AWKWARD ZOMBIE

I have to say, I feel pretty uncomfortable with what I would describe as extremism being lumped under the term modern feminism. That sort of usage implies there's no place for feminism in modern society.

Yeah, claiming that feminism is just like PETA isn't right at all. It's an important issue, but you know how the saying goes: "a few bad apples spoil the bunch".

But if we're making analogies, then I'll use this: Feminism is to Christianity as extremist radical ""feminists"" are to Westboro Baptist Church

The westboro baptist church gets publicity and limelight because it's a fucking train wreck. Same with the SJW Feminism.

A lot of the claims PETA makes are important as well. Animal cruelty is horrible. Making the analogy that feminism is becoming like PETA isn't saying that equal rights is suddenly becoming unimportant, it's saying that they're really screwing themselves over by making these asinine, irrelevant points that have almost nothing to do with any of the real issues at all. Is yelling at a rocket scientists about his choice in attire REALLY going to forward the cause of equal rights?

Is changing the town of "Fishkill" to "Fishsave" really going to forward the cause of "No more cruelty to animals"?

It's the wording you're using, man. PETA is an extremist animal rights activist group. They do not represent the entirety of animal rights groups just as the feminist radicals do not represent Modern Feminism. The issue being taken with your statement is when you suggested Modern Feminism should just fade into obscurity.

I neither said that it "should" nor that the group that's guilty of all of this nonsense is representative of the whole (just like PETA isn't a representative of the whole with respect to animal rights). I said that this trend WILL fade into obscurity. History shows that no one really respects attempts to blow up these issues that are irrelevant to what the organization says they represent. If the issue really is the wording of "Not all feminists" then you're fighting over the use of a vocabulary word. No one's arguing "Every feminist is like that!" the issue is that the ones who are like that are calling themselves feminists.

The problem with that is that the WBC is bodaciously just a dozen people out of all christianity and thus easily spotted as just a bunch of crazy people and not exemplary for all of christianity. "Radfems" and people who are like "hell yeah" when they spout their irrelevant nonsense are quite a few more than that here in the western world. So many that I would really like it if someone would do a study to find out the percentages of regular feminists to crazy ones.

But words are very important when it comes to clearly getting a message across. When you said "Our best bet at this point is to wait until modern feminism goes the way of PETA.", it suggests that all of Modern Feminism is the extreme wing of the group. I understand you meant only the extreme wing would fade into obscurity, but using the term for the entire group when intending to talk about the bad part of it will just make people who associate with Modern Feminism and are not extremists upset when spoken of negatively. Nobody likes to be associated with something they disagree with.

Granted, I myself wouldn't have worn a shirt like that, but that may be because I don't see much point in showing that I find females attractive that badly.

That being said, take a look at this.

Why is there a double standard on this? If a woman chooses, of her own volition, to do something sexual, it's considered empowering, but if any male, even her own boyfriend/husband/friend-with-benefits appreciates it, it's sexist, and he should be raked over the coals.

Seriously, I think more people ought to call bullshit on the feminists who take it too far, like the ones who say it should be illegal to urinate while standing. I'm all for equality, but is it really equal when one side loses all their rights?

Granted, he shouldn't have worn the shirt in a professional environment, but claiming that it "alienates and ostracizes" half the population is a bit much. I've thought about either getting a tattoo or a painting on a guitar of a couple pin up girls. Most of the people I described it to were females, and not one said it was offensive; they all thought it was cool. Though two may not count, because one is a lesbian and the otheris bisexual.

Check out realsexism.com and ncfm.org, and you'll see what I meant when I said one side loses all their rights.

EDIT: Fixed the link. Sorry, not easy to copy and paste a url with a nook. I'd have poated from home, but I don't have internet there.

Link doesn't work for me.

Fixed it, now try. (Not easy to select a specific point to insert text with a touchscreen. Not this one, away.)

But yeah, as for the feminazis, I don't think they're every really gonna be pop flyin'. You'd think they would if men were reduced to chattel, but then they'd bitch about men being too submissive.

(Really just made this post so you'd know I fixed it, since you'd have to check to see if there's any edit to the original post otherwise.)

Anyone care to speculate how much longer until this crap isn't trending anymore? (Not saying it'll go away, just to stop being all over the news sites and such.)

What is wrong with this?

My guess would be that it is tied to how certain faiths feel that birth control is immoral, and thus don't want their tax cheddar to be going to it.
Either that, or there's some attitude of "medication for illness is necessary for living and worth government funding. Medication to prevent a pregnancy that the individuals involved should make the decision to avoid themselves is not."
Or possibly some combination of the two. I know that among older generations in the U.S, the second one is particularly common, just because sex was not supposed to be a thing that was acceptable for public discourse, so like hell the government was going to be involved with it.

Not saying that either of these is right or wrong, but providing the rationales that I've seen/heard.

Yeah, I knew something like that was likely the reason for the author putting it in, I was just questioning it.

Isn't viagra paid for by certain medical plans and such

why do people still throw giant shitfits about birth control


I mean like the whole purpose of birth control is to prevent unwanted pregnancies, which would reduce the number of people who wanted abortions. And most of the people who are anti birth control are also pro-life. How does that make sense?

it's because there's a double standard


Edit: besides, birth control does a lot more for someone than viagra does. Birth control helps to regulate hormones, reduce the pain of our menstrual cycles, and so on. Viagra...does not.

The reason that many of them are against birth control is an extension off of the reason that they're against abortion. Sections of the Catholic church in particular are against anything that prevents a child from being born. It's also possible that it ties back to a much older idea that sex of any kind was immorral, because it was prioritizing a pleasure above solemn reverence for God (these rules were made back when everyone was unhappy all day every day), but if it was between a married man and woman, for the sake of creating children, then it was only a venial sin. Obviously, most of the church rejects this strict of a rule now, but I suspect that this is where that line of thinking comes from.