The time for concerted action was before the election, not after it! And if anyone thinks that Vladimir's poodle is going to be swayed by a million non voting? (maybe a tummy rub?) Loud abusive women or feminazi's carrying hateful abusive signs, they need to rethink! (an' tha's no ma tummy!)

And perhaps try something that has worked elsewhere? The gander paddock and as orchestrated concerted household strike action in millions of homes! (Well honey you voted for him!?) :-)
Alan B.

many of the old women protesting against Trump voted for Bill Clinton. The left and hypocrisy can't be separated.

This article sums up the nature and tone of virtually every piece of writing I've seen of the march as written by men of the left, right or centre.

Trivialise, trivialise, trivialise. Ridicule, ridicule, ridicule.

Don't whatever you do give any credence to the significance of a march of that size, organisation and symbolism. Had it been a black or gay march of that magnitude, it would be deemed a great historic landmark. Instead, it's being treated as just a little get-together of a bunch of insular, cushy, middle class, mainly white women of privilege whose only concerns are running out of chardonnay or flats versus high heels.

Don't get into any of the ACTUAL issues of the protest. The idea that women can organise politically and can fully articulate the political issues important to all women everywhere is dangerous thinking

The Gillard Govt donated $300 million to the Clinton Foundation. Over $ billion was donated to the Clinton Foundation for Haiti.Haiti saw less than 5% of that money. As soon as Trump was elected all donations from the Aust Govt ceased to the Clinton Crime Foundation.

Killarney:

"The idea that women can organise politically and can fully articulate the political issues important to all women everywhere"

Why didn't they do this before the election when there was no possibility of it being mistaken for 'sour grapes'?

Hi Phanto,

Women in the US can organise and march okay: all they have to do next election campaign is get their timing right.

And, of course, get out and vote.

Joe

Yup,

The only thing that they were fixated on was that they don't like Trump. (Funny how 52% of white women voted for Trump). They were well coordinated too, supporting Islam, sharia law, and rights for women and LGBT people.

It was a good day out, and they can now go back to their normal duties.

It isn't 'women' of the US. It is the left-leaning, always-privileged (and forever-privileged) middle class women and 'look at moi', publicity-seeking, virtue-signalling, yesterday entertainers who cannot get over an election result where 'democracy always gets it wrong if left doesn't win'.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2673516/madonna-tells-womens-march-against-donald-trump-that-she-fantasises-about-blowing-up-white-house/

Feminism never was about doing anything for the black women in lower socio-economic burbs whose children grow into gangs dealing drugs and committing violence. Obama was privileged and despite his plum rhetoric never looked like doing anything practical for the ethnic group he claimed to represent.

Democracy is both resilient and fragile, as is freedom of speech. These protesters fail because they do not value either democracy or freedom of speech. It is THEIR way or the highway. Entrenched, privileged women attempting to bully to maintain their status.

By the way, why is there no Feminist Party? Most know the answer to that question.

Loudmouth:

"Women in the US can organise and march okay: all they have to do next election campaign is get their timing right."

We don't know that is why they organised and marched. It may have been just sour grapes. We have never seen them organise and march to that extent where their reason could not be mis-interpreted.

Killarney

You don't speak for all women, who do you think you are?

The women who marched are the most privileged group of people in the world. They spewed sexist bigotry, hatred, lies and double standards, all the time demanding that women should have all protections, provisions and privileges of patriarchy *and* feminism, while men should have the downsides of both, and be insulted and vilified into the bargain.

The one that really gave me a good belly-laugh was the one holding up the sign saying "Respect". What a joke! That's what the marchers were showing Trump, was it?

The hypocrisy is nauseating.

Why don't you practise what you preach? Why do you think women are entitled to political benefits and privileges just for being women?

Post proof of your activism to end the double standards, or admit that you are a hypocrite.

Since I last posted, the comments can be summarised as:

phanto: The timing makes it look like sour grapes. (They were protesting against a new US regime with regressive policies on women. What was the point of having the march, before knowing whether the regime would win?)

loudmouth: Why couldn't they get the timing right? (Ditto my phanto reply. Because of what they were protesting, the timing WAS right.)

shadow minister: The march supported sharia law. (Rubbish.)

leoj: The march was all about well-off white women who couldn't care less about poor black women. (Look at the footage. A whopping chunk of the crowd was non-white/non-Anglo, non-privileged, didn't wear tiaras, and many were men.)

JKJ: The march 'spewed sexist bigotry, hatred, lies and double standards'. (As did JKJ's own post.)

As I said in my earlier comment, 'The idea that women can organise politically and can fully articulate the political issues important to all women everywhere is dangerous thinking.' The comments here since then have all created an alternate reality of what the march either failed to do, refused to do, got wrong, screwed up, mis-timed or misdirected. Or that it simply revealed feminist hypocrisy, bullying, hatred, and that good old trope from way back - white middle class insularity.

This sums up almost everything I have read about the march. Instead of seeing it for what it was: a well-organised, successful display of global female solidarity - just trivialise, trivialise, trivialise; ridicule, ridicule, ridicule.

We can't have anyone thinking that women actually know what they are doing, can we now?

I would say most women with a heart (pro life) were not welcome to join these feminmist ratbags.

