Violations of the Constitution and laws of the USA regarding feminism topics

Sean Cook2 said:placidorca16, Sophia Thomas7 thought that quote from Michelle Alvarez8 came from your opening post—he clearly didn't bother clicking the arrow to see she pulled it from the "feminism" thread.

My sincere respect to those who remain optimistic while tilting at windmills—I simply lack the energy to reopen those debates or wade through the endless nonsense found there.

My deepest respects for your optimism and your fight against windmills. I personally don't even have the energy to open those threads anymore, let alone respond to all the nonsense written there.

Peter Phillips32 said:Well, look, you actually wrote that women "have more abilities," which honestly comes off as nothing but passive-aggressive provocation, and then you proceeded to list exactly one single thing: giving birth. But hey, if we’re playing this game where we acknowledge men are physically stronger, then that's +1 for strength on the male side and +1 for childbirth on the female side regarding overall abilities for both sexes, respectively.

So, not only are they not "more capable," but you promised a whole range of abilities and then only delivered one. Can you manage to cough up at least three more besides just having babies?

Just for the sake of clarity, could you please list these male and female abilities that are supposedly equal, under which category you can then tack on childbirth as a "superior" female trait?

On top of that, you completely dodged the question about how free speech even fits into this mess. Check post #11. Just a heads-up, I'm asking how legal precedent actually handles free speech regarding this specific topic, not how you wish the law worked.

So, why don't you try answering post #11 instead of just showing up here to chant slogans? It seems like if you can't answer post #11, you probably don't even understand what it's asking.

Secondly, look, I'm all for supporting people in their charitable endeavors, but I draw the line at including baseless claims, half-baked answers, moralistic coercion, and those kinds of cheap tricks used to push agendas that some people find totally objectionable.

Casey Bennett said:Maybe the reason I don't feel insulted by certain descriptions is simply because they don't apply to me? 🤷
Did that possibility ever cross your mind? 😉

When someone (regardless of whether they are male or female) points out that there are plenty of women who are just plain boring, spending their entire lives glued to soap operas and gossiping, believe me, I won't feel the slightest urge to scream, "How dare you, you misogynist!" because, frankly, it’s the damn truth.

I have no interest in defending or representing anyone just because we share the same chromosomes, and I certainly don't want anyone speaking on behalf of women without my express permission.

Real struggle should be reserved for the disenfranchised, the oppressed, the hungry, and the helpless—regardless of whether we are talking about a child, a woman, a man, or an animal.

To summarize: feminism is, in my opinion, far too narrowly specialized, overly aggressive, and completely devoid of any sense of humor. I won't go so far as to call it fanaticism, but if anyone finds themselves offended by this, I wash my hands of their feelings.

placidorca16 said:So?🙄 Oh, sure—apparently, asking the moderators to actually step in when people start slinging misogynistic labels around or claiming women have "inferior intellect"—you know, the usual garbage—is what they call being "aggressive."😁

Nicholas King said:Exactly.

However, there is a very simple distinction to be made here: the moment someone claims that all women are like that—or even just a massive percentage of them—your refusal to speak up stops being principled and starts looking like mere conformism, or quite frankly, just pure laziness and letting others fight your battles for you.

As for this whole "ability" argument, it’s a total miss—and honestly, a brilliant bit of spin: the original phrasing of "showing more ability" means something entirely different from the revised version, "having more ability."

And don't even get me started on bringing "childbearing abilities" into a discussion like this; it's a ridiculous pivot that invites the counter-argument of male "abilities like peeing against a wall, which women lack"—so, if we're going down that road, let's start counting...

Michelle Alvarez8 said:Honestly, what's actually aggressive is spinning it this way. I don't get how you still can't see that this kind of talk just doesn't fly here. 🤷

Michelle Alvarez8 said:Fair point. Honestly, being a guy, I’m clearly just inferior to women—since they actually have the superpower of giving birth—so I might as well head out to the garage and tinker with my car instead of staying here to trade insults with "alpha females" who think they're fighting some righteous battle against misogyny. I'll just go cry under a table now. 😢

placidorca16 said:Oh, sure, because a man's ability to pee against a wall and a woman's ability to give birth are totally equivalent, right?🙄

placidorca16 said:Right—those are reproductive capabilities in general, not just childbirth, which is part of that set... but why would I bother explaining basic concepts to people who can barely write?🙄

As for legal stuff, go talk to an attorney if you're confused.

And what exactly do you mean by "moralistic coercion"?🤷

What exactly do you mean by these "moralistic pressures" you keep harping on about?🤷

placidorca16 said:Right—those are reproductive capabilities in general, not just childbirth, which is part of that set... but why would I bother explaining basic concepts to people who can barely write?🙄

As for legal stuff, go talk to an attorney if you're confused.

