Feminist mob attempt to shut down talk on equality for males - MOD NOTE POST 10

source

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

Unfortunately this is common among both men and women

Well legally speaking, in this country, they're right. In reality, of course a woman can commit rape. But it's yet another example in this country where women are always victims and never perpetrators.

Zulu

28064212 wrote: »

Are black right's activists biased? LGBTQ activists? Fathers 4 Justice?

Are you really trying to suggest that they aren't?

You get absolutely nowhere if your sole approach to inequality is to say "Everyone should be equal".

What? I never said "sole approach". However, are you suggesting that the route to solving inequality lies in something other than "everyone should be equal"? If so, genuinely, I'd love to hear it.

You have to identify specific areas of actual inequality and act on them.

True, but doing this with a gender "filter" on isn't working - as we see in current Irish society.

By extension from your post, can I take it that you feel the current approach is working for everyone? I ask because clearly I (and others here) see it as a broken system. And I think I belong to a growing number of disenfranchised people.

Zulu

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

Unfortunately this is common among both men and women

However, the state only recognises men being able to rape women. Sadly, the state doesn't believe women can rape men - or at least, won't prosecute the same.

Of course, I'll link this back to my previous point about feminism - definition vs reality. The definition for a feminist describes someone who: "advocating social, political, legal, and economic rights for women equal to those of men." However the practice sees no feminist group seeking to introduce legislation to see women being prosecuted for the crime of rape.
Another example would be with underage sex. In practice we don't see any feminist group seeking equality.

py2006

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

Unfortunately this is common among both men and women

Perhaps rape but most definitely not abuse.

py2006

Zulu wrote: »

However, the state only recognises men being able to rape women. Sadly, the state doesn't believe women can rape men - or at least, won't prosecute the same.

Of course, I'll link this back to my previous point about feminism - definition vs reality. The definition for a feminist describes someone who: "advocating social, political, legal, and economic rights for women equal to those of men." However the practice sees no feminist group seeking to introduce legislation to see women being prosecuted for the crime of rape.
Another example would be with underage sex. In practice we don't see any feminist group seeking equality.

Forgive my ignorance here but what is the law at the moment in relation to statutory rape? I presume, in the eyes of the law, a child is anybody under the age of 17. Therefore if a 17 year old guy has consensual sex with a 16 year old girl he is guilty of statutory rape.

I've also read on here before, but I am not sure how accurate it is, if a 16 year boy and a 16 year girl have consensual sex the boy can only be found guilty of rape and placed on the sex offenders list?

iptba

py2006 wrote: »

Forgive my ignorance here but what is the law at the moment in relation to statutory rape? I presume, in the eyes of the law, a child is anybody under the age of 17. Therefore if a 17 year old guy has consensual sex with a 16 year old girl he is guilty of statutory rape.

I've also read on here before, but I am not sure how accurate it is, if a 16 year boy and a 16 year girl have consensual sex the boy can only be found guilty of rape and placed on the sex offenders list?

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/criminal_law/criminal_offences/law_on_sex_offences_in_ireland.html

Defilement of a child aged under 17 years

Section 3 of the Criminal Law (Sex Offences) Act 2006 (pdf) as amended by Section 5 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) (Amendment) Act 2007 (pdf) makes it a criminal offence to engage or attempt to engage in a sexual act with a child under 17 years. The maximum sentence is five years, ten years if the accused is a person in authority. A person in authority means:

A parent, step-parent, guardian, grandparent, uncle or aunt of the victim, or
any person acting in loco parentis (in place of parent or parents) to the victim, or
any person responsible for the education, supervision or welfare of the victim.
The maximum sentence is greater for a second or subsequent offence.

The accused may argue that he or she honestly believed that the child was aged 17 years or over. The court must then consider whether or not that belief was reasonable. It is not a defence to show that the child consented to the sexual act.

The consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions is required for any prosecution of a child under the age of 17 years for this offence. A person who is convicted of this offence and is not more than two years older than the victim is not subject to the requirements of the Sex Offenders Act 2001. This means they will not have their name placed on the Sex Offenders Register.

A girl aged under 17 years who has sexual intercourse may not be convicted of an offence on that ground alone.

Here's a case where there was a prosecution of a 15 year old boy/young male for having sex with a 14 year old girl/young female: http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/romeo-and-juliet-sex-law-is-unfair-court-told-1978656.html

Supreme court agreed with law: http://www.thejournal.ie/poll-should-laws-on-underage-sex-be-the-same-for-boys-and-girls-364706-Feb2012/

LeeHoffmann

Well legally speaking, in this country, they're right. In reality, of course a woman can commit rape.

that´s true. We need to change people´s views on this (both men and women) so that the law will be changed.

Of course, I'll link this back to my previous point about feminism

Please stop trying to have the same argument with me. It already derailed the thread once

Perhaps rape but most definitely not abuse.

No, I see the very same attitude with regards to abuse - and I say that both from personal experience and from talking about this issue with other people (on boards and irl)

LeeHoffmann

I've also read on here before, but I am not sure how accurate it is, if a 16 year boy and a 16 year girl have consensual sex the boy can only be found guilty of rape and placed on the sex offenders list?

AFAIK an underage male can be arrested if he sleeps with an underage female but not vice-versa. The statutory rape laws are terribly outdated. Actually, I think the way our legal system deals with rape in general is atrocious

Edit: sorry just saw that iptba got there before me

py2006

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

No, I see the very same attitude with regards to abuse - and I say that both from personal experience and from talking about this issue with other people (on boards and irl)

Are you sure? The statement was that they can't believe a woman could possibly abuse a man. While a lot of men can't/won't admit it happens to them they can't deny it happens at all.

Also, some people attribute the term abuse to severe sexual and physical side of things and may not be fully aware that they are victims of psychological abuse in terms of a controlling partner.

LeeHoffmann

Psychological abuse is always a lot more difficult to pin down than physical for obvious reasons and I think a lot of people only realise that psychological abuse occurred in hindsight. Yep, I understood what we were discussing. I think some people can only imagine a sort of girly slap - sort of like pathetically waving arms in the air in an ineffective manner - and don´t realise that women can properly hurt men too. A lot of people don´t see women hitting/attacking men as abuse. I´m suprised that you haven´t come across this before. The gentlemen of tgc would be a lot more aware of this kind of thing than I would come across irl.

Zulu

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

that´s true. We need to change people´s views on this (both men and women) so that the law will be changed.

...or change the law so peoples views are changed.

Please stop trying to have the same argument with me. It already derailed the thread once

:rolleyes: Aww for fu*ks sake LeeHoffmann - you don't need to respond if you have no response; I'm posting for everyone on this thread, not just you. I made a point & I'm happy to back it up without your permission, thanks. You don't like my post? Well there's an ignore button. Perhaps use it?

Pawwed Rig

py2006 wrote: »

if a 16 year boy and a 16 year girl have consensual sex the boy can only be found guilty of rape and placed on the sex offenders list?

Just a point but to go on the sexual offenders register the boy must be > 2 years older than the girl. He can however still be charged.

As the Independent article posted by iptba states, a girl under 17 cannot be charged under the act.

py2006

iptba wrote: »

Here's a case where there was a prosecution of a 15 year old boy/young male for having sex with a 14 year old girl/young female: http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/romeo-and-juliet-sex-law-is-unfair-court-told-1978656.html
]

Thanks for that.

Was there any further developments on the above case?

py2006

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

A lot of people don´t see women hitting/attacking men as abuse. I´m suprised that you haven´t come across this before.

Ah here. :rolleyes:

iptba

py2006 wrote: »

Thanks for that.

Was there any further developments on the above case?

I just looked it up now: suspended sentence of 6 months:
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/six-month-suspended-sentence-for-romeo-201169.html

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/man-spared-jail-in-romeo-case-3172547.html

I find the "15 and going on 16" a bit odd:

He admitted the charge against a girl, who was 14 at the time, while he was 15 and going on 16.

_Kaiser_

To be honest I'm pretty much centre of the road/pro choice on most things, although probably with a classic 70s/80s upbringing attitude to right and wrong, personal responsibility, raising kids and so on, but for the main I believe in letting people live their lives with a minimum of (what I refer to as PC nanny-state dogoodery) interference.

