Armpit Hair Is Trending

Do you shave your armpit hair?

  • I'm a man and I do

    Votes: 7 43.8%
  • I'm a man and I don't

    Votes: 7 43.8%
  • I'm a woman and I do

    Votes: 1 6.3%
  • I'm a woman and I don't

    Votes: 1 6.3%

  • Total voters
    16

joseph_lubnan

Legendary Member
What part of VAWA do you think is unconstitutional? More importantly, what part of VAWA do you think discriminates against men?

The way it is being applied.

The way law enforcement is using it. The way the legal system leverages it. and the way some women abuse it. :)

Read some of whats written in that site... The issue here is far from black and white.
I am not saying there is no problem in violence against women, I am saying that laws that were intended to protect women, are making it easy to unfairly target men and strip them from their own protection under the law.

Some argue that the letter of this law are not gender specific, but read its title! and you can study the biases through which it is being applied.
 
Last edited:

joseph_lubnan

Legendary Member
Here is more on the Debate surrounding the Violence Against Women Act:

From wiki:

Debate and legal standing[edit]
The American Civil Liberties Union had originally expressed concerns about the Act, saying that the increased penalties were rash, that the increased pretrial detention was "repugnant" to the U.S. Constitution, that the mandatory HIV testing of those only charged but not convicted was an infringement of a citizen’s right to privacy, and that the edict for automatic payment of full restitution was non-judicious (see their paper: "Analysis of Major Civil Liberties Abuses in the Crime Bill Conference Report as Passed by the House and the Senate", dated September 29, 1994). The ACLU has, however, supported reauthorization of VAWA on the condition that the "unconstitutional DNA provision" be removed.[8]

The ACLU, in its July 27, 2005 'Letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee Regarding the Violence Against Women Act of 2005, S. 1197' stated that "VAWA is one of the most effective pieces of legislation enacted to end domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. It has dramatically improved the law enforcement response to violence against women and has provided critical services necessary to support women in their struggle to overcome abusive situations".[9]

Some activists oppose the bill. Janice Shaw Course, a senior fellow at Concerned Women for America's Beverly LaHaye Institute called the Act a "boondoggle" which "ends up creating a climate of suspicion where all men are feared or viewed as violent and all women are viewed as victims". She described the Act as creating a "climate of false accusations, rush to judgment and hidden agendas" and criticized it for failing to address the factors identified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as leading to violent, abusive behavior.[10] Conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly denounced VAWA as a tool to "fill feminist coffers" and argued that the Act promoted "divorce, breakup of marriage and hatred of men".[6]

In 2000, the Supreme Court of the United States held part of VAWA unconstitutional in United States v. Morrison on federalism grounds. In that decision, only the civil rights remedy of VAWA was struck down. The provisions providing program funding were unaffected.[11]

In 2011, the law expired.[12] In 2012 the law was up for reauthorization in Congress.[13] Different versions of the legislation have been passed along party lines in the Senate and House, with the Republican-sponsored House version favoring the reduction of services to undocumented immigrants and LGBT individuals. Another area of contention is the provison of the law giving Native American tribal authorities jurisdiction over sex crimes involving non-native Americans on tribal lands. This provision is considered to have constitutional implications,[citation needed] as non-tribes people are under the jurisdiction of the United States federal government and are granted the protections of the U.S. Constitution, protections that tribal courts do not often have. The two bills were pending reconciliation, and a final bill did not reach the President's desk before the end of the year, temporarily ending the coverage of the Act after 18 years, as the 112th Congress adjourned.
 

Dirty Dragon

Well-Known Member
Here is more on the Debate surrounding the Violence Against Women Act:

From wiki:

Debate and legal standing[edit]
The American Civil Liberties Union had originally expressed concerns about the Act, saying that the increased penalties were rash, that the increased pretrial detention was "repugnant" to the U.S. Constitution, that the mandatory HIV testing of those only charged but not convicted was an infringement of a citizen’s right to privacy, and that the edict for automatic payment of full restitution was non-judicious (see their paper: "Analysis of Major Civil Liberties Abuses in the Crime Bill Conference Report as Passed by the House and the Senate", dated September 29, 1994). The ACLU has, however, supported reauthorization of VAWA on the condition that the "unconstitutional DNA provision" be removed.[8]

The ACLU, in its July 27, 2005 'Letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee Regarding the Violence Against Women Act of 2005, S. 1197' stated that "VAWA is one of the most effective pieces of legislation enacted to end domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. It has dramatically improved the law enforcement response to violence against women and has provided critical services necessary to support women in their struggle to overcome abusive situations".[9]

