the bloody revolution

topic posted Sun, November 11, 2007 - 7:07 PM by  jerushah
Sometimes I find myself yearning for women to rise up and start defending themselves by whatever means necessary. If the revolution came, I know which side I would be on. Is it terrible for me to fantasize about forming vigilante and militant groups of women who simply do not fuck around with men who intend to be violent with women? I am not pro gun, I am a pacifist, but I also think that enough is enough. And it seems that men respond to violent change far more readily than change instigated by reason or morals. Am I the only one who thinks that a bloody revolution is in order?
posted by:
jerushah
Portland
  • Re: the bloody revolution

    Wed, November 28, 2007 - 3:15 PM
    Fantastic hypocrit.
    You want a bloody revolution against men becuase of violence against women?

    Most violence is already committed against men.

    Just goes to show that feminism = 100% raw hatred of all masculinity.

    Who knew?
    • Unsu...
       

      Re: the bloody revolution

      Wed, November 28, 2007 - 3:22 PM
      You got any cites to back up your wild claim? And it needs to come from a reliable source, not a men's rights website.

      More to the point, you need to stop being disengenous with the phrase "mst violence is already committed against men."

      What kind of violence? Domestic violence? Or street violence? If you're talking about street muggings, for instance, that's not in the same category as domestic violence, which primarily involves men beating up or killing their wives or girlfriends. You don't get to say "most violence is committed against men" when violence by men against women is the subject, because both statements are discussing _different_ things.

      And at the end of the day, there's one niggling little detail that is of prime importance. Whether men or women are the victims, _men_ are by far in most cases the perpetrators.
    • Unsu...
       

      Re: the bloody revolution

      Wed, November 28, 2007 - 3:25 PM
      Oh, and you need to work on your reading comprehension as well. The statement referred to "men who intend to be violent against women."

      That's pretty damn clear that she was aiming her revolution at specific groups of men. And not because of generic violence, but specifically at violence perpetrated against women BY men. In other words, against those men who specifically target women for violence _because_ they are women.

      So you either can't read or you are implicitly claiming that all men intend to be violent toward women.
      • Re: the bloody revolution

        Wed, November 28, 2007 - 4:54 PM
        • Re: the bloody revolution

          Wed, November 28, 2007 - 7:58 PM
          why are you on this tribe??? you only spout your pro-male, pity us because, blah blah.... sorry, but join the ranks of being over half of the population and still being treated as a second class citizen before you pop up on a forum spewing a bunch of ignorance. And before you get up out of here, read the post on the mass rapes of the congo, and then site me an example of 70% of a male population being systematically raped while the world could give a damn, with your "men experience more violence". yeah, mofo, well they experience it at the hands of other men. So men also reap what they sow, big f-ing surprise.

Recent topics in "Feminist Activists"

Topic Author Replies Last Post
McCain has no opinion lori 4 Today, 7:41 AM
Emily's List lori 3 Today, 5:18 AM
160th Anniversary of Seneca Falls Protest 0 July 19, 2008
Democrats on the Slippery Slope 2 July 18, 2008