Killarney

That's just a vacuous back-bite.

What specifically about my post "spewed sexist bigotry, hatred, lies and double standards"?

And putting aside the womens' marchers sexist bigotry, hatred, lies and double standards, what specifically were they marching for?

It's almost like I've got to post 'misconception corrections' for the benefit of everyone who accidentally falls for the never ending barrage of misleading news articles that are thrown at us all on a daily basis.

It's disheartening to see how often so many people get so many of the facts wrong, but I can hardly blame anyone for it.
There's a strategy to deliberately try to manipulate people who take the news on face value and don't check other more reliable sources.

Whats the latest news?
Well that depends on where you get it...

Billionaire George Soros has ties to more than 50 ‘partners’ of the Women’s March on Washington
http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2017/01/20/billionaire-george-soros-has-ties-to-more-than-50-partners-of-the-womens-march-on-washington/

Also some info in there about Linda Sarsour, womens march organiser who supports Sharia law.

Hey runner,

‘No Place In Feminism For Pro-Life Women’
http://www.infowars.com/no-place-in-feminism-for-pro-life-women/

JKJ

'What specifically about my post "spewed sexist bigotry, hatred, lies and double standards"?

How about this ... 'They spewed sexist bigotry, hatred, lies and double standards, all the time demanding that women should have all protections, provisions and privileges of patriarchy *and* feminism, while men should have the downsides of both, and be insulted and vilified into the bargain.'

I count about 10 howling examples of sexist bigotry, hatred, lies and double standards in that paragraph alone. Several more in all the other paragraphs, e.g. 'Why do you think women are entitled to political benefits and privileges just for being women?' and 'The one that really gave me a good belly-laugh was the one holding up the sign saying "Respect". What a joke!'

Hate, bigotry, lies, hypocrisy ... it's all there in your own little post.

Armchair Critic

How on earth could a march of that magnitude be organised and paid for without financial support from high places? And it was always a protest against Trump, so why all the 'gotcha!' squeals when it's obvious that a lot of organising and funding came from Democrat affiliates?

As for the pro-life dig, a lot of feminists are pro-life. The work of pro-life Melinda Tankard Reist is highly respected among both feminists and conservative women's advocates. And a lot of women's rights advocates are religious fundamentalists of one sort or another, including Islam. Also, my son lives in New York and he knows three Trump-voting women who went on the march (because, while supporting many of his policies, they don't support his policies on women).

No ... you, JKJ and all the other pundits here and in the MSM and alt-media are pulling out every tiresome, overworn anti-feminist/anti-women trope in the book to 'prove' that the march was on some kind hypocritical ideological collision course with something that it never was to start with, or ever pretended to be.

Killarney:

“What was the point of having the march, before knowing whether the regime would win?”

So these are all brand new policies which women had not thought of until Trump won? The point of having it before the election would be to try and win the election. That is how elections work. You state your case for your preferred candidate and try and convince others to agree with your case. You do not wait and see who wins and then start organising a movement against them. It just looks like these women are trying to save face. Their whole ‘strategy’ points to nothing else. You cannot impeach an elected president because you do not like his policies. It is pointless.

“The idea that women can organise politically and can fully articulate the political issues important to all women everywhere is dangerous thinking.”

Dangerous to whom? Had women been this active before the election they could have changed the result of the election and no matter how ‘dangerous’ they were they would have had every democratic mandate to claim the ascendency in terms of women’s issues. Had this march taken place before the election men would have had no right to be derisive of it.

But no - let’s turn this into a women versus patriarchy issue. Just as many men were embarrassed as women. Perhaps they are a bit more careful about drawing attention to it.

Hey Killarney,
I honestly wasn't trying to have a dig at you in any way.
Earlier in the thread commenters mentioned not knowing who the groups were or what they represent.
I found that article which had a bit of info with a link to the 400+ groups, thought I'd add it.
The last comment runner made questioned whether women who are pro-life are welcome to join these groups, and my response to him included a link to an article on that topic.

I did see where you earier said "rubbish" in regards to women's support of Sharia law.
I don't know how true that claim is, but I did want to point out the one of the organisers is supportive of Sharia law, which maybe where this topic of women / Sharia originates.
Whether or not she has spoken out supportive of Sharia during this womens march I couldn't say.

Whilst I usually would say these women are a bunch of deranged libtards doing the work of Soros or something like that I honestly didn't catch too much of the Women's March footage so really don't wish to comment too much on it..

Feminism seems to have its adherents 'think' a certain way and if one has an opinion outside of their 'group think' they are attacked by their own.
My opinion is that it's really a kind of 'Women's cult' where they focus on misleading facts and rile each other up into a frenzy...

Killarney

Stop evading.

I:
'What specifically about my post "spewed sexist bigotry, hatred, lies and double standards"?

(Note: SPECIFICALLY.)

You:
"How about this ... 'They spewed sexist bigotry, hatred, lies and double standards, all the time demanding that women should have all protections, provisions and privileges of patriarchy *and* feminism, while men should have the downsides of both, and be insulted and vilified into the bargain.'

I count about 10 howling examples of sexist bigotry, hatred, lies and double standards in that paragraph alone."

Well?

WHAT ARE THEY?

That's what I'm asking you. What are these 10 alleged examples, and why are they sexist bigotry etc.?

You:
Several more in all the other paragraphs, e.g. 'Why do you think women are entitled to political benefits and privileges just for being women?' and 'The one that really gave me a good belly-laugh was the one holding up the sign saying "Respect". What a joke!'

Why is that sexist, bigotted, etc.?

You believe that women are entitled to political benefits or privileges just for being women, don't you?

If not, does that mean that you support the abolition of government-funded abortion, and maternity leave?

Yes?

No?

Which?

You believe that women should have all the provisions, protections and privileges of patriarchy, don't you? Yes? No? Which? Answer the question.

If not, provide proof of your political activism to repeal compulsory child support law.

You think women should have the right to kill their own offspring in utero, but men don't have the same equal right? Yes? That's correct isn't it?

You think women should have the right to use the State to threaten people with prison and rape to force them to fund women's reproductive decisions, and force men into traditional patriarchal male sex roles, don't you?
Yes? Or no?

You believe in women having the "right" to exploit men as money objects, don't you? Yes? Or no?

Are you pro-choice on the funding of abortion? Yes? Or no?

I support US President Trump's decision (in theory at least) to cut funding for abortions.
I'm not specifically arguing that Australian women should never have abortions, but rather that other taxpayers should not be forced to pay for it.

What do others think about this?

Do others think its fair that a nations citizens (even ones who oppose abortion on religious grounds) should be forced to pay through their taxes for other peoples abortions, as well as abortions in foreign countries?

It should be noted that both the US and Australia tax their citizens to pay for foreign abortions.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/donald-trump-abortion-decision-slammed-by-labor-as-dangerous-and-damaging-20170125-gtyda3.htm

AC:
No one chooses to have an unwanted pregnancy anymore than they choose to be hit by a car while crossing the road. The health care system is there for all of us.

If we can afford to pay huge medical expenses for people who abuse themselves by poor health choices such as bad diet and smoking then we can afford to help those who need an abortion.

phanto

So you didn't know that sex causes babies?

Are you pro-choice on the funding of abortion, yes or no?

JKJ:

Can't I be in favour of funding for abortion but against abortion? I am not in favour of people eating themselves into cardiac arrest but I am in favour of treating them.

phanto

"Can't I be in favour of funding for abortion but against abortion?"

No. If you've in favour of funding for abortions then you're in favour of abortions that would not otherwise take place; so you're for them, not against them.

But the question is not "funding", it's compulsory funding.

Bugger!

Armchair Critic, I'm not in favour of people being required to pay for the results of others choices especially choices that are strongly disagreed with however I suspect that many who make a lot of noise in that direction will be quite selective on which issues get included.

The broader discussion is one I'd like to see happen but not thrilled when it's basically limited to a single issue.

R0bert

Armchair Critic

I agree with R0bert. That's a highly selective and over-worn argument.

Opinion polls in virtually all Western countries, including the US, show majority support for legal abortion, between 55% and 80%. If the majority approve of legal abortion, then there is no democratic deficit in publicly funding abortion services. Even so, governments can get around it by applying a means test, so that women on low incomes are not locked out of exercising their reproductive rights. Those with the means can fund their own abortions. As it is, Medicare does not fund abortions (as far as I know); neither do any health funds.

To use the same argument, why should my taxes pay for sports funding, parliamentary pensions, corporate incentives, free university tuition for military personnel, and social welfare policing – all of which I strongly oppose?

I also notice that these arguments are never applied to, say, Australia's mandatory contribution to the cost of each bomb dropped in US wars (low-grade missiles $10,000 to $70,000 each; high-grade missiles $70,000 to $600,000 each; ultra high-grade $600,000 to $1.4 million each). The US dropped 26,000 bombs in 2016 alone - do we know the taxpayer bill for that?

War, sport and business? Great. Spare no public expense in maintaining our macho values. Rewarding the rich? Sure, no problem.

Women’s reproductive health? Women’s right to choose how she spends the next 20 years of her life? No way. Just keep piling shovelfulls of moral panic onto truckloads of controversy.

phanto

The election of Trump was only the catalyst not the cause of the march. Its main purpose was to hold Trump to account for his policies on and attitudes to women, not to prevent him from being elected. It’s a way of holding his feet to the fire.

Many feminists, including myself, did not want Clinton to win. You can find lots of this opinion on feminist blogsites. Even those who felt sympathy for Clinton were more focused on misogynist attacks against her, not any defence of her history or policies.

Also, your claim that 'Had this march taken place before the election men would have had no right to be derisive of it' completely overlooks the slipperiness of anti-feminist misogyny. Had it been held before the election, the march would have been just as heartily condemned and trivialised. The only difference would have been to cry havoc at women interfering with the democratic process of an election to ensure 'their' female candidate won. All the teeth-gnashing and cries of democratic emasculation would have been deafening.

JKJ

Writing posts about how women/feminists want to take, take, take everything and leave men with nothing goes beyond opinion or fact – it’s bigotry. Shooting off a litany of bigotries to another commenter and then demanding that they explain themselves to your satisfaction is bullying. Refusing to play your game is not ‘evading the issue’ – it’s common sense

Killarney:

“The election of Trump was only the catalyst not the cause of the march. Its main purpose was to hold Trump to account for his policies on and attitudes to women, not to prevent him from being elected.”

