This Week in Men: It's Only ATTEMPTED Rape and Voyeurism, Girls. No Worries!

[calamity]

That's why we shouldn't allow men to leave their homes.

We must protect the women and children

I recommend aborting all male fetuses but for one for every twenty or thirty women. That, or send all but 1 of 30 off to war. That should solve the problem.

 

[sangha]

I recommend aborting all male fetuses but for one for every twenty or thirty women. That, or send all but 1 of 30 off to war. That should solve the problem.

now you're using your head

 

[SCitizen]

I recommend aborting all male fetuses but for one for every twenty or thirty women.

I am not at liberty to say what I would recommend done to hateful misandrist vermin.

 

[SCitizen]

That's why we shouldn't allow men to leave their homes.

We must protect the women and children

And who will protect children from murderous abusive mothers like Susan Smith, Andrea Yates, Darlie Routier

and thousands like them.

 

[calamity]

I am not at liberty to say what I would recommend done to hateful misandrist vermin.

:lamo

 

[SCitizen]

Definitely sexual assault is a serious issue. But blaming all men for crimes of some is evil. And advocating murder of innocent people is evil. Not a joke but evil.

How would women react if a man tried to justify the sex selection practices of many Ancient Civilizations?

 

[Jane]

Definitely sexual assault is a serious issue. But blaming all men for crimes of some is evil. And advocating murder of innocent people is evil. Not a joke but evil.

How would women react if a man tried to justify the sex selection practices of many Ancient Civilizations?

Dude whatever are you going on about here? Maybe start another thread if you feel the need to go so off-the-rails. And I'm not trying to speak for calamity or other dudes who can speak for themselves, but you should consider whether or not your irony meter is busted; ditto on your comprehension meter.

 

[William Rea]

And who will protect children from murderous abusive mothers like Susan Smith, Andrea Yates, Darlie Routier

and thousands like them.

Obviously these were trans women. Duh!!

 

[joG]

Umm, both genders are covered by non-discrimination and family leave laws. Neither can be terminated for taking a leave to care for a child.

As I pointed out, the risk profiles correspond to differences in societies with a vast assortment of different regulations. The introduction of parental leave recently in Germany was because the previous regulation increased the risk for women of not being employed or promoted. That was a perfect example of non-discrimination law increasing risk or costs, which was the task. The "Yes, but!" reflex is natural enough. But it is a false argument.

 

[Lovebug]

Who gives two ****s?

Seriously?

pened to look and see this man’s eyeball looking at me under the stall. So I yelled. I said, ‘Are you looking at me?’ And he said, ‘No, no. I just dropped my pen.’ And then he took off running out the bathroom door,” she told News 9.

I find it annoying, to say the least. It is an invasion of my privacy and yes, I give three.

 

[Renae]

Seriously?

I find it annoying, to say the least. It is an invasion of my privacy and yes, I give three.

The OP is on a crusade, that's what I was referencing.

 

[sangha]

As I pointed out, the risk profiles correspond to differences in societies with a vast assortment of different regulations. The introduction of parental leave recently in Germany was because the previous regulation increased the risk for women of not being employed or promoted. That was a perfect example of non-discrimination law increasing risk or costs, which was the task. The "Yes, but!" reflex is natural enough. But it is a false argument.

What was false was your claim that non-discrimination and parental leave laws do not protect men

 

[Lovebug]

The OP is on a crusade, that's what I was referencing.

Easily misunderstood. Once we take a good look at the actual grievances, perhaps the topic is worthwhile?

 

[Renae]

Easily misunderstood. Once we take a good look at the actual grievances, perhaps the topic is worthwhile?

There are terrible people, in life.

 

[CLAX1911]

You seem to be a master at misstating what I've said

Lol, that's ironic. As you misstated what I said below. I'll go ahead and correct your blunders.

First you want to tell us about how your sister didn't mind seeing your dick. lol. Oh. Okay.

She changed my diapers when i was a baby, clearly she didn't mind it. Further i was pointing out how that setting male genitalia doesn't scar girls. Nice hypocrisy.

But, hey, I think it's a good thing that you're concerned about sexual violence against trans, even if talk about sexual violence against women seems to irritate you.

Taking pictures isn't violence. It irritates new when brain dead feminist retards mock violence against women by saying things that aren't violence against them are indeed violence against them.

Then you make a pretty common spurious conclusion: someone asks for examples of something occurring; someone can't do it; someone says you must not care. What? Do you normally debate with idiots?