But it's amazing how even on our very own Boards.ie something can be twisted completely out of context in the cause of "equality". Only tonight did I feel the need to challenge what struck me as a particularly vile comment from someone (not sure if posting the link to the thread/post is appropriate? Mods: any thoughts?) which says something for me as normally I just let internet trolling roll right past me.

I'm not posting this to say "hey look at me, aren't I great!", merely to point out that we really don't have to look very far to see some of the attitudes expressed in the OP's video unfortunately.

The Corinthian

py2006 wrote: »

I've also read on here before, but I am not sure how accurate it is, if a 16 year boy and a 16 year girl have consensual sex the boy can only be found guilty of rape and placed on the sex offenders list?

The following is from memory, so it may not be completely accurate, although I do believe it to be so. If not please do correct any errata.

In Ireland rape requires that the perpetrator has a penis. Women cannot commit rape under Irish law.

There are two 'ages of consent', as it were, in Ireland. The first is 15, under which any sexual activity is a criminal offence, with rape (as long as the perpetrator has a penis) carrying maximum penalty of imprisonment for life. Otherwise, it is indecent assault, which is a lesser crime.

Between 15 and 17, sexual intercourse is deemed rape (as long as the perpetrator has a penis), punishable by five years imprisonment, however other forms of sexual relations (e.g. oral sex) are perfectly legal.

17 is the age of consent for full sexual relations, regardless of sexual orientation.

This means that in Ireland a few curious scenarios can occur:

• A 25 year old woman, having sex with a 12 year old boy may only be charged with indecent assault as she did not rape him (as she has no penis).
• A 12 year old boy who has sex with his 14 year old girlfriend may be charged with rape. His girlfriend oddly cannot be charged with anything, even indecent assault.
• A 25 year old woman, having sex with a 15 year old boy, or girl, may not be charged.
• A 25 year old man, having oral sex with a 15 year old girl, or boy, may not be charged.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Just a point but to go on the sexual offenders register the boy must be > 2 years older than the girl. He can however still be charged.

I don't think that age difference is considered at all where it comes to the legal definitions, although it may be a consideration in sentencing.

Pawwed Rig

The Corinthian wrote: »

I don't think that age difference is considered at all where it comes to the legal definitions, although it may be a consideration in sentencing.

It is just for the sex offenders register. The trial or sentencing do not take account of <2years age gap

um7y1h83ge06nx

Interesting articles here by woman who considers herself a feminist.

5 Stupid, Unfair and Sexist Things Expected of Men

5 Things Society Unfairly Expects of Men

A brilliant thing I think she says is this -

I care about this stuff for a lot of reasons . I care because I have men and boys in my life, men and boys who matter to me: I see how they get twisted into knots by gender roles that are not only insanely rigid but impossibly contradictory, and it makes me sick and sad and seriously pissed off. I care because I care about justice: fair is fair, and I don't want to solve the problem of gender inequality by making things suck worse for men.

Nail on the head. I care about gender equality. I care about men's rights because I am a man, I have a brother, a father, male friends and maybe a son(s) some day. I also care about women's rights as I have a mother, a girlfriend, female friends and maybe a daughter(s) some day.

It p*sses me off that some idiots see a "them and us" scenario, like those idiots in the video. Surely those women have men in the lives to one extent or another?

Zulu

Didn't really like the style of the articles, but i have to agree with you on the "them and us" shit.

jaffacakesyum

Javier Elegant Leprechaun wrote: »

It p*sses me off that some idiots see a "them and us" scenario, like those idiots in the video. Surely those women have men in the lives to one extent or another?

This p1sses me off too and this thread is a fine example of people being "anti-feminist" because some feminists give it a bad name and they see no problem with it. Equally, you have the idiots in the video in the OP who clearly don't care about men's rights.

Everybody has men and women in their lives. I don't understand how people cannot be for equality on both sides

GalwayGuy2

Everybody has men and women in their lives. I don't understand how people cannot be for equality on both sides

Because hey believe that their side are severely discriminated against, and the other side has no discrimination at all.

py2006

I had a conversation over the weekend with some real life women (I know, right?) about feminism etc.

Interestingly, some viewed it in somewhat of a negative light and wouldn't like to be referred to as a feminist. But that didn't mean they didn't feel strongly about women/mens rights etc.