And what exactly do you mean by "moralistic coercion"?🤷

placidorca16 said:Hey, don't go pinning that on me—you said it, not me. And if you're feeling the urge to have a good cry, be my guest; at least you aren't emotionally stunted like some of us.🥳

placidorca16 said:That’s not even the same thing—easy to argue when you look at it that way. Women give birth, men don't. So, I guess that makes it an "ability"—more, not less, than men. Men can't even be compared to women in that department. The fact that women have the ability to reproduce is pretty much obvious to everyone.

On the flip side, this thread is all about claiming women have "lower" intelligence or other abilities compared to men—some users call these "facts," though they aren't facts at all because they just aren't true. Any differences found in intelligence aren't statistically significant, and there's actually a tiny spread for men in both the positive and negative directions. Basically, if there are smarter men out there, there are just as many idiots out there too... but hey, that's not "significant." Also, there’s more variation in intelligence within each gender group than there is between them, but nobody ever mentions that as being important, even though it actually is.
Then there's the whole thing about how women get belittled at every turn in these posts—which seems to be considered "normal" on this forum—but unfortunately, it just highlights one other reality: the kind of sexist society we live in.

Nicholas King said:Aside from the fact that it’s honestly hilarious how you’re pretending to be incapable of handling a spin—one that I clearly and definitively debunked—it’s just pathetic. You’ve somehow managed to take a shooter’s mere "attempt at scoring" and rebrand it as actually "possessing ability." It's a joke. And honestly, if we're talking about actual male capability, even being able to write on a wall is... well, it's something. When we get into these endless debates surrounding gender equality—or the lack thereof—it’s always the same exhausting cycle. I mean, I guess you could say it’s become one of those topics where everyone thinks they have the definitive answer, yet nobody actually seems to be listening to anyone else. It’s all just noise at this point. There’s this constant back-and-forth regarding whether we’ve truly achieved parity or if we’re just moving the goalposts every few years—which, let’s be honest, feels like it happens more often than not. I suspect much of the friction comes from how people interpret the very concept of fairness itself; some see it as total mathematical equality, while others view it through a completely different lens of opportunity. It’s messy, it’s complicated, and frankly, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to have a civil conversation about it without someone taking offense at the slightest nuance. It’s just as nonsensical an argument as a woman's ability to conceive.

Or perhaps what you're actually suggesting is that we need to sit down and conduct an exhaustive analysis of everyone's individual capabilities—just so we can tally up some grand total score and, once and for all, declare one gender superior to the other? I guess that’s the logic here, isn't it? more capable I find myself wondering—and I mean this with all due deliberation—exactly what fundamental principles of nature lead us to the inevitable conclusion of inequality? It’s one of those questions that seems simple on the surface, yet once you start peeling back the layers, everything becomes incredibly messy. I guess you could argue it's baked into the very fabric of our existence, though I hesitate to be so definitive without more data. Perhaps there's a structural necessity for it, or maybe it's just an inherent flaw in how we organize ourselves. It’s a complex thought, really—one that demands we look past the immediate chaos and consider the underlying mechanics of how things actually work.

So maybe you're saying we should just tally up everyone's skills and then, based on the final score, declare one gender superior—which naturally leads to inequality?

Kyle Ward said:I honestly have no clue why this thread hasn't been locked yet. This person—who is basically the textbook definition of a stereotypical feminist (go ahead, report me to the moderators, Sarnavka, and of course, mommy 😍)—doesn't even know what she wants. Honestly, she doesn't even know what she *doesn't* want.

She’s busy calling everyone else out for sexism, while her entire discourse boils down to just trashing anyone who holds an opinion other than her own. She preaches about equality, yet refuses to grant any kind of equality to anyone else. She started this whole topic acting like it was some manifesto for female intelligence, only for her "ultimate" argument for superiority over us "clueless men" to end up being nothing more than the physiological fact that she has a uterus?!!?

Let me repeat it once more, in case anyone missed the sheer idiocy of the arguments above: WOMEN ARE MORE CAPABLE THAN MEN BECAUSE THEY HAVE A UTERUS.

And if I were to say, for example, that I think men are more capable because we can lift weights using our anatomy, I’d be branded a chauvinistic moron immediately.

I mean, if this isn't a blatant case of trolling wrapped in a few nerdy phrases—which, let's be real, she probably picked up during some six-month gender roles seminar in Canada—then I don't know what is.
And what's worse? The moderators actually took the bait instead of slapping her with a ban for this manic trolling until March 15th, 2056.