Some activists oppose the bill. Janice Shaw Course, a senior fellow at Concerned Women for America's Beverly LaHaye Institute called the Act a "boondoggle" which "ends up creating a climate of suspicion where all men are feared or viewed as violent and all women are viewed as victims". She described the Act as creating a "climate of false accusations, rush to judgment and hidden agendas" and criticized it for failing to address the factors identified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as leading to violent, abusive behavior.[10] Conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly denounced VAWA as a tool to "fill feminist coffers" and argued that the Act promoted "divorce, breakup of marriage and hatred of men".[6]

In 2000, the Supreme Court of the United States held part of VAWA unconstitutional in United States v. Morrison on federalism grounds. In that decision, only the civil rights remedy of VAWA was struck down. The provisions providing program funding were unaffected.[11]

In 2011, the law expired.[12] In 2012 the law was up for reauthorization in Congress.[13] Different versions of the legislation have been passed along party lines in the Senate and House, with the Republican-sponsored House version favoring the reduction of services to undocumented immigrants and LGBT individuals. Another area of contention is the provison of the law giving Native American tribal authorities jurisdiction over sex crimes involving non-native Americans on tribal lands. This provision is considered to have constitutional implications,[citation needed] as non-tribes people are under the jurisdiction of the United States federal government and are granted the protections of the U.S. Constitution, protections that tribal courts do not often have. The two bills were pending reconciliation, and a final bill did not reach the President's desk before the end of the year, temporarily ending the coverage of the Act after 18 years, as the 112th Congress adjourned.

Womans_armpit.JPG
 

Bandar

Well-Known Member
Orange Room Supporter
Telling women you have a choice between shaving and not shaving = controlling people

Shaming women into shaving =/= controlling people

Right.

No one is "shaming" you into anything. Women are free to not shave their arm pits. And, they are free to deal with the consequences of attracting the type of men that find that attractive. The controlling people part comes in when you try to claim that our preferences (shaved) are misogynistic and, this is the part you (feminists) usually leave out, persecuted in some way for having that preference (when you have the law on your side, such as the west).

Bandar, my dear, all the childish reactions and the hoopla you see in this thread is about nothing but control. You guys aren't upset about some hair. The hair is just a symbol. You guys are upset that women are making choices for themselves without caring about your reaction or approval. You perceive it (rightly) as a loss of control, and you interpret it (wrongly) as a form of oppression against men.

Indie, my dear, the type of women who pull stunts like this are just lacking in attention...usually because they are already unattractive. I mean, look at some of these women for Christs sake. I don't want to disapprove or approve of her, I want her as far away from me as possible.

Don't worry, dear, women aren't going to turn into big bad monsters and attack you or anything :) Even the "hairy" ones are still wearing nail polish lol

Eh, some of those hairy monsters have done things to me that might be considered sexual assault if I had done them to a girl. A feminist once slapped my ass in public in fact.

It's pretty obvious that God created two sexes who both have body hair, and if God thought that body hair was a hindrance to mutual attraction and, hence, reproduction, there would be no point in doing that. In other words, misogynists think they are smarter than God.

No.

1) Misogynist posts such as yours are the epitome of hatefulness. Not research about patriarchy.

2) Instead of hating on women (and pro-feminist men) in academia, apply for your own grants to research topics of interest to you, and do something useful.

Academia is completely rotten today. I have no interest in being a part of that pyramid scheme. And I don't hate women, I love them, provided they are decent human beings.

3) Yes, there are people who don't understand the value of hard work. Hard work is going to your job everyday, then coming home and taking care of your family and doing most of the housework while the men around you complain about how oppressed they are.

Feminism is what landed you (not you specifically) with a man who expects you to work, and what landed you in a world where you are expected to do things you weren't really built for, and keeping you away from the things you were built for and which give you happiness.

4) You're right, there is no such thing as a free lunch, so get in the kitchen and make your own damn sandwich.

Nice one ;p

5) Feminists don't pay taxes in Bandarland. On wait, doesn't Bandar live in Lebanon? Who pays taxes in Lebanon?

I was speaking more about the west. In Lebanon, it isn't feminist marxists sucking up our taxes and wealth, but another animal (just as satanic though).
 

Bandar

Well-Known Member
Orange Room Supporter
How is "modern marxism and feminism obsessed with controlling people and a society of degenerates"?

Care to give some examples? Because like your friend Convergence, all you are doing is making a claim and a conclusion, while you skip the most important part: the argument.

Furthermore, it is clear from your post that your knowledge about gender roles is subpar. Gender is NOT determined at birth (nor is it determined by whatever mythical deity you espouse to believe in). Sex is what's determined at birth, while gender is not. Gender reflects social and cultural beliefs about the behavior of men and women in their respective societies.