Others where quite proud to be a feminist but defined it more as an egalitarian view on society as opposed to female specific.

Fortunately, there was none of the vile element like that in the video.

Pawwed Rig

Coincidently.....

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1214/man-jailed-for-having-sex-with-15-year-old-girl.html

LeeHoffmann

Aww for fu*ks sake LeeHoffmann - you don't need to respond if you have no response; I'm posting for everyone on this thread, not just you. I made a point & I'm happy to back it up without your permission, thanks. You don't like my post? Well there's an ignore button. Perhaps use it?

There are a multitude of responses to choose from and I never denied you permission (whatever that means ). For the third time, I do not want to discuss anything with you because you are looking for a fight and you are posting in an aggressive and disrespectful manner. If you are posting for everyone and not for me then quit constantly quoting me and trying to goad me into a flame war with you. Instead of advising posters to ignore you, stop trying to fight with them when it´s clear they do not want to discuss anything with you.

iptba

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Coincidently.....

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1214/man-jailed-for-having-sex-with-15-year-old-girl.html

I often think it's confusing for them to give the current age of the defendants in such cases. He was 17 at the time of the sex (and said didn't know the law existed). I could believe that - I wouldn't have known about lots of laws when I was 17.

awec

This post has been deleted.

Pawwed Rig

iptba wrote: »

I often think it's confusing for them to give the current age of the defendants in such cases. He was 17 at the time of the sex (and said didn't know the law existed). I could believe that - I wouldn't have known about lots of laws when I was 17.

That is true. By the sounds of it he is no angel but giving a kid a criminal record as a sex offender at such a young age for this is ludicrous. There goes any chance of turning his life around and ever getting a decent job.

harrietharmman

Update

Four members of the mob have been identified, including that particularly obnoxious one seen acting so abusively at the end of the video. There's now an article on each of them at avoiceformen, it will be interesting to see what action the university takes against the worst offenders, particularly as many genuinely seem to hold hateful views about men as shown by their twitter activity.

It's well worth a read about each of them, here's the four identified so far:

Emma Claire / Emma Kadey: http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/who-is-emma-claire-and-why-is-she-so-hateful/
Sophia Guo: http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/sophia-guo-u-of-t-bigot/
Vanja Krajina: http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/vanja-krajina-university-of-toronto/
Danielle Sandhu: http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/false-rape-culture/danielle-sandhu-lies-and-violence-at-u-of-t/

Zulu

harrietharmman wrote: »

Four members of the mob have been identified...

While I can see a value in "outing" bigots (ignorance can only be combated with education, and often when an out-rightly ignorant comment is publicly condemned it looses it's appeal) I question the value of this.

Sadly the website linked, and others like it (I suspect) are only going to pour fuel on the fire; it only serves to further the gender gap. Ratcheting up hate on one side isn't going to lower it on the other. A balance will not be achieved this way I fear.

um7y1h83ge06nx

harrietharmman wrote: »

Update

Four members of the mob have been identified...

From looking at these articles, and looking at some of these women's Twitter comments it is genuinely a little scary, I mean some of them seem to support having approximately half the world's population killed.

Not trying to go up on a soapbox but anyone that has those levels of hate towards a section of society must have psychological issues of one kind or another.

These are probably the same people that like to protest against fascists, white supremacist groups etc. :rolleyes:

Pawwed Rig

Give me a cause an I will find you an extremist. You see them everywhere, far right, dissident Republicans, abortion threads (pro and con), religious zealots etc etc etc.
The extreme position is attractive in that you do not have to listen to anyone else opinion as you have absolute certainty in your own. This is generally why the extremes are usually occupied by the lesser educated amongst us. It is when you have an educated person taking up extremes that things get really frightening.

Zulu

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

It is when you have an educated person taking up extremes that things get really frightening.

Which, sadly, "gender studies" appears to cater for. I dunno.

Dravokivich

It'd do better not to mention their names. All that's done by putting it out is fuelling their ego. Their protest was nonsense, I can't wait to see how sensationalist their reaction to this will be.

iptba

Zulu wrote: »

Which, sadly, "gender studies" appears to cater for. I dunno.

