|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Truely with the huff huff of this article how can people not see how feminism is used as a form of imperialism when it suits.
They don't want these women in their for the benifit of women, they want these women in there because they can control the women easier and thus control the outcome of society. This is not ultra conservative views it's an objective analysis of what's happening.
Some animals are more equal than others is a joke.
.
Dan Lynch's Self-Defence (519) 774-2121
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-----Holy sheep dip, pass the bitter herbs. Let's see if my simple male mind can make a little sense of this. The CONSTITUTION (the defining concept of a country) has mandatory GENDER QUOTA's, but ONLY for women. Not a proportional quota. Which would probably good for women seeing as how many MEN have died FIGHTING while they were home - being at home and beaten or starved is three steps up from being shot at, beaten, and starved.
-----This CONSTITUTION is going to be in this country for its "lifetime", and has affirmative action built in. Let's see if its ok ... shall we? Does this proportional representation included the God-knows-how-many minority groups broken down by ethnic demographic. Shucks no, that might ... what's that phrase? .. oh yeah ... MAKE FUCKING SENSE.
-----How about a defining moment of free education and health care for all them kids. Shit no ... only 'poor women' can get that guarenteed. Feminazis sure have screwed some poor Afgan boy who never met them but by virtue of having a penis makes him guilty.
"I think of a man ... then I take away reason and accountability" - Jack Nicholson
Peace
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday October 03, @08:11PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
How can a democracy exist when it forces the election of certain representatives? These quotas are terrible because they take away the choice and decision away from the voters. If a country wants to their government to be all women, then they will vote for them. Now, if they want to encourage the election of women, that's good, but don't set a forced minimum.
Anyone know how elections will work in the new government? Will the Prime Minister be selected by the ruling party? I'm asking because I have to wonder how it's possible to force the election of a particular person. For example, if there was a gender quota in the U.S. government and not enough women were volunteering to be candidates, what do you do? Is the government supposed to be punish itself, select a woman at random, let an incumbant woman stay in office, or just overturn the results of election (assuming a male defeated a female) and have the woman take office?
And this doesn't even cover the issue of women who used to be men. Or how about women who are "trapped in the body of a man?" Despite feminists' assertations that gender is a choice, I bet they won't accept these people as women when election time comes around.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday October 04, @05:25PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Alright, I don't see how this is a bad thing. There does not need to be a minimum for men in this case, because without this law men would be by far the majority if not the entirety, and even with the law they will still be a majority. If men were a minority in politics, I could see your point, but this is a country not only run mainly by men but openly antagonistic towards women. This is not the States or Canada, this is a country where the woman who has an affair can be sentanced to stoning, the man walks. I agree that in western culture misandry is the norm, but Afganistan is not a western nation. Seems like this really falls outside the realm of a men's issue. Where in that culture is fair and equal?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with "anonymous" above,
If anti-feminist men are truly about equality under the law, and not about subjugating women, then the nominal representation of females in Afganistan's infant democractic experiment cannot be a bad thing.
This is not an attempt to distort the legal system as has happened here in the US after thirty-plus years of radical gender feminism.
It is not a conspiracy to subvert men's rights.
It's an effort to simply INCLUDE women in the formal governing process, and to change a centuries old lock-out by a system of gender-repressive social discrimination.
Men's advocates must learn to make important distinctions where they are relevant to our primary argument for equality under the law.
The (federal) State in the US has gone too far in providing unfair legal privileges to women, who have been characterized as the "victimized" gender.
In Afganistan, however, there is little doubt that women have been systematically deprived of the very rights that most men supporting the men's rights effort would wholeheartedly endorse.
Can't have it both ways, gentlemen.
Equality under the law means fairness for every human being.
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If anti-feminist men are truly about equality under the law, and not about subjugating women, then the nominal representation of females in Afganistan's infant democractic experiment cannot be a bad thing.
Just how are we in the wrong if we disagree?
This is not an attempt to distort the legal system as has happened here in the US after thirty-plus years of radical gender feminism.
Yeah, believe.