Apparently including currently. But no i normally don't debate with femi...um...idiots.0


[/QUOTE]So good and what does that have in common with the OP? Figured it out yet? That's right: men. In most of these cases you're actually talking about a different motivation for the sexual violence. It's homo hate. Dudes upset that they responded sexually to other dudes. So of course, they've got to hurt or kill the other dude.[/QUOTE]

 

[CLAX1911]

Somewhere upthread, I mentioned in passing roguenuke's comment:

Her comment is correct. Seeing a man naked will not scar them for life.

^^That was just one of her justifications for why she was advocating for penis people to have access to school girls' showers and locker rooms.

Penis people?

Then you show up apparently in support of that position with this beauty:

I go, WUT? You burst into tears and now claim you just didn't undertand me. Okay.

Well I'm pointing out how profoundly ignorant what you said was. If a penis was offensive to women or species would have died out millennia ago.

Do you think before you post?

So none of the girls currently in public school have to attend school any more by your reckoning?

Did you have to stand up to pull that out of your ass?

Or maybe they just need to wear their gym clothes under their school clothes if they don't want to change or shower around some boy? Okay.

What on earth are you blathering about?

Dude, I hope you're going to stick around. You've been a laugh riot so far.

Feminists don't have a sense of humor.

 

[calamity]

Well, our Olympic swimmers reminded of another reason men need to be kept out of women's bathrooms, they piss on the walls and tear **** up.

 

[Jane]

The OP is on a crusade, that's what I was referencing.

Yeah. The OP is a woman who cares about the safety of women and girls. We women don't really consider it a crusade. Just our reactions to the everyday experiences we were born into, grew up with and live with every day of our lives. Of course, as always, YMMV.

 

[TheGoverness]

Yeah. The OP is a woman who cares about the safety of women and girls. We women don't really consider it a crusade. Just our reactions to the everyday experiences we were born into, grew up with and live with every day of our lives. Of course, as always, YMMV.

Why do you think you speak for all women? Because you don't.

 

[maquiscat]

Seriously?

I find it annoying, to say the least. It is an invasion of my privacy and yes, I give three.

Is it any less of an invasion if it was a woman who did it?

 

[joG]

What was false was your claim that non-discrimination and parental leave laws do not protect men

Only if viewed in a dishonest way. The example was constructed from historical and general experience throughout the OECD countries in each of which the exact regulations were different and changing over time. So when you hook onto an individual permutation of the vastness to falsify an example obviously differently chosen, that is a false argument. And you know it.
BTW: The non.protection of men, what ever you mean by that, was not part of the example. It was only to show how non-discrimination regulation can increase costs and risks and even negatively affect the group that one is trying to help.

 

[Jane]

Seriously?

I find it annoying, to say the least. It is an invasion of my privacy and yes, I give three.

Actually, in one of the instances in the OP the man tackled the woman to the floor from behind and was only scared off when someone heard her screams. So it was a little more than what someone around here has called "just" voyeurism.

Is it any less of an invasion if it was a woman who did it?

In case it isn't entirely transparent what maquiscat's next move is: he's found the one example in the entire history of humanity where a woman videotaped women's feet in the next stall and sold the vids for, like, 10 bucks a pop to pervy male foot fetishists. So, you know, WOMEN RAPE TOO!!!!11!! Or whatever his point is. So predictable. :roll:

 

[roguenuke]

Actually, in one of the instances in the OP the man tackled the woman to the floor from behind and was only scared off when someone heard her screams. So it was a little more than what someone around here has called "just" voyeurism.


In case it isn't entirely transparent what maquiscat's next move is: he's found the one example in the entire history of humanity where a woman videotaped women's feet in the next stall and sold the vids for, like, 10 bucks a pop to pervy male foot fetishists. So, you know, WOMEN RAPE TOO!!!!11!! Or whatever his point is. So predictable. :roll:

And no one has ever said that there isn't a difference between voyeurism and attempted rape. This person attempted to rape a woman, which is a violent crime. Voyeurism, by itself, is not a violent crime, no matter how despicable anyone views it. Even our laws consider rape and attempted rape, sexual assault to be different, more serious crimes than voyeurism, hence why peeping tom laws (which is what voyeurism falls under) have much less severe penalties than sexual assault, attempted rape, and rape.

But this goes into my point from the beginning though, you cannot prove that any law or policy would have kept this person out of that bathroom, kept the victim safe. What did help the victim was the public nature of the place, the fact that someone was around to hear the attack and come to her aid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk