Nothing wrong with it. It’s for reasons like this that your type of feminism is mocked.
Ok so is slapping women who walk past on the arse deemed ok by you? Is whistling at a woman deemed ok at you?
Is women squeezing mens balls as they walk past ok to you?
I dont care about what /pol/ thinks, i care about objective facts, feminists deny and even insult genuine issues that impact us men, in certain circumstances they have even caused it, seeking special arbitrary privileges against those who you deem to be lesser then you ie your “oppressors” from the patriarchy ie men in the eyes of feminists , makes you a supremacist.
People who do not believe in the equality of two genders are not feminists, they are attention seeking chauvinists (don’t know the proper word so pls forgive me).
Are you fucking serious? You are fucking equating wolf whistling to actual physical assault!?
Of course I’m not equating it to physical assault. It’s just more likely than not the woman finds it intimidating if she’s alone and theres four men doing it.
No…I live in Birmingham…I don’t see how that matters but, whatever…Also, They’ll place the cross next to Labour because we have to convince them that Corporations that haven’t paid a penny of Tax and owe billions, and the banks that put them in the difficult economic position they’re in today through market speculation and gambling with their money are the real drain on society and not decent, hard working and vulnerable immigrants. By the way, if you want to talk about generalisations, you’re clearly a Conservative voter? Do you live in a mansion?
But the Tories are already doing that … and Nigel Farage with his ‘big banks’ message has laid the tax evasion story to UKIP’s hands.
What will you do to remotely ring the message better?
Because London Labour voters are not remotely representative of what happens outside of Greater London. Mainly public sector and middle class liberals.
Yeah good luck getting the UKIP vote back lol
We must be one heck of a rich country if 14 million people live in mansions.
If 4 dudes whistling to a woman, indicating to her that she is attractive by their standards and she is intimidated by that, then that is her problem not theirs, they are not walking up to her and threatening her, and a whistle is by no means recognized as a threat by anyone in society in such context. You are dangerously close to those feminists who i am talking about, because you are almost implying that harmless whistling is a bad thing and that you want to police people like that. Only threats are unacceptable, anything else via free speech is generally a ok.
You btw belittle actual problems like sexual assault when you think wolf whistling is a problem that is worth discussing in a political context.
Exactly…that’s my point…it was a sweeping generalisation, why is it okay to make these generalisations about Labour and not the Conservatives? Coming on to your first point: The Conservative party was led by a man (Who shares your name) who profited from corporate tax loopholes and legal tax avoidance. The fact that you think the Conservative party is the party which will combat corporate tax avoidance is utterly laughable.
That definition is meaningless at this point, no group should be defined by its extremists and outliers, but it should be defined by how it reacts to them, because it indicates how much the “moderates” agree or disagree with the extremist, and most feminists will never disavow Anita sarkesian or the patriarchy conspiracy or take men’s issues seriously.
I don’t know if you’ve noticed but there has been a leadership change and a change of ideology in the Conservative Party.
I haven’t even made a generalisation about Labour voters. Quote it.
Sexual assault is still a massive problem within this primate riff raff mentality and needs to be stopped once and for all. I want to see the day when men actually get punished for slapping a woman on the arse uncalled for etc.
There, are these quotations enough for you?
The change in ideology, is about as non existent as Theresa May’s mandate to lead the party.
The conservatives are the same old Tory party, the Universal credit cuts are going to impact single parents who will lose over £3600 per year EVEN WITH the increase in the minimum wage.
You misspelled “Attackers” It’s not spelled “Men” You could’ve said: “I cant wait to see the day when sexual deviants actually get punished for behaving inappropriately towards others”
How is this a generalisation?
Bromley and Havering are some of the poorest areas of London. They vote overwhelmingly Conservative.
Islington however is the 7th richest borough in London and both of its constituencies vote Labour, one of them electing a full-blown socialist.
Although London’s voting pattern is much more to do with how many white people are left in the constituency rather than income.
Have you paid attention to the news?
I can’t even think of a policy that this government has continued from Cameron. Everything has been shelved.
Help to Buy gone, austerity gone, debt ceiling gone, Northern Powerhouse gone, Heathrow ban gone, grammar schools returned, immigration free-for-all gone, pro-EU line gone, ECHR unilateral abrogation plan gone, Northeast Combined Authority gone, prison policy on its way to reform from punishment to rehab, Lloyds Bank share sell-off gone.
Give me a policy that Cameron introduced and May kept other than Welfare 2012 Act and lax attitude towards driverless cars on public roads.
Yes, some of the richest areas in London vote Labour, but all of the poorest areas in Birmingham vote Labour. Your statement is, by definition, a generalisation or "a general statement or concept obtained by inference from specific cases."
I’m not even going to debate you any further regarding this saying that austerity is “Gone” is an insult to millions of people who are suffering and who are going to suffer in the future. (Also, I never said anything about specific policy’s…but the Tory party IS the same old Tory party with the same ideological agenda. If you can’t see that, you’re not looking.
My ‘generalisation’ applied only to London, thus your analogy is pointless.
they might want to get a better knowledge of facts and a thicker skin then.
Well, it is a generalisation, whether or not you apply it to London. I was correct in referring to it as a generalisation…The facts are that under the Tories, they will be between £1000 and £3600 worse off per year DISPITE the “Living wage”
Single parents make up 0.1% of the population.
What the Tories are doing will benefit the vast majority of low income people.
Labour would do much bigger damage to the population by attacking the 1% richest, because that’s 10x more people.