Well...first, it is impossible to prove "what would have happened". Second, it is impossible to prove a negative. Third...nothing I post will matter, you will just drag the goal post a little further.
Thank you for establishing that it was you that was wrong and not anything at all in that post by @Mr_Truth.
Once again, I am 100% for ERA. Nevertheless, all men must know that some feminists or many feminists oppose -- Equal justice system -- Help for male DV victims -- Equal Custody That is all documented. Men should support Feminists who support them. For instance if Feminists would support Equal Justice, men should reciprocate by supporting Equal pay.
It's been a while since you made your post - in all that time you have yet to post any valid refutation to what I posted. How about trying to disprove what I said rather than just criticize the way you right wingers do so often?
You are the one making the claim, therefore YOU are the one who needs to back it up! But yet again: first, it is impossible to prove "what would have happened". Second, it is impossible to prove a negative. Third...nothing I post will matter, you will just drag the goal post a little further.
Of course men who did not support ERA in 1970s made a huge mistake. But men born after 1970 should not have to pay for the mistake they had no part in.
I said on posts 60, 69, and 81 that the solution exists - just pass the ERA. As you said in posts 82, and 105, we need to re-start a campaign to get it enacted. I have agreed. Indeed, men today should not have to pay for the actions of conservatives in the past when they refused to pass the ERA. Bottom line, however, contrary to the title in this thread - it is NOT feminists and SJW's who created this problem. It was Republicans who did so. As with every problem in this society whether it be wealth gap, ghettoization of cities, rural poverty, lack of health care, overseas wars, terrorism, massive influx of immigrants, etc, each and every one of these problems were created by right wing Republicans. Blame them, not anyone else.
That's treating individuals differently because of the group they belong to. What bearing does 'women are more commonly nurturing' have on the odd women who commits murder instead? Why should she be 'treated special' because other women are nurturing?
On some points, it would be more complicate. For instance, no laws says that women should be punished less, yet they're effectivly much less punished. In a similar way, even with an era type law, imposed fatherhood would still exist.
A woman murderer IS NOT treated differently, other than where she serves her time. https://www.ranker.com/list/famous-female-serial-killers/reference
Yep, the Boomers screwed everyone yet again when they failed to pass the ERA. SJWs didn't have anything to do with the ERA, though. They didn't even exist until decades later. You can't just go back and retroactively apply that label; they don't even have the same ideology.
SJW have existed since the 1820s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior Only now has it been used as pejorative by the radical far right. The modern day quest for justice that is so hated by the far right has been well known since the 1960s. Recall the song "Easy to be Hard": the following refrain shows the idea: Especially people who care about strangers Who care about evil and social injustice Back then they were referred to as "peaceniks". The right wing was too afraid and too dishonest to admit that ours was an unjust society. Thus, 'social justice warrior' would not have been used since it acknowledges that. If you were around during the 1960s like I was you would well know of this.
No law says whites should be punished less than blacks for the same crimes. But they are. Can't blame SJW's or feminists for that, either. The ERA would not have eliminated all instances of gender based injustices. But it would have done a great deal. Again, blame right wing Republicans, not libs for that.
The link you provided doesn't support your assertion. In fact, it refutes it. Did you think I wouldn't look? No, it's a pejorative used by anyone who isn't an SJW. It is simply the SJW narrative that everyone who disagrees with them is "radical far right" because they need that boogeyman as a foil. "Don't compare us to sane people, only compare us to Nazis. Then we look good" No. Just no. Peaceniks were not SJWs. A big difference is that peaceniks were...peaceful. They didn't gather together in black-clad masked mobs and crack people over the head with bike locks. They didn't show up to start a fight every time someone said something pro-American or pro-family. Also, you seem to be missing the point that SJW is now a pejorative because the term is being used in an Orwellian fashion; that is, the Ministry of Social Justice does the opposite of what the name implies. Modern SJWs agree with the neo-Nazis on almost every point. The main difference is which race they think is the bad one. Same racial identitarian ideology with a different hierarchy.
Whatever. Nevertheless men must understand that -- Many feminists write articles arguing against acknowledging male victims of DV. -- In many cases chapters of National Organisation for Women opposed Shared Parenting Bills since 1997. -- In UK judges follow feminist-approved instructions to give more lenient sentences to women for the same crime. -- Many feminists support Presumption of Guilt, while President Trump spoke for Presumption of Innocence. -- Leftists, not Republicans view men as Privileged Oppressors. Men must be willing to work with any feminist who supports Equality for both men and women. But everyone who opposes Equality should be called out.
A typical of a feminist article against acknowledging male dv victims.. "The next time some person tells you that men are the victims of family violence too, remind them men are killers." Must be Republicans fault.
Good point. For that not. Yeah, I don't like politician in a general way, neither people which worship politician. But yes liberals are responsible for a part of gender based injustice, not all btw.
The link shows the history of how the quest for justice has been categorized over the years. Over the many decades right wingers have called anyone who disagrees with them as "commies", radical-liberals, leftists, and now SJW. It's all part of the twisted mentality which always believes itself to be perfect and that everyone else is wrong and is a threat. SJW is a pejorative but that is because right wingers in their delusion fail to realize that seeking justice is required by the Bible: "“Learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, and please the widow's cause,” (Isaiah 1:17). “He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?” (Micah 6:. Ironic in that it is right wingers who claim to be such good, moral Christians but the Bible calls them Pharisees. As always it is the right wing that loves to put labels on all others just like the Nazis did. But God help anyone who dares to return the favor.