I find it hilarious that you propagate inequality based on a myth.

First of all, God is real, and He loves you.

Second of all, "gender is a social construct" is nonsense. It is not some great coincidence that men and women have the same role throughout most human civilizations, both time and place. I'm sure your sociology teacher would have you believe otherwise, but you should consider why the people trying to force-feed you this stuff are mostly satanic losers.

Men have muscles, and can lift things. Women can feed babies with their boobs. That's just the way the world works. The degeneracy of Marxism creeps in when you try to convince people that the obvious truth they see before their very eyes is false, and that everyone is the exact same and blah blah blah. This is why you have people in the west snipping off their privates and changing their name to Charlotte. Total degeneracy. Out of control leftism and feminism. Men are no longer men, women are no longer women. The end of civilization.
 

Skairipa

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
Muki, there is no need to play lawyer. Everyone including you states their opinions without full justifications all the time. I could tell you the burden of proof is on whoever is making the claim that women are oppressed if I wanted to play lawyer as well :)

I haven't made a claim yet. You, however, did and did not provide an argument for your claim. I'm asking you to support your argument so I can gain a better understanding of your position on the subject matter.

I am only asking your opinion, no justifications needed: Do you believe women in first world countries are oppressed to the benefit of men?

Oppressed is not an accurate description.

Women are discriminated against in first world countries, and men have privilege. For example, women get paid less for performing the same job that a man does.

If you want a serious discussion on the topic I suggest making a thread about it because this is big topic.

There is a thread about feminism already.

You made a claim, though, and I asked you to back it up.
 

Skairipa

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
The way it is being applied.

The way law enforcement is using it. The way the legal system leverages it. and the way some women abuse it. :)

Read some of whats written in that site... The issue here is far from black and white.
I am not saying there is no problem in violence against women, I am saying that laws that were intended to protect women, are making it easy to unfairly target men and strip them from their own protection under the law.

Some argue that the letter of this law are not gender specific, but read its title! and you can study the biases through which it is being applied.

Have you ever pondered why there's a need for such a law in the first place?

ps you told me that the law is being misapplied, but you haven't provided me examples of such misapplication. Do you expect me to do your research?
 

Dirty Dragon

Well-Known Member
Oppressed is not an accurate description.

Women are discriminated against in first world countries, and men have privilege. For example, women get paid less for performing the same job that a man does.

Thanks. You insist on playing lawyer, fine :)

I haven't made a claim yet.

Now you have.

You, however, did and did not provide an argument for your claim.

Neither did you.

I'm asking you to support your argument so I can gain a better understanding of your position on the subject matter.

There is a thread about feminism already.

We can take it there or make a new thread if you are intent to explore this topic in detail. Provided you are ready to defend your claims as well. I have no interest to engage in a debate if it follows a "women are discriminated against until proven otherwise" paradigm.

More importantly, keep in mind that men and women are treated differently in a wide array of matters. Quantifying "privilege" between unrelated and often orthogonal sets of pros/cons can be a highly subjective matter. Or simply put it can come down to an apples and oranges comparison where there is no established way to measure if the apple or orange is more privileged.
 

DLT

Well-Known Member
Orange Room Supporter
joseph_lubnan, why did you go and teach Indie the art of guerrilla posting? She ran when her initiating of aggressive speech and attempt to police men's opinions/tastes was put on the spotlight :p

Indie, my dear, all the childish reactions and the hoopla you see in this thread is about nothing but control. You girls aren't upset about attraction to lack of some hair. The hair is just a symbol. Yougirls are upset that men are making choices for themselves about what they find attractive without caring about your reaction or approval. You perceive it (wrongly) as a loss of choice, and you interpret it (wrongly) as a form of oppression against women.


Fixed.

OMG OWNED / GOT SERVED... !!!
 

HannaTheCrusader

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
The chauvinistic quetsion is

Will. Any male ( possible female ) here, refuse to date a girl , just because she has few armpit hair ????
 

Indie

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
Sweet heavens! I go out for a nice day in the sun and return to find all this. Just because a few women decided to grow armpit hair. What would you do if women treated you half as badly as men have treated women over the course of history? Throw yourselves from bridges?

Couldn't even read half of the crap it's so cringe worthy. I am becoming more and more convinced that dialogue with anti-feminist men is simply impossible.

Some of you guys are intelligent, funny, and friendly, but the contrast between your cleverness in politics and your preposterous drivel about women indicates that no amount of good faithed arguing can overcome your deep-rooted misogyny. Sometimes, you just gotta accept that the effort is not worth it. Do your thing and let the hyenas have their laugh.

In other news, I'm debating between entering a convent, turning gay, and using a sperm donor. Any opinions? :D
 
Top