Men's rights speech by Dr. Warren Farrell disrupted by radical violent feminist - General

[media][URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNc-v42sfvw[/URL][/media] Well known event but this is a interview by Warren Farrel which I thought was relevant.

Check your privilege dirty male [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Dumb snipe" - MaxOfS2D))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=killkill85;40141750]Check your privilege dirty male[/QUOTE] Why are you rating this funny? You didn't even watch the whole video. You posted 1 minute after it was posted.

[QUOTE=SuddenImpact;40141852]Why are you rating this funny? You didn't even watch the whole video. You posted 1 minute after it was posted.[/QUOTE] Why is that a problem,exactly?

[QUOTE=killkill85;40141907]Why is that a problem,exactly? It was the first thing that came to my head and someone had to say it eventually,so why not say it as the first comment in the thread?[/QUOTE] Because it has nothing to do with the video. You are just prejudiced right after you read the first 2 words. Saying that men don't have any issues simply based on their gender is like saying that women don't have any issues simply based on their gender. But you would know it if you watched the video. Let me quote something from wikipedia about Warren Farrel: "Warren Thomas Farrell (born June 26, 1943) is an American educator, activist and author of seven books on men's and women's issues. He came to prominence in the 1970s as one of the leading male thinkers[2] championing the cause of second wave feminism, and serving on the New York City Board of the National Organization of Women (NOW). However, when NOW took policy positions that Farrell regarded as anti-male and anti-father, he continued supporting the expansion of women’s options[3] while adding what he felt was missing about boys, men and fathers. He is now recognized as one of the most important figures in the modern men's movement." [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Farrell[/url] This is the video that was the main topic of discussion: [video=youtube;iARHCxAMAO0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iARHCxAMAO0[/video] Silencing the "opposition" is not a way to trying to find a solution for the issues of both men and women.

"ViolentWomenAmongUs", what a curious name for a youtube channel... [editline]3rd April 2013[/editline] [IMG]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/3797350/ShareX/2013-04/2013-04-03_12-33-46.png[/IMG] Oh, MRAs.

I never got the impression that Farrell was exclusively a MRA. Watching his talks, I got the impression that he felt that societal gender rolls do go both ways, citing how it's damaging that women are seen as caretakers and men are seen as protectors for many reasons for everybody. I got the impression that he believed that "men's rights," or "women's rights," is oversimplifying, and that we need to come to the table as coequals and vet solutions with the big picture in mind peacefully and meaningfully. [editline]3rd April 2013[/editline] Even if he is a dirty whatever, I think that his willingness to openly and freely discuss and criticize his ideas peacefully for the better of all is commendable and puts him orders higher than many other thinkers.

[QUOTE=SuddenImpact;40141943] This is the video that was the main topic of discussion: [video=youtube;iARHCxAMAO0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iARHCxAMAO0[/video] [/QUOTE] [QUOTE] NO HATE SPEECH ON CAMPUS[/QUOTE] [QUOTE] FUCK WILL FERELL[/QUOTE] gg no re

What a bunch or hateful pricks on both sides.

[QUOTE=Pepsi-cola;40143822]What a bunch or hateful pricks on both sides.[/QUOTE] Both sides? The only people I'm seeing that are throwing hateful slurs and rage is the protestors.

Were the sides flipped to "Women's right disrupted by radical violent chauvinist", all hell would've broken loose and everyone would be in jail.

[QUOTE=Hullu V3;40143888]Were the sides flipped to "Women's right disrupted by radical violent chauvinist", all hell would've broken loose and everyone would be in jail.[/QUOTE] How do you know that?

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;40143979]How do you know that?[/QUOTE] I see the strings that control the system, yo

[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;40141957]"ViolentWomenAmongUs", what a curious name for a youtube channel... [editline]3rd April 2013[/editline] [IMG]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/3797350/ShareX/2013-04/2013-04-03_12-33-46.png[/IMG] Oh, MRAs.[/QUOTE] nah he's right I do in fact hate my own gender no comment on the genital mutliation

Oh yeah. This guy. Author of such great, revolutionary phrases such as: "If a man ignoring a woman's verbal 'no' is committing date rape, then a woman who says `no' with her verbal language but 'yes' with her body is committing date fraud". I read his book and it's a load of bollocks, I don't see how anyone would take this guy seriously. That said, I don't see what this kind of protesting is trying to achieve. It only makes you (and the rest of your movement) look bad.

