What does this mean for me? You will always be able to play your favorite games on Kongregate. However, certain site features may suddenly stop working and leave you with a severely degraded experience.
What should I do? We strongly urge all our users to upgrade to modern browsers for a better experience and improved security.
We suggest you install the latest version of one of these browsers:
> *Originally posted by **[Jantonaitis](/forums/9/topics/221325?page=3#posts-4781825):***
> This guy does not represent the entire movement, and the more you preach about him, the more I’m inclined to think you’ve either dumbed down his arguments to the point of absurdity, or he’s just full of shit.
Since he point blank refuses to actually quote the passages, and insists any interested party actually buy the works of this person just to access these quotes, it’s impossible to tell which one is actually ‘full of shit’.
It’s not refusal if I do not _have_ the passages on me to quote. I am too poor to buy the book myself – so I sat in a B&N for 10 hours and read. A little tip: Warren Farrell is identified as a feminist by the most notable feminists around. But I’m the ignorant one here… If you’re so passionate about this topic, it’s a staple book to read. You won’t regret it.
> *Originally posted by **[DarkBaron](/forums/9/topics/221325?page=4#posts-4783725):***
> It’s not refusal if I do not _have_ the passages on me to quote. I am too poor to buy the book myself – so I sat in a B&N for 10 hours and read. A little tip: Warren Farrell is identified as a feminist by the most notable feminists around. But I’m the ignorant one here… If you’re so passionate about this topic, it’s a staple book to read. You won’t regret it.
You have access to your university library databases, but you can’t find anything written by this guy that substantiates your views? Can’t read any other feminist articles to see if maybe this guy isn’t shitting gold after all? How odd.
You’re plenty passionate about the topic if you sat in a bookstore for ten hours to read it. My points still stand; you’re just afraid to look too closely at anything that may contradict your ~~archaic beliefs~~ argument. But I’ll read it, eventually.
For now I guess the thread’s stalled though.
> *Originally posted by **[DarkBaron](/forums/9/topics/221325?page=3#posts-4780987):***
> > *Originally posted by **[iMachine](/forums/9/topics/221325?page=3#posts-4776749):***
> > > *Originally posted by **[DarkBaron](/forums/9/topics/221325?page=3#posts-4776689):***
> > >
> > > Apathy. I really couldn’t care less if you’re too ignorant to check sources yourself.
> > If I told you that the labour theory of value is factual, and told you to read the entire Das Kapital (it is a brick) to see for yourself, would you accept that as a convincing argument? I would at least not accuse you of being ignorant for not wanting to read through thousand pages of economic theory just to find out whether my argument is correct or not.
> > > If you really prefer to have people tell you things rather than verify claims yourself, then there is nothing to discuss here.
> > He is simply asking you to present the arguments done in the book to back up your claims so that he doesn’t have to read through the whole thing. It has nothing to do with ignorance, but everything to do with rationality and saving time.
> The difference is, this book is merely a couple hundred pages, and you kids, arguing in this thread, _appear_ to be passionate about the subject.
I’m not really that interested in the subject, to be honest.
> It’s like someone being passionate about economics and never reading anything written by Karl Marx. Yes, that is, indeed, ignorant.
Yes, but it would be much easier for everybody in this debate if you could just present the arguments in the book (which I take it you understand and agree with, seeing as you cite the book all the time) and justify them through the use of statistics (if what the book states is really correct, then there are probably other statistics and sources out there that supports it).
> Or, say pursuing a degree in economics, and just taking everyone’s word for what Karl marx says. Yes, that is ignorant.
I care about the arguments, not the person. Who Farrel is, is completely indifferent to me. What he says, isn’t. Now, if you have read the book, and if you understood and agreed with it, then you should be able to somewhat recite those arguments. I don’t care whether they are your arguments, or Farrel’s. It really doesn’t matter. Need statistics to back up your claims? Then find them. If you can’t find any, then you should probably question the correctness of your claims.
> So I do not have it on me to recite word for word
Which is completely unnecessary.
> nor to cite his statistics nor his sources.
Tried Googling them? Every review I have read of the book commends it for its “numerous reliable sources”. Must be something on the net that confirms your claims.
> And I am not the kind of fucking moron who posts arguments here straight from memory. “Oh, THIS guy said this and that and this and blah blah blah.”
Why not? Whether the argument is a completely accurate quote from Farrel, or your interpretation, does not matter. I only care about the argument, not its god damn author. If you _remember_ the book’s arguments, then I don’t see why you don’t post them. Show that you’ve learned something from the book, and post the arguments yourself.
Your lack of evidence for any of those arguments is disappointing. But that tends to be how it goes whenever people criticize feminists, you get a lot of bullshit cemented around an accurate point or two.
