Cool

The Best Answer there was from my original Yahoo! Answers account - since suspended.

It amazes me how so many of the answers here have directly attempted to either sabotage the question, by derailing (no, but men have blah blah blah) - and , worse, they have also tried to excuse these behaviours - by blaming the man... sheesh, i thought feminism was against blaming the victim...! Or does that only apply when the victim is female?
As for a kick in the nuts being a sexual assault - that's precisely what it is. OK, a 'flick' or 'tap' might not be excruciating, but I can assure you a well landed knee or foot planted right can be very debilitating, causes nausia, make him sterile, impotent, etc. etc.
It's a very real risk... and a very painful way to be attacked... especially when sleeping (the most common time for a pre-meditated attack rfom a female).
I believe the motivating force, is the more deranged feminists such as Andrea Dworking, who promoted physical abuses upon men by stating her desire to see men beaten to a bloody pulp.
What a bloody twat that womyn is (pun intended).

That is a good answer.

Seriously I wonder who gains from protecting women from bad media? Companies are driven by profits not pleasing feminist interest groups.

Of course they're protected!

Anything that gives feminism a bad name must be hidden!

It's rather easy to see why those morons attract so many flies!!!

Quote from musicman.2

That is a good answer.

Seriously I wonder who gains from protecting women from bad media? Companies are driven by profits not pleasing feminist interest groups.

Women make 80% of buying decisions in the US so that's how companies profit, I suppose.

oh yeah, and TV pisses me off so I don't watch that much of it anymore because it propagates so many things and it wants to force things down our throats (non-sexually, I think).

Feminism
homosexuality
Islam (while universites that teach intolerance towards non-islamic people are being funded outside of the country)
misandric viewpoints and all that other BS

and some of this stuff is funded by special interests groups it just pisses me off TV sucks

It's the fact that we're told to be tolerant of intolerant practices against us. So basically, someone could be taught it's okay to kill us if we're "non-believers" but if we aren't tolerant of their teachings we're "bigots".

I mean, the gays remind me a bit of the feminists. Always using black people as their proverbial measuring stick. They might as well say if those _ (you fill in the blanks) can do it then we should be allowed to do it.

The main problem is that they're forcing this to young and impressionable minds. They're teaching kids this crap without the consent of their parents and this bullshit is being funded. They preach unity but practice hate themselves. I have no problem with tolerance, however, people should have a choice whether or not to accept the lifestyle, belief, etc. but instead it's like we're being forced to accept and agree with politically protected groups.

Women make 80% of buying decisions in the US so that's how companies profit, I suppose.

You hit the nail right on the head with this one. Everything else you said in your post could be questioned or maybe not account for why women are shielded in this way but the purchasing power is THE problem. You simply cannot get a male perspective on such thing s through the main stream media.

There's only two things I hate in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures and the Dutch - Austin Powers

Popadibs, you owe me 5$ for using my copyrighted phrase being tolerant of intolerant stuff.

Thank god that OXO ad has gone!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/c...re/8241723.stm

And yes they are.
In the media here (at least) you can see a certain thing happening.

When a male perpertrator of a "crime" is arrested, the Head-line will be something like "Man is arrested over assault of his female partner last night"

But when a female is a perpertrator of a "crime", we get Head-lines like
"Person could be responsible for the murder last night, accused may not fit the bill"

So, what the fuck is this?

What it is, is an agenda, women don't want to be seen as the nastier sex, although they are.
Some arse-hole back in the 50's branded them with the term "The Fairer Sex"
50 years later that is nothing but bunkum.

Women are out to get all they can, no matter how many men they have to step over to get "there".

Avoid them at all costs.
And it will cost you.

the media is populated with feminit wimyn and manginas and it is merely the arm for dissemination for feminit agitprop;

of course they will represent men in a bad light and glorify the wimyn in the opposite extreme with unearned adulation

eg superwimyn v's male chauvinistic pigs etc

Quote from RebelliousVanilla

Popadibs, you owe me 5$ for using my copyrighted phrase being tolerant of intolerant stuff.

What? You really said that? When?

It must've been those vanilla wafers I ate earlier talking

Quote from RebelliousVanilla

Popadibs, you owe me 5$ for using my copyrighted phrase being tolerant of intolerant stuff.

If you want to be technical I said "intolerant practices" and not "intolerant stuff"

Women make 80% of buying decisions in the US so that's how companies profit, I suppose

Quote from rohara

You hit the nail right on the head with this one. Everything else you said in your post could be questioned or maybe not account for why women are shielded in this way but the purchasing power is THE problem. You simply cannot get a male perspective on such thing s through the main stream media.

Certainly a reluctance by the media to dare cast women in anything but an angelic and martyring depiction - is to be found in womens purchasing power to a degree (not to mention a proactive element of feminists who hold great influence throughout the media, which I refer to as the 'vagina mafia,' who act as filters as to what is deemed worthy of dissemination to the public).

But this collective cultural denial to accept female complicity is an inheritance from a distant past when women weren't the primary purchasers. My point is, then as now, irregardless of economic status, society can't bring itself to contemplate the idea of women being equally culpable of evil, let alone implementing parity in sanctions and subsequent punishment.

I solemnly believe even if women didn't have such buying or voting power, we'd still be faced with the same societal apathy to enforce uniformity throughout the criminal system. Check your history books folks, this has been going on for several millennia, and this reluctance to punish females hasn't really changed even in past cultures where female influence was negligible.

And the only time, IMO, that most women will call "FALSE ALLEGATION" is when men start speaking.

From one of the responses : Deidre O says:
"According to Cassius the statistics support that 95 percent of these allegations are probably false. "

Wow, and when it's men who are accused it's an amazing 2%.

I think that sums up so much of some women's attitudes.

Notice how the other woman who says that 95% of men who are sexually abused are abused by heterosexual men.

1) It's called PRISON. Ya know where women have advocates to make sure they are not sexually preyed upon, but for men it's a late night comedian's punch line.
2) She shifted from the victim to the perp - the straight male. The victim, is forgotten. Oh, and I don't think it much matters to the victim WHO is raping him - a guy, a gal with a strap on, or a purple haired goat named Seabisquit.

A complete mental defense judo move to avoid empathy or understanding.

"It does not compute" becomes "it's not important"

Steven