Follow TV Tropes

Following

Discussion History Main / LudicrousGibs

Go To

Changed line(s) 11 from:
n
Anyway, don\'t fret. You\'ll eventually win whatever it is you want. You see, the feminist opinion is the authority opinion on gender issues and opinions like mine(which are truly radical) are usually removed in due time as the status quo does not appreciate.

Okay this... \
to:
Anyway, don\\\'t fret. You\\\'ll eventually win whatever it is you want. You see, the feminist opinion is the authority opinion on gender issues and opinions like mine(which are truly radical) are usually removed in due time as the status quo does not appreciate.
Changed line(s) 13 from:
n
Okay this... \
to:
Okay this... \\\"yeah, women might do better in divorce cases because of this, but I think a lot of women would be willing to trade that bias for not being treated as pariahs if they should put their career over having children\\\"

I will comment on. So you think some women would rather women do as bad as men in divorce cases in terms of child custody so they wouldn\\\'t get treated like pariahs for not having children? Okay, wonderful, I\\\'m sort of the same page as you(except I think shared custody would probably be more appropriate). So what have you done lately to support a presumption of paternal custody in family court? After all if presumption of paternal custody would benefit women so much more then presumption of maternal custody, this is an issue that should seriously be promoted by feminists and feminist groups.
Changed line(s) 11 from:
n
Anyway, don\'t fret. You\'ll eventually win whatever it is you want. You see, the feminist opinion is the authority opinion on gender issues and opinions like mine(which are truly radical) are usually removed in due time as the status quo does not appreciate.
to:
Anyway, don\\\'t fret. You\\\'ll eventually win whatever it is you want. You see, the feminist opinion is the authority opinion on gender issues and opinions like mine(which are truly radical) are usually removed in due time as the status quo does not appreciate.

Okay this... \\\"yeah, women might do better in divorce cases because of this, but I think a lot of women would be willing to trade that bias for not being treated as pariahs if they should put their career over having children\\\"

I will comment on. So you think some women would rather women do as bad as men in divorce cases in terms of child custody so they wouldn\\\'t get treated like pariahs for not having children? Okay, wonderful, I\\\'m sort of the same page as you(except I think shared custody would probably be more appropriate). So what have you done lately to support a presumption of paternal custody in family court?
Changed line(s) 11 from:
n
Anyway, don\'t fret. You\'ll eventually win whatever it is you want. You see, the feminist and other forms of gender conservatist opinion is the authority opinion on gender issues and opinions like mine(which are truly radical) are usually removed in due time as the status quo does not appreciate.
to:
Anyway, don\\\'t fret. You\\\'ll eventually win whatever it is you want. You see, the feminist opinion is the authority opinion on gender issues and opinions like mine(which are truly radical) are usually removed in due time as the status quo does not appreciate.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
I\'ve already read plenty of feminist arguments supporting gender conservatism. I use the term \'argument\' loosely here. More like assertions without evidence. And, know what? On second thought, not going to address it. What I will ask is this.
to:
I\\\'ve already read plenty of feminist arguments supporting gender conservatism. I use the term \\\'argument\\\' loosely here. More like assertions without evidence. On second thought, not going to address it. What I will ask is this.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
I\'ve already read plenty of gender conservative arguments supporting gender conservatism. I use the term \'argument\' loosely here. More like assertions without evidence. And, know what? On second thought, not going to address it. What I will ask is this.
to:
I\\\'ve already read plenty of feminist arguments supporting gender conservatism. I use the term \\\'argument\\\' loosely here. More like assertions without evidence. And, know what? On second thought, not going to address it. What I will ask is this.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
I\'ve already read plenty of feminist arguments supporting gender conservatism. I use the term \'argument\' loosely here. More like assertions without evidence. And, know what? On second thought, not going to address it. What I will ask is this.
to:
I\\\'ve already read plenty of gender conservative arguments supporting gender conservatism. I use the term \\\'argument\\\' loosely here. More like assertions without evidence. And, know what? On second thought, not going to address it. What I will ask is this.
Changed line(s) 7 from:
n
Or is it because feminism is so [[RuleAbidingRebel comfortable]] to most people who want something \'edgy\' but not really challenging to their traditional notions of \'woman = vulnerable(victim)/man = invulnerable(aggressor)?\' You can be hip and cool but not really challenge yourself all that much.
to:
Or is it because feminism is so [[RuleAbidingRebel comfortable]] to most people who want something \\\'edgy\\\' but not really challenging to their traditional gender conservative notions of \\\'woman = vulnerable(victim)/man = invulnerable(aggressor)?\\\' You can be hip and cool but not really challenge yourself all that much.
Changed line(s) 11 from:
n
Anyway, don\'t fret. You\'ll eventually win whatever it is you want. You see, the feminist opinion is the authority opinion on gender issues and opinions like mine(which are truly radical) are usually removed in due time as the status quo does not appreciate.
to:
Anyway, don\\\'t fret. You\\\'ll eventually win whatever it is you want. You see, the feminist and other forms of gender conservatist opinion is the authority opinion on gender issues and opinions like mine(which are truly radical) are usually removed in due time as the status quo does not appreciate.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
I\'ve already read plenty of feminist arguments supporting gender conservatism. I use the term \'argument\' loosely here. More like assertions without evidence.
to:
I\\\'ve already read plenty of feminist arguments supporting gender conservatism. I use the term \\\'argument\\\' loosely here. More like assertions without evidence. And, know what? On second thought, not going to address it. What I will ask is this.
Changed line(s) 5 from:
n
You can say \'men are in charge\' but if men\'s sex role is to ignore/minimize male vulnerability and recognize/assist female vulnerability, they aren\'t about to ride their gallant steed to the defense of men and serve men\'s needs(sounds sorta... well... gay, innit?). Which explains all the lopsided funding(in favor of female interests) in government.
to:
Why do you believe it? Is it because you\\\'ve actually looked at both sides, at the negatives of the male role and the positives of the female role rationally and logically and come to the conclusion that women really are the bigger victim(wow! so unexpected)?
Changed line(s) 7 from:
n
Quick. Think about how you believe Sarah Palin doesn\'t represent women\'s interests. Now explain to me why you can simultaneously believe a female politician won\'t necessarily represent women\'s interests but male politicians will automatically represent men\'s.
to:
Or is it because feminism is so [[RuleAbidingRebel comfortable]] to most people who want something \\\'edgy\\\' but not really challenging to their traditional notions of \\\'woman = vulnerable(victim)/man = invulnerable(aggressor)?\\\' You can be hip and cool but not really challenge yourself all that much.

Have you ever questioned your programming to see women as weak and men as strong?

Anyway, don\\\'t fret. You\\\'ll eventually win whatever it is you want. You see, the feminist opinion is the authority opinion on gender issues and opinions like mine(which are truly radical) are usually removed in due time as the status quo does not appreciate.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Why?
to:
Why?

I\\\'ve already read plenty of feminist arguments supporting gender conservatism. I use the term \\\'argument\\\' loosely here. More like assertions without evidence.

You can say \\\'men are in charge\\\' but if men\\\'s sex role is to ignore/minimize male vulnerability and recognize/assist female vulnerability, they aren\\\'t about to ride their gallant steed to the defense of men and serve men\\\'s needs(sounds sorta... well... gay, innit?). Which explains all the lopsided funding(in favor of female interests) in government.

Quick. Think about how you believe Sarah Palin doesn\\\'t represent women\\\'s interests. Now explain to me why you can simultaneously believe a female politician won\\\'t necessarily represent women\\\'s interests but male politicians will automatically represent men\\\'s.
Top