Maybe you should re-read that, because it 100% backs up my point that the hatred you see in feminism was a response to hateful activities by men. Let me sum up that article in 1000 words or less for you.
Laws were passed that subject women to unwarranted arrest and medical examination, because it was assumed that male sexual needs were so uncontrollable that making prostitution illegal was impractical. The law subjected ALL women to examination, because only SUSPICION was required for a woman to be assumed guilty. The article then goes on to vilify Josephine Butler for drawing the logical conclusion from the premise for these laws... that women must be subjected to men's desires, because men can't control themselves. It is literally the EXACT same premise that the Contagious Diseases Act used to justify themselves.
What this article says, basically, is that it's okay to pass laws that limit the freedom of women because men are unable to control themselves, but it is not okay for women to say out loud why men passed those laws. If you don't think that's hateful treatment of women, then you most likely hate women. I don't know why, and I don't care... I don't approve of your hate or your desire to spread it. If you don't want me intruding on your little 'hate bubble', then mute me. You wouldn't be the first bigot that didn't want to know the truth.
If telling the truth is hate then so be it.
FALSELY assumed. Most men are able to control there sexual needs and majority of those who can't where sexually abused as a child. Quite often by a women.
Note that the other direction is not true: The majority of sexually abused men do not become abuser themselves. We are talking about the minority of a minority.
Which wasn't true either. In realty only a suspicion was and still ist required for a MAN to be assumed guilty.
And rightfully so as her conclusions where based on false premises. If your starting point is wrong then all logical conclusions you draw from it are wrong as well.
This is the centre point: Feminism started from false assumptions and false premises and was wrong ever since. And if we continue to base and model our society on false assumptions, false premises and from that false conclusions then our society will fail.
And probably very soon. We are currently repeating The Spanish Flue, The Great Depression and World War I as a speed run.
Maybe it was FALSELY assumed, but I pulled all this info from the article YOU asked ME to read. If it wasn't a good representation of you 'beliefs', then maybe you shouldn't have picked it.
Whether it was falsely assumed or not, the problem I have is that when MEN falsely assumed it to limit rights for women, that was fine. When women used the same false assumption, it was vilified. That is discrimination against women, no matter what kind of mental gymnastics you do.
You're not speaking truth, you're regurgitating a twisted version of the facts and spreading it as propaganda. If that's what you want to do with your life... good luck to you. I would try to point out to you that we are nowhere near the catastrophes of the Spanish Flu, Great Depression, or WWI, but I'm sure you'd rather believe the lies of your handlers. I could also point out that men still hold every position of power on the planet, but I'm sure you somehow think they're all being controlled by women.
Your center point is wrong, and based on a lie. You believe the lie because it supports what you want to believe. That doesn't make it right, or true.
Fun fact: I think the same about you.
The biggest difference between us is that I believe all humans should be bound by the same rules and reason, you seem to think there should be different rules and reasons based on gender.
You are wrong about that. I too want that all humans are be bound by the same rules and reason.
However, I believe that in order to archive true equality women need to take on more responsibilities and accountabilities and men should get more rights.
I only want for men what women already have.
About 1.: Google „The Order of the While Feather“ — You can't abolish the draft. If you don't have a draft in law then something worse will appear in it's absences through the means of peer pressure.
About 2. & 4.: For those you could go the other way as well. No safe heaven abandonment and there is no real reason to have a separate rape and sexual assault law. One law could cover both.
I'm looking forward to the cognitive dissonance needed to justify inequalities to the disadvantage of men
Well, some of your issues are obviously about laws that are specific to where you live.
1 - In America, for example, Democrats passed a law last September (as part of the Defense Authorization Act) that DOES require women in America between 18-25 to register for selective service, just like men. It's not a requirement to vote, and it should never be. Such a requirement would allow malicious leaders to mold a voting population by choosing who to send off to die.
2 - Must be a law specific to wherever you are, I've never heard of such a thing. Neither women (nor men) in MOST states in America are allowed to legally abandon their parental responsibilities, unless there is already another guardian in place and all parties agree, AND a judge decides it's best for the child. If you live someplace that lets women abandon children and just leave men on the hook (which you almost certainly don't), then I agree that law should be changed.
3 - Another thing that must be specific to wherever you live. Female genital mutilation is still REQUIRED in some communities in Africa. America has laws that protect both sexes from any kind of unwanted physical mutilation.
4 - Is another one that depends on where you live. Many states in America are changing rape laws to be gender neutral. Making penetration a requirement for rape would actually favor women in rape cases, since it's possible to force a man to climax against his will (can we agree that would be rape?) without penetration.
Can you even SEE cognitive dissonance at this point? The amount of it that you employ to justify inequalities to the disadvantage of women seems like it would be hard to see through. Although I'm still not convinced that your problem isn't just reading comprehension... you argue AGAINST many of the points made by that article you wanted me to read 1000 words of. I'm not sure if it's because you're TRYING to make sense of that garbage, or just don't comprehend what you're reading. Either way, I assure you it will be easier when you let go of the hate.
“Explaining Men's Rights is like explaining a snow storm one snow flake at a time” — Cassie Jaye
Indeed. That's one of the things MRAs have been working on for decades. And maybe we will book a success here.
No the USA doesn't. Male circumcision is legal in all countries including the USA. While female circumcision is banned in most countries including the USA.
It's telling that you didn't know that circumcision is a form of genital mutilation or didn't make the connection.
To say it right away: male circumcision is equivalent to Type 1A female circumcision and yes, Type 1B to Type 3 are all far worse. I know that.
My point is: Type 1A is banned but male circumcision is not even true they are the same.
Interesting point and you are correct here. Mind you, I didn't mean it as an exclusive requirement. I very much prefer a single sexual assault law to cover all types of sexual assault.