My campus never gets any big angry protests like this. We've really only had two. There was the time around 20 rich white kids were complaining about a [I]$400[/I] tuition hike next year trying to use racial inequality as an excuse, and the time around 15 kids we're claiming to be "Occupy Chicago" while standing in front of the closed (and empty) campus office because none of them bothered to check the office hours. I still remember the chant the rich white guys were saying. "Education is a right, not just for the rich and white." Please, go on about how a $400 will affect you at a very expensive private university when your parents are paying for tuition completely. :v:

this guy should stop being an MRA because some of his biggest gripes are actually solved by feminist thought lol, especially the stuff in the beginning

[QUOTE=BrickInHead;40144617]this guy should stop being an MRA because some of his biggest gripes are actually solved by feminist thought lol, especially the stuff in the beginning[/QUOTE] i heard something about him being a former feminist or something like that

Is this the guy who says that incestual rape is beneficial to children and families

[QUOTE=Dr. Gestapo;40144189]Oh yeah. This guy. Author of such great, revolutionary phrases such as: "If a man ignoring a woman's verbal 'no' is committing date rape, then a woman who says `no' with her verbal language but 'yes' with her body is committing date fraud". I read his book and it's a load of bollocks, I don't see how anyone would take this guy seriously. That said, I don't see what this kind of protesting is trying to achieve. It only makes you (and the rest of your movement) look bad.[/QUOTE] Think about this for a second. If your date makes you believe that you're gonna have sex but he/she gets satisfied by making out and doesn't want to go any further, what are you gonna call that? Fraud: deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage. deceit, trickery; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right an act of deceiving or misrepresenting Playing with someone like a toy without giving a shit what she/he thinks/feels/wants? I don't know what kind of strawman you want to use and what kind of implication you want to pin on this phrase, but making your date think that you're gonna have sex and then not doing it, while getting some satisfaction/pleasure out of it, is from definition, fraud.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;40144667]Think about this for a second. If your date makes you believe that you're gonna have sex but he/she gets satisfied by making out and doesn't want to go any further, what are you gonna call that? Fraud: deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage. deceit, trickery; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right an act of deceiving or misrepresenting Playing with someone like a toy without giving a shit what she/he thinks/feels/wants? I don't know what kind of strawman you want to use and what kind of implication you want to pin on this phrase, but making your date think that you're gonna have sex and then not doing it, while getting some satisfaction/pleasure out of it, is from definition, fraud.[/QUOTE] So in other words you think being seductive should be punishable by rape [editline]3rd April 2013[/editline] [quote]When I get my most glowing positive cases, 6 out of 200, the incest is part of the family’s open, sensual style of life, wherein sex is an outgrowth of warmth and affection. It is more likely that the father has good sex with his wife, and his wife is likely to know and approve — and in one or two cases to join in.[/quote] - Farrell on the 3% of cases of incest involving children that are good [editline]3rd April 2013[/editline] [quote]First, because millions of people who are now refraining from touching, holding, and genitally caressing their children, when that is really a part of a caring, loving expression, are repressing the sexuality of a lot of children and themselves. Maybe this needs repressing, and maybe it doesn’t. My book should at least begin the exploration.[/quote] - Farrell on how we should be caressing the genitals of our children to promote healthy sexual expression

[QUOTE=Zeke129;40144686]So in other words you think being seductive should be punishable by rape[/QUOTE] This is the strawman you want to apply to this phrase? Where does it say that someone who's being seductive should be raped? It just states it's fraud. Do you agree or disagree with this phrase "making your date think that you're gonna have sex and then not doing it, while getting some satisfaction/pleasure out of it, is from definition, fraud." ? [QUOTE=Zeke129;40144686]- Farrell on the 3% of cases of incest involving children that are good - Farrell on how we should be caressing the genitals of our children to promote healthy sexual expression[/QUOTE] Oh, that makes the previous statement false right?