That is one interpretation that could be put on it. It also has all the trademarks of bitterness, denial, embarrassment and an attempt to shift the blame away from their own decision to embrace democracy.

Even if this was not their reason then they look rather stupid and incompetent as a political force when they put themselves in a position that is open to two interpretations. Who would accept them as partners in any political team when they are so clumsy and insensitive to the perceptions of anyone else but themselves?

There are many other women’s groups who are concerned about these issues but would not be as stupid as these women in the way they go about dealing with them.

The lack of restraint and tactics point quite definitely to the assumption that it was more about these women than it was about women’s issues.

Hey everyone,
Firstly I want to say that I think in Australia we have a reasonably fair system in regards to abortion.
As Killarney mentioned, there's a fee associated with abortion, which satisfies my belief in some measure of 'personal responsibility' and that the cost doesn't fall unfairly upon the average taxpayer; as well as acting as a deterrent against overuse of abortion as a form of birth control.

Whether or not the government contributes further towards the cost of abortions and that clients payments are only a co-payment I'm personally not aware.

I've come to the conclusion that even if the government did pay towards the cost of abortion, it would be unfair to remove that funding on the basis that the government does cover the health expenses of citizens who require health services for events that have occurred due to some level of negligence of personal responsibility; and that it would be unfair to single women and abortion out.

You only win this argument on the basis of a 'technicality'.

In truth, it's not fair to make someone else pay for another persons failure to provide protection against an unwanted pregnancy any more than its fair to pay to expect someone to pay for the health treatments of someone who ate themselves into obesity.

The idea that we all should all essentially be responsible for each others choices is a slippery slope with no clearly defined boundaries.
Should this only be restricted to health issues, or do we continue that trend?
When someone murders another?
- Should we all chip in a couple of weeks in jail towards his life sentence?
What about if I lose money on pokies, should everyone else make a personal donation to cover my loss?
- I'm not trying to be smart but I don't know how else to put it in realistic terms.

I still question whether Australians should pay the cost of foreign abortions when we have our own people in hospitals and nursing homes to take care of, and I still support Trump in attempting to put American taxpayers first.

Killarney

Your political ideology consists of threatening people with prison and rape to force them to obey your social and sexual opinions, and you have the gall to accuse *me* of bullying, for peaceably and verbally challenging your rape and violence culture? That is clownish hypocrisy.

You think it's okay to threaten people with prison and rape to force them to pretend that women are the same as, or equal to men, when you know this is not factually true? Yes? Correct? Or you renounce the political platform of equal opportunity and equal pay? Which?

And you also believe it's okay to threaten people with prison and rape to force them to fund special and exclusive privileges for women? Yes? Or you renounce your bigotted sexist advocacy of laws forcing people to pay for female privileges? Which?

And you think it's okay to kill a partially-born child? Yes? No? If so, why not a born child? If not, on what principle do you decide which human beings it's okay to kill, and which not?

Don't want to answer my questions to defend your bigotted sexist hypocrisy, do you?

And you think it's okay for anyone to kill you if your life is inconvenient for them or causes any health issue, including stress? Yes? Correct? No you're contradicting yourself because you know you're wrong? Which?

"Writing posts about how women/feminists want to take, take, take everything and leave men with nothing goes beyond opinion or fact"

I asked you to SPECIFY any sexism or bigotry on my part. You haven't done so.

I didn't do that so you're either being dishonest or ignorant. Which is it?

You agree with special exclusive sexist privileges for women because they have a vagina, yes? Correct? Or you renounce political feminism? Which?

The fact that you can't defend your ideology is because it's factually, logically, and ethically wrong, and you know it, which is why you refuse to answer my questions. You know perfectly well they totally disprove your bigotted anti-human belief system and rape culture.

//You think it's okay to threaten people with prison and rape//

Sorry to butt in, and I know Killarney is annoying and all, but at exactly what point did she threaten to imprison or rape anybody?

Just curious.

Tony
Oh, so it's voluntary, is it? None of the policies and laws that Killarney advocates, bullying people into sacrificing their values for the sake of sexist female privileges and double standards, are to be enforceable or enforced? Is that what you're saying, Tony? Killarney?

[Deleted for abuse.]

JKJ:

"If not, on what principle do you decide which human beings it's okay to kill, and which not?"

On what principle do you decide what a human being is?

phanto

Your bigotry about the march is almost on a level with JKJ. And as with JKJ, your post is so full of weird and rubbery logic, it's impossible to respond appropriately.

Whatever interpretation you choose to take, the fact remains that the march was far and away the largest one-day protest in US history and one of the largest in world history. Political scientists put the number at approximately 4 million in the US alone, with over 670 marches drawing another half million protestors worldwide. Over 400 organisations took part, from many different political and social justice perspectives.

And all of this was conceived, organised and came together within a timescale of only 6 weeks!

No matter how determined the MSM, alternative media and MRA viral network kept setting and resetting the tone to portray the march as problematic, disorganised and conflicted, the enormity of its success speaks for itself.

