[Sssnake]

>The only reason "lunatic" feminists seem more visible is because people feel compelled to point out the most extreme views of "lunatic" feminists every single time there is a discussion of feminism.

No, that is not the only reason. The fact that their beliefs are mainstream, and not a fringe at all is a major reason they seem more visible. These are the bulk of the women's studies departments at universities. These are the most mainstream organizations like NOW. They are the ones actively fighting against equality, and screaming hate at men for daring to want to talk about men's issues.

>When in fact her position is nowhere close to that

Her position is exactly that, and she has repeatedly campaigned to prevent legalized prostitution. She literally views consensual sex between adults as a violent act, with the woman always the victim and the man always the aggressor. You even quoted as much, yet you act like it is a lie? That does not seem like the actions of someone engaging in an honest, good faith attempt at discussion.

[quinnchr]

I guess that's true if you consider being for legalized sex work the exact same as being against legalized sex work. She's pretty explicitly pro legalized sex work.

Let me quote the relevant part again:

"She views prostitution as violence against women and favors laws like those in Sweden, where the sale of sexual services is legal"

If you interpret viewing prostitution as violence the same as viewing sex between consensual adults as violence you're totally right on that one too.

In what ways do organizations like NOW actively fight against equality, and scream hate at men for daring to want to talk about men's issues?

[Sssnake]

>I guess that's true if you consider being for legalized sex work the exact same as being against legalized sex work

Why are you being so blatantly dishonest? She is not for legalized sex work, she is for making purchasing sex a crime. That is not legalizing sex work, it is simply not making the prostitutes side criminal.

>"She views prostitution as violence against women and favors laws like those in Sweden, where the sale of sexual services is legal"

And being a customer is a crime. That is not legal. Again, why such incredibly dishonesty?

>If you interpret viewing prostitution as violence the same as viewing sex between consensual adults as violence

Prostitution is sex between consenting adults.

>In what ways do organizations like NOW actively fight against equality

Actively campaigning against laws that would make joint custody the default?

>scream hate at men for daring to want to talk about men's issues?

You've seriously never seen the UofT videos? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iARHCxAMAO0

[stephp]

You really want to present this law as a matter of women wanting an "out"? You have no idea why anyone is advocating for this.

I have no problem talking "men's issues." I have a problem, though, talking about men's issues with a person who hasn't even investigated the very foundation of what is happening in a situation before jumping to "me, me, me."

Women are regularly-- constantly-- kidnapped and sexually/emotionally/physically abused into sex work. In the US-- not just in third world countries. They make no profit. They win the prize of being beaten, but not to death. Then, when what they're doing is discovered, they go to jail. Instead of the kidnapper. Which they can't fight because the person who has actually profited from what they've done would literally kill them and their entire family if they did.

That is why anyone is advocating that buying-- not selling-- sex be illegal. Because there are far more men benefiting from female prostitution than females benefiting from it. And the organizations that try to rescue women are made helpless by current legislation.

The solution presented is imperfect, of course, because 100% of women do not fall into this category. It's just that the women in this situation have no way of identifying as such without someone going after the people they love.

On the other hand, you have men who are down in the dumps, who seek a prostitute to feel better. There may be legitimate mental health issues there, which is deeply unfortunate.

We could make their side "legal" as well. But would that make the situation better or worse? It seems to me that jailing a man who purchases sex is the least of two "evils." Which is the best any legislation can do, really.

If you want someone to be mad at, please, be mad at the pimps. Not women-- as a big, faceless entity, no less.

Also try to familiarize yourself with an issue before jumping to conclusions like this. If something sounds completely absurd, chances are you haven't heard both sides.

[Sssnake]

Literally nothing you said has anything to do with me, or anything I said. Did you reply to the wrong post by accident or something?