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;40144778]This is the strawman you want to apply to this phrase? Where does it say that someone who's being seductive should be raped? It just states it's fraud. Do you agree or disagree with this phrase "making your date think that you're gonna have sex and then not doing it, while getting some satisfaction/pleasure out of it, is from definition, fraud." ?[/QUOTE] No, it isn't fraud, because the body language that indicates a person wants sex is up for subjective interpretation by others. I can claim literally anything is seductive, inviting behaviour. And that actually is the [i]modus operandi[/i] of many rapists. I'm reminded of the classic reddit mens' rights post about how the "clip clop" of high heel shoes walking down the street is an example of how women oppress men by turning them on and then denying sex

[QUOTE=Zeke129;40144805]I'm reminded of the classic reddit mens' rights post about how the "clip clop" of high heel shoes walking down the street is an example of how women oppress men by turning them on and then denying sex[/QUOTE] Oh my god that one was gold. Anyway yeah, one of the biggest differences between feminists and MRAs is that feminists think that societal gender roles are the main reason behind most of men's problems ("men aren't supposed to have feelings", "men aren't supposed to take care of their children", "men aren't supposed to be weak" etc.) while MRAs think women are the main cause of most of men's problems. :v:

[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;40144861]Oh my god that one was gold.[/QUOTE] [img]http://i.imgur.com/yBvwiAJ.png[/img] to be fair everyone else thought the post was asinine

[QUOTE=Zeke129;40144805]No, it isn't fraud, because the body language that indicates a person wants sex is up for subjective interpretation by others. I can claim literally anything is seductive, inviting behaviour. And that actually is the [i]modus operandi[/i] of many rapists. I'm reminded of the classic reddit mens' rights post about how the "clip clop" of high heel shoes walking down the street is an example of how women oppress men by turning them on and then denying sex[/QUOTE] So you can't say that someone's seductive because it's subjective? Can you tell if someone is for instance aggressive or it's subjective too and hold so meaning either? I think, unless you go to a country with completely different culture you can objectively read body language. I thought there were some cultural standards about this. You can claim whatever the fuck you want. That the sound of high heels indicates that she wants your dick. But that's not what's socially accepted as seductive.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;40144898]So you can't say that someone's seductive because it's subjective? Can you tell if someone is for instance aggressive or it's subjective too and hold so meaning either? I think, unless you go to a country with completely different culture you can objectively read body language. I thought there were some cultural standards about this. You can claim whatever the fuck you want. That the sound of high heels indicates that she wants your dick. But that's not what's socially accepted as seductive.[/QUOTE] You can claim anything you want is seductive, absolutely. But that's your opinion and if the person turns around and says "no, I wasn't trying to seduce you" it doesn't constitute fraud. Is it fraud if I go to a store, try to pay $20.00 for a $2000 TV, and they won't let me? I mean after all I thought the tag said 20.00 not 2000. No, it isn't, my interpretation of the situation was incorrect. (And I think high heels [i]are[/i] generally considered to be a seductive thing)

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;40144898]So you can't say that someone's seductive because it's subjective? Can you tell if someone is for instance aggressive or it's subjective too and hold so meaning either? I think, unless you go to a country with completely different culture you can objectively read body language. I thought there were some cultural standards about this. You can claim whatever the fuck you want.[B] That the sound of high heels indicates that she wants your dick[/B]. But that's not what's socially accepted as seductive.[/QUOTE] what?

[QUOTE=Ownederd;40144925]what?[/QUOTE] I think that sentence was part the same thought as the previous sentence and the sentence after it.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;40144922]You can claim anything you want is seductive, absolutely. But that's your opinion and if the person turns around and says "no, I wasn't trying to seduce you" it doesn't constitute fraud. Is it fraud if I go to a store, try to pay $20.00 for a $2000 TV, and they won't let me? I mean after all I thought the tag said 20.00 not 2000. No, it isn't, my interpretation of the situation was incorrect.[/QUOTE] In other words there are no social standards when it comes to non-verbal messages and all body language is meaningless? And by the way you didn't answer my question. [QUOTE=Zeke129;40144805] [QUOTE=Silly Sil;40144778]Do you agree or disagree with this phrase "making your date think that you're gonna have sex and then not doing it, while getting some satisfaction/pleasure out of it, is from definition, fraud." ?[/QUOTE] No, it isn't fraud, because the body language that indicates a person wants sex is up for subjective interpretation by others. [/QUOTE] My question didn't even mention body language.