Trying to argue that an event of such magnitude and symbolism was put together by a bunch of stupid incompetents who should have cared much more about what people like you might think of them, well, what on earth does someone say to that?

You often put up interesting arguments on OLO, phanto. This is NOT one of them.

I'm done with this thread. Nothing more to add

Killarney:

"I'm done with this thread. Nothing more to add"

No need to tell us that. Just leave. We'll be OK without you.

Phanto

If the purpose of abortion is not to kill a human being, what's the point?

Killarney
That's a fail.

You know you cannot defend your bigotted sexist anti-human hypocrisy, because you are wrong and you know it. I repeat my challenge to identify *any* tenet of feminism that is not self-contradictory.

You cannot identify any sexism or bigotry in what I say, when repeatedly asked to specify.

What you're saying is morally vacuous. If a large number of people advocate genocide, rape, or slavery, you have no *moral* problem with that?

A large number is only significant if they have something valid to say. But, apart from supporting sexist female privilege, and spewing racist hatred, what did the women marchers stand for? They are already the most privileged people in the world. What do they want: *more* sexist privileges for women on a double standard?

What was the point of dressing as vaginas? These are the same people who want men banned from displaying representations of vaginas at work as sexist and abusive = more double standards, and sexist hypocrisy.

You think it's okay to stab a child in the head if the mother feels like it, do you? Answer the question. What if the child is partially born?

How about you, phanto?

All
Notice how the feminist uses the term "sexist" and "bigot" to mean ANYTHING SHE DISAGREES WITH, even if
a) she can't specify any sexism or bigotyy when repeatedly challenged, and
b) EVERYTHING she is defending comprises sexist bigotry, many times over.

I challenge anyone to defend any tenet of feminism, and I undertake to show your sexist self-contradiction in two steps.

Jardine K Jardine,
Don't get wound up over the situation and pop a blood vessel.
Without wanting to offend Killarney, I have to ask do you really think a staunch feminist is going to let you win even if you do make reasonable points?
She's obviously pretty well trained with typical feminist talking points.
If you challenge her and she can't win she'll just flip the script and accuse you of something.

I've personally come to the conclusion that this third wave feminism will burn out soon enough.
Mostly because the womens message and complaints are largely irrational, and most people including more saner women and ex-feminists are starting to realise it and turn away from it.
Progressives no longer have the mandate in the US.
They are laughed at as fools and they still haven't gotten the memo.

I'm not going to get upset or make fun of her like I do to many others mainly because I'm trying not to be so hard on other posters but also because I feel sorry for her and I wish there was a easy way to deprogram her.

[Cont.]

[Cont]

Some of the things I saw relating to the womens march footage and on social media.

The left's demands that building walls are wrong and racist, until they create a wall themselves to stop Trump supporters attending the inaugruation; and in which the complicit corporate media then falsely reports it.
Women wearing "pussy hats' screaming "Grab my pussy, Kick your dick"
Woman prancing around nude saying "Hand's off my pussy" and "My Body, My Choice".
Constant talk of white privelidge like a Pastor reminding everyone they are sinners.
The same old garbage about gender pay gap, rape culture and blaming white males for everything while being tolerant of Islamic Culture and Extremism, which is actually far worse than our western countries.
Calls to assassinate Trump on Twitter; followed by #lovetrumpshate

Are you really going to bother?
I say leave Killarney be, hopefully she'll figure it out soon enough, or continue making a fool of herself supporting a stupid and irrational women's movement in the meantime.

Also I don't want to give her a reason for resentment (because I don't think she likes feeling bullied) and for her ideas and beliefs to become entrenched.
She's just a victim of hive minded brainwashing after all.
I try to take note of any actual worthwhile grievances and move on.
Don't see any point in arguing with her for the sake of it.

Not quite done yet ...

Armchair Critic

'I've personally come to the conclusion that this third wave feminism will burn out soon enough.'

A march of 4 million people? The largest in US history? And another half-million worldwide? Yeah, third-wave feminism is really burning out fast, isn't it?

What time line would you propose for this massive worldwide burnout to occur? Three weeks from Tuesday?

JKJ:

“If the purpose of abortion is not to kill a human being, what's the point?”

You did not answer my question.
I asked - On what principle do you decide what a human being is?

“How about you, phanto?”
How about me what?

Killarney:

So just because there were big numbers they must be right? That is a desperate argument. It could also be a display of how bitter and resentful they were that they did not get the result they wanted.

Hey Killarney,
"Yeah, third-wave feminism is really burning out fast, isn't it?"

I bet that's what the second wave 'lets fabricate stories about rape' feminists were telling themselves too.

The fact you didn't support Clinton gives to cause to think that maybe you can think for yourself.
But the fact you identify as a 'feminist' truly makes me believe you're prone to irrational thought and that entering into a discussion with you on some topics would be foolish and pointless.
Since you're willing to push your arguments I'll give you my honest opinion.
Don't think of this as an argument or a discussion - I'm not going around in circles with someone who wont admit when the other side makes a fair point, so think of it as a statement.