> *Originally posted by **[ArcheeBunker](/forums/9/topics/221325?page=4#posts-4839900):***
> > *Originally posted by **[Spaghedeity](/forums/9/topics/221325?page=4#posts-4839892):***
> > You were funny before your show was cancelled. Now you’re just a douche.
> Keep in mind that my name is ArcheeBunker, not Archie Bunker. I would go on to explain the differences but I assume you would not comprehend it.
You don’t hate _all_ non-WASPs?
> *Originally posted by **[DarkBaron](/forums/9/topics/221325?page=4#posts-4839947):***
> > *Originally posted by **[Jantonaitis](/forums/9/topics/221325?page=4#posts-4839706):***
> > Your lack of evidence for any of those arguments is disappointing. But that tends to be how it goes whenever people criticize feminists, you get a lot of bullshit cemented around an accurate point or two.
> I posted evidence about this about a dozen times by now. You’re just too damn dense to get anything from them. (All have been reputable). [Here’s just one, for now.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlFAd4YdQks)
What does that have to do with feminism? oh right, nothing. Also i’m not sure how some random youtube video is a reputable source. You’ve got an axe to grind with women abusing men, that’s your problem. But you don’t know shit about feminism to blame the entire movement for it.
Jant, it’s okay that you don’t know how to check a source’s reputability – but don’t, for one moment, think that just because you’re too ignorant to know a decent source (or dozen) against one of your preconceived notions, that you’re right and the overwhelming evidence is wrong.
Women are fine with these latent rights, and if you’re too blind to see it, and even go so far as to outright deny it, then you’re dafter than even I thought.
For someone who’s such an advocate of “lobbying”, ever wonder why women never lobby that men consist of 99% of death row? Or that men are always the ones arrested in mutual conflicts? Or why when women DO abuse men, that it’s always the man who’s perceived to have it coming? I’ll tell you why – they’re not ‘lobbying’ for equality – they’re lobbying for selfish reasons, and trying to make it into a contest. When I say women, I of course mean feminists.
Definition of FEMINISM
: the theory of the political, economic, and social **equality** of the sexes
Feminism is about equality. It’s just that some feminists take it and use it the way they’d like it, inn a way that is ironicly hypocritical. But those really are just the extremeists. A true feminist wants equality, as stated in the definition.
Archee, I introduce you to Betty Friedan. Do a bit of reading about her. She was as willing to criticize people ‘who didn’t go far enough’ as she was to criticize ‘people who went to far’.
What you are criticizing is gender feminists. They are different from regular feminists.
> *Originally posted by **[ArcheeBunker](/forums/9/topics/221325?page=5#posts-4840205):***
> > *Originally posted by **[dair5](/forums/9/topics/221325?page=5#posts-4840191):***
> > Definition of FEMINISM
> > 1
> > : the theory of the political, economic, and social **equality** of the sexes
> > Feminism is about equality. It’s just that some feminists take it and use it the way they’d like it, inn a way that is ironicly hypocritical. But those really are just the extremeists. A true feminist wants equality, as stated in the definition.
> Feminism is about females becoming equal to the status of males, it says nothing about balanced genders. The first step in the supposed inferior becoming the supposed superior does involve, at one point, equality between both.
Why would it need to involve females becoming superior? All that it asks for is equality, that is what is used in the definition. I wouldn’t think that any real feminists would want something as hypocritical as wanting to be superior to men. Just saying it sounds very ignorant.
> *Originally posted by **[ArcheeBunker](/forums/9/topics/221325?page=5#posts-4840227):***
> > *Originally posted by **[TheAwsomeOpossum](/forums/9/topics/221325?page=5#posts-4840212):***
> > Archee, I introduce you to Betty Friedan. Do a bit of reading about her.
> “Let me introduce you to someone who is dead and gone, and use this to try and prove how the people are now”
> Thanks, but no thanks.
She died in 2006. She wrote the book that is widely used by the feminists and gender feminists here in America (The Feminine Mystique). Surely that is relevant enough.
Feminism may have been, at one point, the attempt to make Men and Women equal. In the end, it’s boiled down to the fact that one part of society just wants more.
My wife is a very hardcore feminist. She believes that women should have the right to choose whatever lifestyle they wish. She, after a long time of deliberating, decided that she wanted to spent her life as a Homemaker. Due to this, her Feminist friends decided that she was an enemy to all women.
If a women, who is given all options, CHOOSES a specific role for herself, should we not support her in her independent choice? After some research, I’ve found that my wife is called a “Neo-Feminist,” someone who decides to embrace what it is to be a woman while still maintaining the equality that being a Feminist strives for.
Feminism has ceased to be a movement of equality, and has become a movement to push the agendas of a specific group of people. Feminism does NOT represent women as a whole anymore. To say that Feminists represent all women is like saying Republicans represent all Conservatives.
After all is said and done, any group that pushes for equality eventually becomes a group that centers on the well-being of one single set of people, and they would tip the scales all the way to their side if need be. They won’t stop at equality.