe in either direction and that ignores the large amount of women who fall somewhere in the middle. It's called search and find the type of woman who suits you rather than dismiss everyone as being secret practitioners of misandry.

There are plenty of reasons to have children and again logic need not apply. You will grow old, you will consider your legacy and nothing cures that little problem than a wide-eyed, impressionable heir that carries your blood in his/her veins. The question isn't even if you can afford to raise the child because well... people have been doing more with less for centuries.

Now read very carefully again and don't base your arguments on misread information. I never said "all" or "every". I stated that there is no incentive for successful men to pursue families.

Divorce rate has been heading steadily up not down and feminists are fighting hard to keep alimony / child custody laws heavily in favor of women. The primary reason for marriage is to create an idea stable environment to raise children. We've destroyed the social system that was needed to support that artificial environment, humans are now reverting to the ancient ways. Marriage 1.0 (both partners have socially enforced obligations) is dead and Marriage 2.0 (only men have socially enforced obligations) is a bad deal for men.

Once male contraceptives are available its game over. Males everywhere are going to be lining up down the street to get that shot. "Accidental" pregnancies instantly become a thing of the past, no more "get pregnant to make him commit" tactics. With no incentive to get married and no more accidental pregnancies, birth rates will plummet. You'll end up with only the poor and uneducated / unskilled having children. And shortly thereafter western society goes down the toilet.

*Note*
RISUG is being developed in India not the USA to combat population problems. Funding in the USA for male contraceptives is pitifully low which isn't surprising when you see who runs the academic programs.

Women are equally obligated to pay alimony if they make more money than a man. 90% of the time, men make more money than women, and Its disgusting how you can completely ignore this fact while arguing that women are being treated equally and they don't deserve any thing more than what they have.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

http://www.foryourmarriage.org/factsfigures/

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21569433-americas-marriage-rate-falling-and-its-out-wedlock-birth-rate-soaring-fraying

And that took me 2 min.

A little more digging

http://www.marriageministry.us/journalist-says-declining-marriage-rates-means-marriage-has-evolved/

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704409004576146321725889448.html

Just because a man has a d!ck doesn't mean women will seek him out for marriage material.

False.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005044.html

You could have said that the marriage rate was decreasing. However, the divorce rate has been decreasing since the late 90's.

No they aren't. I can call bullsh!t on this right here and now due to experiences with people close to me.

Alimony, similar to child support, is based on the concept that the lessor status divorcee is entitled to live the same lifestyle they enjoyed prior to divorce. Courts rule that men are capable of making more while also contributing less homemaking and thus do not reward them alimony from higher earning women.

They use a very outdated system that assumes the women is capable of making less while contributing more to the homemaking. If your a lower status male in a divorce you must prove that your soon-to-be-ex-wife is capable of making more then you and further that your contribution to the marriage is sufficient to earn a percentage of her future earnings. Essentially women get bonus points for being born women. Same with child custody and spousal abuse laws.

You are paranoid.

Still haven't demonstrated any incentive for successful males to get married (to western females).

Humans operate off incentives.

We can have all the hook-up sex we want, don't need to commit in the slightest. Once male contraception is available we don't even have the risk of the female "accidentally on purpose" getting pregnant.

If we want to share our life with someone we can easily move in together (avoid common law marriage whenever possible). My last GF lived in my apartment for three years before I booted her (cheating b!tch). I got homemade meals, a clean home and plenty of sex / partnership (she didn't have a job).

The only reason imaginable is society shaming the men and that's dieing off at a plaid speed pace.

This thread.. is just...



I'm still waiting for that sammich. I better get one before I call rape.

You're full of ***about the alimony testimony...

But really??? We get bonus points for being thought of as inferior at making money????? F you

Watch the ladies inner hamsters start to spin into hyperdrive.


Yep one of those leftover laws from "Patriarchy!!!10101" and Marriage 1.0.

Stunningly feminists seem to of completely forgot about those little gems in their crusade for "equality" and "girl power".

Same as child custody laws and mandatory arrest laws.

Paternity is not about convenience, you're doomsday vision about it is completely fruit of your paranoia(or inability to see that there are men with feelings in the world).

Marriage is different sure, excluding the obvious religious motives which is worthless including, is a contract. And there are benefits to it, I am not well versed with laws(let alone american ones)but I believe things like insurance have an incentive with marriage.

And besides, marriage for many can be merely a celebration. People throw birthday parties too you know.

Also, just because there exist some golddigger women in the world, doesn't mean all are, just like not all men are the same. You seem to have a tendency at taking a small negative case and turn it into the "most common".

let's go back to burning bras.

Im still bummed I missed out on that.

Again, I don't see where you debunked anything I said. Unless you're postulating that everyone gets married on logical grounds? Some people do get married for love and it works for some while others pull the wool over their eyes and fail to realize that the love isn't mutual or the sole glue that keeps a marriage together. Marriage is such a delicate game of balance that for many yes, it won't work because of its innate complexities. You are committing yourself to one person for the rest of your life afterall.

I don't see where women somehow opened the floodgates of high divorce rates and I'd put forth the argument that it was social pressure and religious forces that kept marriages together prior to 1960. Leaving your husband/wife prior would mean to socially ostracize yourself and your offspring which naturally hinders divorce rates. If anything, we're getting a true snapshot of reality now that you can walk away from your abusive husband/wife or explore other options when the marriage starts to flounder. You're free to express your distaste with your partner rather than lying to keep up appearances by leaving rather than wasting your life living a lie.

As much as it pains me, religion does wonders for keeping people tied together for life and I need only quote your own source:

They say history repeats itself, I'd give it some time.