The first little mistake you made was making a statement and assuming it was true.
Feminists seem to do that a lot, it's irrational.
You'd have 'learned more' and 'not further entrenched your irrational beliefs' - if you had simply asked why I think third wave feminism fail... I just wanted to firstly point that out.
'Irrational' sums up the feminist movement perfectly.
It's the reason that I predict third wave feminism will fail.

Do you want the good news or the bad news?
Everyone wants the bad news first so I'll start there.
The bad news is third wave feminism will burn out and fail for the exact same reasons the first two movements did.
The problem in my opinion is that you are lead by 'disgruntled and irrational mentalcases'.
It the reason for both feminism's success and inevitable failure.

The movement wouldn't get off the ground if not for 'disgruntled and irrational mentalcases' and that is the same reason its failure is inevitable, people start to see that irrationality and discard your movement entirely.
It's a built in problem of the movements fundamentals.

The good news (for you) is that although the failure of third wave feminism, (like previous attempts) is inevitable; the rise of fouth wave feminism is also inevitable.
[tbc]

[cont.]
Feminism is essentially a 'vicious cycle', that hasn't yet been perfected.
This is because (in my opinion) all the feminist movements arguments are completely flawed.
Lets talk about some of them.

Well start wil the big one, domestic violence towards women.
What do you think the 'female' version of domestic violence might be?
In my opinion, that would be 'manipulation and emotional backmail'
Which is one of the things that pushes normal men in relationships into a corner and causes them to lash out.

You can't have a complete argument on DV without also discissing 'manipulation and emotional blackmail'.

Here's a working theory.
Women fall for the wrong guy, try to save and rescue (manipulate and emotionally blackmail), man gets pushed into a corner, woman gets mistreated and discarded for it, gets older realises she wasted her life and becomes resentful towards men.
'Always do as you've always done, always get what you always got.'
Now stupid women who didn't learn, are trying to emotionally blackmail the whole of society, and they are going to get handed their marching orders again.

Gender pay gap whinge = An irrational blanket victimisation of all men.
Most people (men and women) get award wages and are on an hourly rate.
If employers could fire men and hire women at a lower cost, they would.
Stop blaming all men, it's irrational.

Maternity Leave.
Don't you realise if I'm an employer and I have to face a potential extra liability in paid maternity leave that I now have a business related reason to NOT hire you?
I'm going to hire male staff to avoid that potential liability.
You create the inequality yourselves that will lean to you not being hired you will later blame on men.
Irrational.

[cont.]
Rape Culture.
There's no rape culture.
Rape is not seen highly in modern civil society, it's frowned upon.
People that commit rape go to jail.
The only thing that falls into the category of 'rape culture' is 'Gangsta Rap' which is predominantly African American.
You wouldn't speak out about that, because it might be seen as racist.
Stop blaming all men.

Doesn't matter how many women turnout to the women march you'll likely never represent anything more than a minority.
You wanna know why?
Because you put a large blanket of blame on all men, when the real truth is that you will always be outnumbered by women who do love men and can't live without them.

Do you see and understand the points I'm making?
I hope so, because in my opinion feminism will continue to rise and fall powered by 'irrationality' until it actually perfects its message.
But then the question is do they really want to perfect their message?
Or are the women just being used as 'useful idiots' to vent their own frustrations and deliberately cause disharmony and civil unrest for other peoples agendas.

You be the judge Killarney, it's your life.
Make the most of it.

Armchair Critic

Bingo! It’s always just a matter of time before an anti-feminist trips all over his own triggers. Hell hath no fury like an anti-feminist who fails to keep a feminist in her place.

Phanto

Fair enough. Let’s respectfully agree to disagree. At least you kept your final comment to me short, rational and on-topic. See you on another thread.

Killarney,
I rarely hold my opinions back, and I've not hidden the fact on this forum that I think the feminist movement is a bunch of crazed harpies, but I've seen you dig yourself a hole before pushing your feminist crap and then getting upset and accusing everyone of bullying you.

Anti-feminist? No.
That's just a word feminists use to describe someone who doesn't go along with their silly rubbish.
I wouldn't really consider myself an anti-feminist.
That would give you all too much credit; like I wake up each day for the purpose of holding feminists to account.
Honestly your lot doesn't really rate past 'clown' status.

But just so you know, if you care to scroll back up the page, you'll see that I commented directly after JKJ was badgering you with all those questions.
I was actually trying to do you a favour, taking the pressure off you and changing the subject despite the fact they were good questions.
Then you started with your stupid feminist talking points about the cost of bombs etc.
Who says I even support those wars?
- So the government does something that both major parties support leaving citizens no choice but to be involved in US wars, and you think that's a worthwhile argument to use in support of paid abortion?
That's like saying the government spends millions in foreign aid, therefore I deserve a brand new car to replace the one I wrote off.
Newsflash... It don't make sense.

[tbc.]

[cont.]
So I see you dig holes for yourself in arguments, then get flustered and try to blame or accuse others of bullying you or anything to flip the script, so as to never ever admit anything that might fall outside of your hive mind brainwashing.
And so I went out of my way for you a second time, to try to give you some insight to try to let you see things from a different point of view, but you think its a personal attack.
But then of course you would, you're a feminist, everything's a personal attack in your world.

