No means no and yes may not mean yes.

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...ecause-sometimes-yes-means-no-katherine-timpf

Feminism at it again. So, a yes may actually mean no, and you could be deemed a rapist for not reading a woman's mind.

Feminism excels at one task, removing all moral agency from women and making them the slaves of their own "victimhood".

MGTOW will at least save you from rape charges.

 

Good grief, she sounds confused and messed up, but just messed up enough that these may because new talking points for campus feminists.

But the source.....couldn't you find a lefty source that would point out absurdities? Heh, silly question....

 

A kiss on the cheek is RAPE and patriarchy.

I thought we all knew this?

 

In the past a lady would demand that a prospective suitor prove himself worthy while she sized him up and made up her mind whether or not she wanted to marry him and then have sex. Today apparently women have sex first and then decide whether or not it was the right thing to do. If she claims rape, the 'suitor' could be in for a rough legal ride.

 

If the woman has difficulty saying no she should consider counseling. The inability of some people to say no to various sales pitches and pressure tactics isn't rare. It also isn't rare for people search for ways to blame others or society for their inabilities, failures or shortcomings.

 

`
Wow....this is important news. What ONE person thinks is always big news. Let's call in the National Guard...send for Rush Limbaugh, get Fox News down to Claremont McKenna College and have a congressional investigation. Is this a bona fide conservative "Outrage" yet or just a slow news day?

 

The author of that piece is messed up. She acts as though women don't have any choices over the events of an evening.

Right now - the liberals are all about condemning white males, and this is just one more way to do it.

What's the solution?

Gentlemen - don't date democrats. Not ever.

 

What a load of convoluted rubbish (the article that is) .. though it is of no surprise that a single source opinion is jumped on as the overall opinion of Feminists. Got to love the generalization displayed in nearly every single anti-femists thread in this section.

 

If you mean to say no, then say no. If you mean to say yes, then say yes. Do not say yes if you mean to say no. Do not blame others over your own inability to make decisions in a timely manner.

If you truly believe that you are being pressured into saying yes when you wish to say no, then do not put yourself into a position under which such a development may occur.

 

Yes, we make generalizations, as feminism is generally a bit crazy and certainly oozes with misandry.

So that is why we make such posts.

 

I think the woman in the OP article is just screwed in the head independent of whether or not grandma gave her a little sugar when she was a child.

 

and I disagree with you, certainly there are elements that are fruit-bat crazy, that does not equate to the general feminist groups. Like any 'movement' there will be extreme elements, using those to equate that the whole movement "certainly oozes with misandry" is disingenuous and no different from people who say that Tea party members represent the whole Republican party, or the Westbro Baptists represent the whole of Christianity.

 

Feminism focuses on the right of women, which automatically disenfranchises the rights of men. But when men focus on their rights, they are labeled as misogynists. Which is good for one is good for all, if one group can focus on their rights, then all groups can without Ad Hominid criticisms. But that is not the case, as feminism is a movement of female supremacy, not true equality.

It is like saying that the KKK is concerned with the rights of racial minorities.

Why not subscribe to egalitarianism? Why focus on the rights of only your group?

 

so we can generalize that anything you post is just crazy hyperbole. Got it.

 

I see you fail to address the issue and instead choose to address the poster. LOL

 

I am actually 100% for equal rights for both men and women, what I don't like very much is for either men's or women's rights groups to be labelled based on certain elements within those groups, it is lazy and disingenuous.

 

It is not lazy or disingenuous when the basic premise of the group is to alienate half of the population, just as feminism does.

 

Prove it by talking to EVERY single feminist group there is throughout the world or even in your own country, actually take some time away from the bat-crazy element and do some research.

Feminism - The advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes. - your assumption of the "basic premise" is false and as such is lazy, disingenuous, generalization and begging the question.

There are numerous feminist organizations that promote and fight for equality between the sexes and not superiority for females, the fact that you base your judgement on only the radical side of feminism says more about your agenda than your quest for the facts.

And before you dive in with some inane comment about me being a (radical) feminist, I 100% support mens rights groups to the same extent that I support women's rights groups .. however I do not claim, unlike you as far as feminism is concerned, that all mens rights groups are misogynists based on the element who clearly are.

 

I really don't care, there are enough crazy groups to affirm my position.

Can the KKK work to the affirm the rights of minorities while focusing on white nationalism?

This is a yes or no question.

 

That you don't care is pretty obvious.

no simply because the KKK is a recognised racist hate group, feminism is not a hate group, that you cannot distinguish again only points to your agenda rather than knowing the facts.

 

lol

Then take any white nationalist group, can they truly be concerned about the rights of minorities if they are only interested in rights for whites?

Feminist groups and other groups that exercise misandry are hate groups. Pure and simple. The only reason why it is acceptable is because it is not possible to discriminate the white male.

 

Oh, I'm not the only MGTOW here now.

It's a very recent discovery to me.

 

now that is correct .. however that does not equate to ALL feminists groups, which is where the generalization and assuming the premise comes in.

 

Except that groups that care about fairness and equality prefer to go by the name Humanist now.

In order to distance themselves from radical feminism.

http://americanhumanist.org/Humanism/Definitions_of_Humanism

Which is very different from radical feminism, which seeks to emasculate all men and reduce them to subhuman existence.

 

So are you saying that Humanists are not also feminists?

Highlighted the parts of your reply that apply and are more than acceptable when talking about the bad side of feminism, the issue here is not that there are no radical feminists, the issue is that some posters here do not understand the differences or are not bothered about their generalizations and assuming the premise.