Really, it should be the opposite i.e. you would get educated on problems both sides might highlight as being disadvantages they face/claim to face.

um7y1h83ge06nx

iptba wrote: »

Really, it should be the opposite i.e. you would get educated on problems both sides might highlight as being disadvantages they face/claim to face.

Here are the modules for Gender, Culture & Society MA (FT/PT) in UL. Still seems to be just a re-dressed Women's Studies course - "Feminist Approaches to Research", "The History of Women", "Feminism(s)", "Feminist Literary Theory", and "Feminist Perspectives on Conflict and Development Issues". No explicit mention of other elements of society (although that may form part of the more general modules) or god forbid modules revolving around men.

Gender Studies

Semester 1
Theoretical Approaches to Gender, Culture and Society I, Feminist Approaches to Research
Students must choose two modules among the following:
Qualitative Methods I, The History of Women, Medieval to Modern: Sources, Methods and Approaches, Researching Social Exclusion, Comparative Literature: Cultural Construction of the Past

Semester 2
Theoretical Approaches to Gender, Culture and Society II, Thesis Writing
Students must choose two modules among the following:
Feminism(s), Diaspora and Multiculturalism, Feminist Literary Theory, Researching Social Change, Feminist Perspectives on Conflict and Development Issues, Utopian Theory and Texts

Summer Semester
Dissertation
All elective modules may not be offered if student numbers are too small or if there are irresolvable timetable clashes.

jackofalltrades

harrietharmman wrote: »

Four members of the mob have been identified, including that particularly obnoxious one seen acting so abusively at the end of the video.

With talk of employers "googling" and doing searches on social media sites on potential employees, I only see this as a good thing.

iptba

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Coincidently.....

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1214/man-jailed-for-having-sex-with-15-year-old-girl.html

Just happened to see on Twitter:

In France, Free Birth Control For Girls At Age 15 http://www.npr.org/2012/12/18/167253336/in-france-free-birth-control-for-girls-at-age-15

Of course, there should be some rules. But throwing a male in jail for six months and putting him on the sex offenders register because as a 17-year-old he had sex with a 15-year-old girl is pretty harsh especially when a 2 year age difference is pretty common, hardly qualifies a male as a paedophile. Some people kill others and get lesser sentences.

BlatentCheek

Never really understood the whole "no platform for fascists/sexists/insert unfashionable right wing persuasion here" argument that lefties always do in colleges anyway:
Surely if you believe in something else you believe you can defeat such people in any debate of ideas?
It's profoundly illiberal in itself to infringe someone else free speech and it does nothing to advance your opposing view in the eyes of most onlookers.

On a lighter note those gender studies things in college sound pretty cool; nowadays in a lot of colleges you have to do some electives unrelated to your course: I remember a mate going for gender studies and cinema. It sounded like a great laugh altogether. You just watched classic movies and got a guaranteed pass for regurgitating hilarious BS about Dracula being about mans insatiable urge to rape and spread STI's or drew willy parallels with scenes in Dr Strangelove (the aerial refuelling and the coke machine pissing on Peter Sellers IIRC). It's certainly more fun than learning economics

harrietharmman

Remix of the video:

py2006

This guy, although slightly annoying, does make some good points about the double standards of feminism. (language warning)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JA4EPRbWhQ

iptba

py2006 wrote: »

This guy, although slightly annoying, does make some good points about the double standards of feminism. (language warning)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JA4EPRbWhQ

One interesting aspect of all this is that we already have a discipline that should be covering media coverage, and probably societal attitudes also: gender studies. But it is so institutionally biased/sexist (see sample syllabus below) that it doesn't do what it is supposed to, both in terms of research and also education.

Javier Elegant Leprechaun wrote:

Here are the modules for Gender, Culture & Society MA (FT/PT) in UL. Still seems to be just a re-dressed Women's Studies course - "Feminist Approaches to Research", "The History of Women", "Feminism(s)", "Feminist Literary Theory", and "Feminist Perspectives on Conflict and Development Issues". No explicit mention of other elements of society (although that may form part of the more general modules) or god forbid modules revolving around men.