The whole thing went right over your head.
It's not my fault you can't take an honest opinion, or that the truth hurts.
I even told you how to make the movement actually work so that people won't see you as fools.

And so I got to thinking about the stupid aspects of your movement, and I came up with a real cracker.
This one takes you out of the 'demented nutcases' category, and straight into the 'just plain pathetic' category.

Here goes:
By identifying as feminists, you're telling others your whole existence involves holding men to account.
Guess what? You've WILLINGLY surrendered your whole existence to men, idiots.

Good luck with feminism, you'll certainly need it.
Last time I try to do you a favor btw.

Tony Lavis

Ha ha suck eggs.

Phanto
“You did not answer my question.”

You did not answer mine that were before yours.

Answer mine first; then I’ll answer yours.

Killarney
What did the women marchers accomplish by dressing as vaginas – apart from having President Trump sign anti-abortion action the next day?

You think it’s okay to stab a child in the head because its mother finds it inconvenient? Yes? No?

You think women should have a special privileged exemption from the law against homicide because they have a vagina?

If that’s not sexist, what is?

You didn’t know that sex causes babies?

You think the law against rape should be repealed because “equal opportunity” and “my body my choice”? Yes? That’s what you believe, isn’t it? “We” need a “more inclusive society”? Yes? Correct?

If a majority vote for rape or slavery, there can be no *moral* objection, because “no democratic deficit”? Yes? That’s what you think, isn’t it?

You think it’s okay to force non-consenting parties – unequally men - to pay for women’s private and exclusive reproductive choices? Yes? Or you support the abolition of the feminist political platform? Which?

If a man is raped in prison as part and parcel of the enforcement of feminist laws and policies functioning to grant non-consensual benefits to women at the expense, how does that sit with you? Fine?

The jumbled self-contradictions of your sexist, hateful, violent, hypocritical hate ideology are obvious. You stand for bigoted female privilege, not gender equality which is a non-factual, non-logical, non-ethical, anti-human concept.

AC
Female by definition means the offspring-bearing sex.

Women don’t have babies as a matter of gender, they have them as a matter of sex.

At the time of birth, the biomass interest of the mother is TRILLIONS of times bigger than the father’s.

It simply factually false that male and female are equal in fact, and this invalidates all feminism in logic and ethics.

Feminism is a hate ideology of hypocritical bullies and cowards.

Killarney

You were saying? The significance of the women's march was ... what?

Hillary should have been given the Presidency because of affirmative action?

JKJ:

"Phanto
“You did not answer my question.”

You did not answer mine that were before yours.

Answer mine first; then I’ll answer yours."

I can't answer your question until I know what you mean by 'human life'. Unless we can agree on that definition we cannot communicate.

phanto

I am challenging anyone to defend *any* tenet of feminism; and I will undertake to show their self-contradiction and hypocrisy.

I would like anyone to answer *all* the questions I have posted.

However the specific point of departure for you and me is this:
"And you think it's okay to kill a partially-born child? Yes? No? If so, why not a born child? If not, on what principle do you decide which human beings it's okay to kill, and which not?"

To which you have asked both
1. On what principle do you decide what a human being is?
and
2. what do I "mean by 'human life'"?

I'm not sure that I understand your question.

I regard it as self-evident that live adults of the genus Homo are live human beings.

And I take it that there is no issue that newborn babies are live human beings?

And take it that there is no issue that partially born babies are live human beings - although Hillary Clinton stood for the "right" of women to stab them in the head and sell the body parts, apparently. Certainly she stood for killing partially-born children, and Planned Parenthood has been selling body parts. I would like to know whether Killarney or you agree?

And I regard it as self-evident that the baby immediately before birth is also a live human being.

And so on, back in time to any point at which anyone is aware of its existence as an individual.

But if you say that at some earlier stage the unborn baby becomes not a human being, then by what objective criterion do you define that stage?

I do not define a human gamete as a "human being", because, although it is undoubtedly alive, and is of the human species, I have never heard anyone refer to a gamete as a "human being", have you? It always refers to a diploid individual; and the purpose of abortion is to kill that individual, obviously.

Now kindly join issue in a complete way and either answer all my questions, or all of these:
1. Do you think it's okay to kill a partially-born child?
2. If so, why not a born child?
3. If the rationale is convenience to the mother, why not kill any child she finds inconvenient?
4. If it's not okay to kill a partially-born child, on what principle do you decide which human beings it's okay to kill, and which not?

We are going to find that feminism is hypocritical, anti-human, and stands for sexist female privilege based on double standard and double talk, as usual.

JKJ:

I don't have a definitive answer for those questions but one thing I do know for certain is that you do not either.

A woman who has an unwanted pregnancy has to make a decision. She is the only one who is capable of making a decision which affects her and whatever you like to call the thing growing inside her. The thing inside her cannot make a decision.

Out of the two entities which will be affected only she can decide. Therefore only she should decide what that entity is and whether it continues to develop or not.

It is none of your business whatsoever.

Jardine K Jardine,
Told you feminists will never let you win.
She'll flip the script, and make it about you.
When it gets too tough she'll claim bullying and then run away.
I've got nothing against her but hey feminists are what they are.