It is not a conspiracy to subvert men's rights.
It's yet to do us any favours.
It's an effort to simply INCLUDE women in the formal governing process, and to change a centuries old lock-out by a system of gender-repressive social discrimination.
You really believe that?
Men's advocates must learn to make important distinctions where they are relevant to our primary argument for equality under the law.
We do that anyway.
The (federal) State in the US has gone too far in providing unfair legal privileges to women, who have been characterized as the "victimized" gender.
In most western countries that is the case.
In Afganistan, however, there is little doubt that women have been systematically deprived of the very rights that most men supporting the men's rights effort would wholeheartedly endorse.
You need some serious de-programming man. How about an explaination for writing this?
Can't have it both ways, gentlemen.
Last time I checked, the other half of humanity had a bigger problem with that issue than we did.
Equality under the law means fairness for every human being.
Nice idea, but as time goes on, you'll probably change your mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday October 04, @08:31PM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
"This is not the States or Canada, this is a country where the woman who has an affair can be sentanced to stoning, the man walks."
The States or Canada are not Afghanistan, these are countries where a man who hasn't had an affair can be thrown out of his house, have his children taken from him, driven to destitution/suicide and/or 20years imprisonment(if the woman chooses to spice up the false allegations). Meanwhile the woman walks, with ample financial reward to boot.
I don't think this falls outside the realm of mens issues. It's adding insult to injury that America is fighting gender injustice abroad whilst supporting it at home.
I should add that many men have been sentenced to death by women in States/Canada only for the female murderer to walk free (all that is required is that she concoct some story of abuse-no actual evidence against the man is needed).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
" Alright, I don't see how this is a bad thing."
Then let me try and convince you.
"There does not need to be a minimum for men in this case,"
Why not? Who's to say what the political climate in Afghanistan will be like in 80 years, this is something they're writing straight into their constitution.
"because without this law men would be by far the majority if not the entirety,"
That's questionable. Women make up a much greater share of the Afghan adult population than men do, and have a much stronger vote.
"and even with the law they will still be a majority."
Whether or not the people *choose* to elect a majority is secondary to protecting their right to choose. If all of the possible men's spots are full, suddenly I might not be allowed to vote for the candidate I like. Even if he does get the most votes, he will not be allowed to win in order to make room for a woman because feminists from halfway across the world have decreed it.
"If men were a minority in politics, I could see your point"
I'd still argue the most important thing is that the people can vote how they see fit, even if that means electing only women.
"but this is a country not only run mainly by men but openly antagonistic towards women."
Come again? They've been FAR more antagonistic towards men than women, which is why the only able-bodied adults left are women. Where were these "equality loving" women when it was time to make sacrifices, lose limbs, and even die to remove the Taliban? When there was talk of sacrifice, they didn't say boo, but now that its time to divide up the spoils of war they demand equality? Who the hell are they to demand anything? They sat on their asses while their men died in greater numbers because they wouldn't help, they're lucky their men choose to give them anything at all.
"This is not the States or Canada, this is a country where the woman who has an affair can be sentanced to stoning, the man walks."
The man doesn't walk. There's been approximately 3 women sentenced to stoning for adultery in Afghanistan, and about 10,000. Don't confuse western countries biased journalists decision to write 10,000 stories about the women who've been stoned for it and only 3 about the men for an indication of how often it actually happens. Amnesty International even mentioned those numbers in an article they called "The Plight of the Afghani Women". Nice bit of selective empathy there AI.
"I agree that in western culture misandry is the norm, but Afganistan is not a western nation."
There its more of the traditionalistic and chivalrous anti-male culture, as opposed to our modern misandric feminist anti-male culture, but it is an anti-male culture nonetheless. Adding these perks for women only and holding feminist virtues over the voters choices is only making it worse.
"Seems like this really falls outside the realm of a men's issue."
When a person can't be elected because he's a man, its definitely a men's issue.
"Where in that culture is fair and equal?"
Not in the sacrifices that were made to get a new constitution, nor in the phlegminist inspired constitution itself.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
