I'm not sure why I should watch the video... I have no doubt that they have found some facts to support the idea.
I'm not trying to debunk anything. If I'm trying to make any point at all, it's that throwing shade at the roots of feminism is a dumb point to try to make. Most movements are born from hatred of some form of status quo, and that hatred most often exists for very good reasons. There were very good reasons for women to want better rights under the law (feminists), like the fact that it was legal for husbands to kill their wives in many states for basically no reason at all.
If you want to keep playing word games, well, I'm your huckleberry, but if you really believe that feminism only exist to destroy men, then we have no common ground to start from. If that's not what you believe, then what was the point of this post, to point out something that should come as no surprise?
And feminism would be the exception to that rule. Feminist hatred was and still is based on lies and falsehoods.
Lies like this. Or the “women where treated a chattel” lie. Or the Duluth model lie.
Pointing out feminist lies which exist all the way to the beginning of the movement. Feminism is based on lies and falsehoods and you repeating those lies shows me that we still have a long way to go. Unless society will collapse first as you can't build a stable society on lies.
Honor killings are still a thing that exists, and not just in foreign countries. Plenty of parts of the US where women are STILL treated like chattel. If you don't want to believe it, I can't make you, bit ignoring it doesn't make you right.
I hope someday you find a nice guy to settle down with who will distract you from all this hate. Or you could just give masterbation a try.
Criminals exist — I never said they don't. Slaves also existed — but slavery was neither gendered nor was it restricted to certain races. Remember the word itself comes from slavic.
Speaking of what happens even today: Do you know what Bacha bāzī is?
But feminist claims that women where legally treated a chattel in country and at a time when feminism was active. And that's not true.
What was required by law and to some degree still is that men where required to provided for there wife including paying her depts. This is where the chattel part comes from.
And this is kind of profound. Men could go to prison if they where unable to pay there wives depts. For example one feminist refused to pay her taxes and her husband went to prison for it.
I bed your feminist teachers never told you about that one.
Oh, NOW I see... cherry picked facts and solitary examples are just fine, but only for making YOUR point. Of course, I guess I should have known.
Pointing out a general occurrence and then giving an example it not the same as giving an example and then construction a generality from that single example.
Main difference: my point would still be valid without the example.
Whatever you need to tell yourself to hold on to that hate... the gymnastics are too exhausting for me. I'd much rather have the understanding than the hate.
I'm not the one who hates. I'm pointing out the hate from the other side. Unless you follow that new definition from the United Nations where truth is now hate speech. They did that a few years ago. This is the feminist world we live in. Where truth is hate speech.
BTW: this was only the first of six postings. To bad you never watched any of Janice Fiamengo's videos. You don't actually know the full argument and as such your counters are pretty lame.