Gender Studies

Semester 1
Theoretical Approaches to Gender, Culture and Society I, Feminist Approaches to Research
Students must choose two modules among the following:
Qualitative Methods I, The History of Women, Medieval to Modern: Sources, Methods and Approaches, Researching Social Exclusion, Comparative Literature: Cultural Construction of the Past

Semester 2
Theoretical Approaches to Gender, Culture and Society II, Thesis Writing
Students must choose two modules among the following:
Feminism(s), Diaspora and Multiculturalism, Feminist Literary Theory, Researching Social Change, Feminist Perspectives on Conflict and Development Issues, Utopian Theory and Texts

Summer Semester
Dissertation
All elective modules may not be offered if student numbers are too small or if there are irresolvable timetable clashes.

Ditto for the various agencies that might look at such issues e.g. equality authority.

Professionals paid to be impartial should have to do their job.

It'd be like if we had a police force and justice system which only looked out for crimes by one section of society, and explicitly ignored crimes by another section or treated them much less harshly. Not just in a small way, but in a explicit, obvious way because of some ideology they claimed justified it.

goingpostal1

harrietharmman wrote: »

Recently in Toronto the highly respected writer, Dr Warren Farrell was to give a talk on what he terms "The Boy Crisis". This includes issues such as schools failing boys, the high suicide rate in young men, family breakdown etc).

Unfortunately, the local feminists and socialists took offence at him addressing such an issue and tried to shut down the talk, deliberately taking a few of his quotes out of context and pretending it was "hate speech". Note, they didn't simply protest, but the blockaded all entrances, shouted abuse at anyone trying to attend and they actually succeeded in their censorship for an hour until the police thankfully intervened.

(warning, video contains foul and abusive language and crazed feminists)

Their conduct is disgusting, and it's pretty disturbing that the Canadian union of public officials even supported this violent mob. Universities are supposed to be all about debate, discussion and free speech, yet the feminists seek the exact opposite of this for Toronto. Furthermore their abusive of police for protecting freedom of speech and doing what they're supposed to is pretty awful, and to simply label opinions they don't' agree with as "hate speech" has to be the lowest form of debate possible.


Some media coverage:

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/m.../2017271843001
http://www.cjad.com/blog/TommySchnur...tryID=10471455
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0a6VL1A8dc

Here's the full 2 and half hour event that they were so opposed to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6w1S8yrFz4


Thankfully the whole thing is now backfiring on them and is exposing the hateful side of feminism. The video has gone pretty viral, please send it to your friends so it gets the attention it deserves.

Were they chanting "Women hold up half the sky" at the start of the video? I LOLed myself silly. These people are obviously not physics students!! Also they don't seem to know the meaning of irony, protesting "hate speech", while venting the most appalling bile-soaked vitriol at the people who wanted to attend a talk. And jesus, did I spot some MEN in the crowd of shrieking feminists? I wouldn't want to psycho-analyse those weirdos. What do they think, that sucking up to feminist bullies is going to help them get laid or something? NEWSFLASH!! Those freaky ladies have NO more respect for self-proclaimed male "feminists" than anyone else does. Thanks for the funny video, it brightened up my day!

GalwayGuy2

@PSy2006

Once he said C I stopped listening.

upandcumming

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

@PSy2006

Once he said C I stopped listening.

Once he said C? What does that mean?

py2006

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

@PSy2006

Once he said C I stopped listening.

I did give a language warning.

If you can get passed that he does make some good points.

GalwayGuy2

I did give a language warning.

If you can get passed that he does make some good points.

No, I'm sorry, but that word has such hate-filled connotations, and was said with a lot of hate, about women that I couldn't listen to anything he said.

iptba

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

No, I'm sorry, but that word has such hate-filled connotations, and was said with a lot of hate, about women that I couldn't listen to anything he said.

I waited to see how it went. It seemed to me it was more used in the way it is used by some where it can be used about men also.

py2006

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

No, I'm sorry, but that word has such hate-filled connotations, and was said with a lot of hate, about women that I couldn't listen to anything he said.

Not women in general. I wouldn't listen to it myself if that was the case. I think he is referring to those particular women sitting around the table on a day time chat show laughing and siding with a women who cut her husbands penis off because he asked for a divorce.

harrietharmman

Video is getting closing in on 200,000 views. Really good to see this getting so much attention online.