Here's an interesting article, by a woman no less.
They must really hate her.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/rendezview/donald-trump-is-not-feminists-worst-nightmare-melania-is/news-story/980a0e71b3a2999194c7afdd9aa29834

Some good comments in there...
Notice how plenty of women are against feminism too, just like I said.

Next time a feminist wants to beat their head against a wall like they think if keep doing it they'll get a different result, I won't try to stop them.
Might even be tempted to encourage them for my personal amusement when seeing them so determined to be admitted to the nuthouse.
Why should I care?

AC:

"Might even be tempted to encourage them for my personal amusement"

Who is the sick one?

phanto

"I don't have a definitive answer for those questions but one thing I do know for certain is that you do not either."

Aah, the old truth-and-logic-do-not-exist standby of leftards when completely defeated, and too dishonest to admit it.

Well if morality is just a matter of opinion, then there's no such thing as a "right" to abortion, is there? Ha haaa! Gotcha! So you’ve just lost the entire argument, by your own standard.

If a "right" is whatever the government says it is, then
a) there’s no reason to exempt killing one’s offspring in utero from the definition of homicide, and
b) there’s no reason why it should not be criminalised as homicide and you have no objection as to right, and
c) once criminalised, you accept fully, one hundred percent, that it should be criminalised.

"Therefore only she should decide what that entity is and whether it continues to develop or not. It is none of your business whatsoever."

So you are arguing that women are not equal and are not entitled to equal rights? Yes?

They require special protections, are not capable of taking responsibility for their own actions, don’t know that sex causes babies, there is no reason why people should treat them AS IF they are morally and factually equal, and the entire feminist platform should be abolished? Yes? Correct? That's what you're saying?

No? The same law that applies to men applies to women? Which?

Of course in reality, you are arguing that women are entitled to a special exemption from the law against homicide, because they have a vagina, *as well as* entitled to the full battery of compulsory unwanted violence-based traditional patriarchal sex roles, obligations, costs, and risks on men, *plus* an extra load of sex-specific female privileges, and “rights” from feminism.

The child's life is so important that the father has a non-consensual, NATURE-GIVEN "responsibility" to pay money to the mother; but it’s not so important that the mother doesn’t have a “right” to kill it.

Of course if gender is just a social construct…

(cont.)
… then you have no more ground to say abortion is a right than a wrong.

And violence-based non-consensual sex might conceivably be a “right” – everyone is “equally” entitled to their own views, yes? Or it depends whether the most powerful and aggressive party says so; and there is no standard of reason or ethics that could decide the question. Yes? That’s what you believe?

As for the "my body, my choice" argument, if this vapid slogan justifies killing a "thing", then it justifies raping a thing. Yes? Correct? You yourself said you can’t say whether or not a woman is a human being, or a “thing” that others have a “right’ to kill, remember? You “don’t have a definitive answer”.

Men’s bodies are to be used to pay tax and child support so these should payments be abolished because "my body, my choice"? Correct?

All totalitarian ideologies have a ready-made dehumanising rationale for their mass killings, and yours is no exception. But panto, not even you agree with your factual, logical and moral nonsense.

Or you agree that there is nothing morally wrong with stabbing any person in the head, because the person doing the stabbing, by the fact of being capable of killing, "is the only person capable of making a decision which affects him and the person he stabs. The sub-human thing that he stabs is not capable of making a decision. Out of the two entities, only the stabber can decide." Yes?

Or you can’t say definitively? It might be right, it might be wrong, you don’t know? That’s what you’re saying?

Don’t think your intellectual dishonesty and squirming anti-human hypocrisy aren't obvious.

By your own ideology, your sexism disqualifies you from political input. After all, you are just a clump of cells with a subhuman personality, as determined by anyone who thinks it's okay to kill you. Correct?

Or feminism is a bigoted facile self-contradictory ideology for female privileges based on double standards?

Which has more explaining power?

OK

Hey Phanto,
Well there's different levels of 'sick' aren't there?
Certainly wouldn't be worse than anything the left does:
Start violence, attacking women, destroying public property, and after all the left do support the left so hypothetically I wouldn't be doing anything they don't do.

Sick like this: The testimony of a woman who survived an abortion procedure at the hands of America's most prolific serial killer?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeRouy3jhzo

Or sick like this: Disruption and Regime Change Operations, Forced Slavery, Forced Prostitution, Child Exploitation, Drug and Sex Trafficking, Organ Harvesting, Vaccine testing... ??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-EPMIPnW-w

Yes to spite a persons mental health does seem nasty, but there would really be no value in it unless they knew I was deliberately doing it, otherwise they'd just think I was one of them, and all jokes aside I'm really not sure I could bring myself to actually do it, since I despise the divisiveness their movements stand for.

I would hardly take part in protesting against them and the violence they start (as much as I'd be tempted to when I see them victimising innocent people), lest play into their aims of disruption and civil war.

As shown in the second link re 'disruption operations', they are just a tool; "useful idiots" in a finely tuned machine playing the part of someone else's bigger agenda.

I hope you all can forgive this unnecessary comment; but with all this talk of morbid and heinous things so early into the weekend, I think I need a song.

I'm going with Devo - Beautiful World.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56u6g0POvo0

AC:

If there was no malice in your comment then there is no point in explaining yourself is there?