Men fertilize you. I guess that's a greater capability compared to women. Women can't even be compared to men in this regard. The fact of men fertilizing women is more than evident, I hope everyone realizes that.
There. That's the level of your discussion. So, what now? Are we going to debate which gender is more capable based on breast size? 🙂
Please, just stop. Seriously. For your own sake. In these last few posts, you've done more damage to the "feminist movement" than a single vulgar, chauvinistic outburst from someone like Vuco or Royce could do in three lifetimes.

placidorca16 said:Look, man... if you don't like what I'm saying, feel free to scroll past—I didn't ask for your opinion, and frankly, I couldn't care less about your comments.

placidorca16 said:Look, man... if you don't like what I'm saying, feel free to scroll past—I didn't ask for your opinion, and frankly, I couldn't care less about your comments.

slycrane94 said:Not really. I just enjoy watching fanatics lose their minds when they get called out for being fanatics. Just declare feminism a religion and watch the sparks fly. Then you could start collecting taxes, too. 🙂

Kyle Ward said:I honestly have no clue why this thread hasn't been locked yet. This person—who is basically the textbook definition of a stereotypical feminist (go ahead, report me to the moderators, Sarnavka, and of course, mommy 😍)—doesn't even know what she wants. Honestly, she doesn't even know what she *doesn't* want.

She’s busy calling everyone else out for sexism, while her entire discourse boils down to just trashing anyone who holds an opinion other than her own. She preaches about equality, yet refuses to grant any kind of equality to anyone else. She started this whole topic acting like it was some manifesto for female intelligence, only for her "ultimate" argument for superiority over us "clueless men" to end up being nothing more than the physiological fact that she has a uterus?!!?

Let me repeat it once more, in case anyone missed the sheer idiocy of the arguments above: WOMEN ARE MORE CAPABLE THAN MEN BECAUSE THEY HAVE A UTERUS.

And if I were to say, for example, that I think men are more capable because we can lift weights using our anatomy, I’d be branded a chauvinistic moron immediately.

I mean, if this isn't a blatant case of trolling wrapped in a few nerdy phrases—which, let's be real, she probably picked up during some six-month gender roles seminar in Canada—then I don't know what is.
And what's worse? The moderators actually took the bait instead of slapping her with a ban for this manic trolling until March 15th, 2056.

Men fertilize you. I guess that's a greater capability compared to women. Women can't even be compared to men in this regard. The fact of men fertilizing women is more than evident, I hope everyone realizes that.
There. That's the level of your discussion. So, what now? Are we going to debate which gender is more capable based on breast size? 🙂
Please, just stop. Seriously. For your own sake. In these last few posts, you've done more damage to the "feminist movement" than a single vulgar, chauvinistic outburst from someone like Vuco or Royce could do in three lifetimes.

Kyle Ward said:So, here we are. Seriously, who exactly gave you the authority to go out there and start waging some kind of crusade? You'd think other people would actually care about your completely baseless, aggressive rambling—which is clearly just born out of pure boredom—but then, when someone gives you a taste of your own medicine, suddenly you're not interested? Is that how it works? And you actually expect people to take you seriously? 🙂
To my dear feminists: honestly, I think you’d find a much better representative than this little mascot in someone like Peter Čobanković. 😁

Maria Reyes4 said:It’s honestly more depressing to watch people mock things—some out of pure ignorance, others just because they think being edgy is "cool"—when they clearly haven't the slightest clue what they're actually talking about. Or at least, they pretend they don't.

Feminism advocates for political, social, and economic equality between men and women—nothing more. It isn't some aggressive crusade, nor does it require a sense of humor to function—it’s simply about fundamental human rights. It's a decent idea, really; an idea rooted in basic humanity. If certain people can't distinguish between individual behavior and the core philosophy itself, that isn't a flaw in feminism—it's just a reflection of individual apathy and stupidity.

Look, feminism—just like any other movement or ideology—inevitably attracts aggressive idiots who end up doing more damage to the cause than they ever do good. It’s pathetic, really. Under the guise of feminism, certain people just vent their own personal frustrations through battles that have absolutely nothing to do with the actual movement. To call yourself a feminist while simultaneously trampling over men simply because of their gender is pure stupidity. Treating these creatures as relevant—or worse, equating them with the core idea itself, which is noble, non-aggressive, and genuinely good—is just plain foolish.

dustyranger64 said:Thankfully, just like some chauvinist jerk isn't a valid representative for all men, placidorca16 isn't a valid representative for women or feminism either.

Or generally speaking about any specific type of person: