which pick up artist?

First example?  You gotta do better than that.  This one is ridiculous. This is more reminiscent of one of those silly backward laws that you only read about.  And it was one night.  And it indicated that the "male only" night was happening the following week.  And a couples night following.  So, in effect, it was actual equality. This law was not put into effect by feminists. It was put into effect by a male mayor who wanted to give it a try. More than 13 years ago.  I'm guesing there haven't been many (if any) repeats.

Second example.  Yeah, it's put into effect for the safety of women.  You know, the gender that gets raped hundreds of times more than men. I know this law can be abused by a man-hating woman. But a lot of laws have loopholes and specific wordings that can cause effects not originally intended by the spirit of the law.

Third example.  Yeah, the wording is bad. It does mostly protect women from getting raped. Though I'm not sure a woman could actually get away with raping a man as long as the evidence supports it.  You're also forgetting that we have anuses. Legally we can get raped, at least in that aspect.

Look, I'm not saying that every law is 100% rock solid in its equality.  But you're cherry picking little articles and bits and pieces of these laws and indicating that they COULD be used for bad.  But like I said before, I'm not worried that my rights as a human being are being compromised because I have a penis over a vagina.  Many of the laws are there to protect women.  You know why?  Because biologically, men are stronger than women. Men can rape women while they're unconscious.  Something that is extremely difficult to do if the roles were reversed.  Physically, the odds are heavily stacked against women.  Historically, women have been dominated.  This is fact. The laws reflect that, and is in no way indicitave of feminism but where society is right now.

The best example provided to me was from HoloDust.  But again, this is largely due to society's views on men and women's roles in raising a family than it is from some feminist agenda.

At least, that's how I see it.

Also, Bayonetta is an absolutely ridiculous game in terms of its blatent sexuality.  So much so that I can't 100% take it seriously.  Sarkeesian absolutely has a point.  It just happens to be a REALLY good game. Go figure.  Anyways, I don't care how much of a feminazi she is.  This petition is still stupid.

Let me break it down simply for you. Satistics do not speak for individuals. Also equality doesn't mean 50/50. Here is an example: Three people of varying heights are at a baseball game. The fence is high enough that the two shortest individuals can't see over it. In a equal share 50/50 world you would provide a step for everyone that comes to the game. Now the tallest individual is way higher then he needs to be, the second to shortest can now see but the shortest individual still can't. That's not equality, true equality would be providing everyone a chance on equal ground. Here is true equality: The tallest individual doesn't get a step because he can see without it, the medium individual gets one step to see and the third gets two steps so he can be tall enough to see. Now everyone can see and is at equal standings.

It doesn't matter if most men are this and most women are that. People do not conform perfectly. As individuals we have differing skills and backgrounds. People should be judged individually. You have no right to tell me I am "more sexually driven, more physically powerful and more violent" and judge me to those standards just because "generally men are". That mind-set is why men have a disadvantge in things like custody, rape and abuse situations. And speaks to what I said earlier, men hurt other men's rights, not feminism.

I must comment on your later posts. You really lack info about feminism. Not all feminist think the same and there are splits within. Most of your opinions comes from the most narrowed minded people of feminism who don't include PoC, trans, and homosexuals. Look up Inclusive Feminism and also Sex-positive Feminism which doesn't shame sexworkers, kinks and fetishism. 

Post above. What you describe is actually inclusivity rather then equality. Equality is no one gets a step because everyone is treated the same. We need a combination of both with a bit of human decency and we would start to become a much better society all around. However this does not require all things to be tailored to everyone (or one particular demographic) which often becomes the aim in the name of "equality".

See that's the problem for most people.  Your looking at the "steps" but no one wants the "steps" they want the view.  You all getting  to view the game is a equal statement. Inclusivity does not make equality disappear. If Equality is a rectangle then inclusivity is a square. I could make a even simplier analogy this time with math. You have a six and a seven, both need to equal ten. So you add four to the six and three to the seven. Now they are both an equal number, ten. Please explain to me really how six getting a three and seven getting a three are equal. Yes it's equal distribution but it is not equal results. Remember I am viewing this as individuals not statistical averages of different groupings of people.

So... uh having a night designated specifically for women where only they are allowed out on the streeets is equal treatement... well what can i say lol i actually can't think of a retort lol

"You know, the gender that gets raped hundreds of times more than men."

well i wonder about that myself

isn't it interesting that we are told that rape is the most gruesome terrifying thing anyone can experience yet when the conversation turns to the gang raping of men in prison it then becomes a joke?

i have no statistics to back this one but i'd hazard a guess that if the men who are raped in prison were totalled it would outnumber the number for women raped on the streets

what have feminist who want equality and want rape squashed done for the men in prison... absolutely nothing

but anyway with regards to the law  have you actually gone and analysed what they are trying to do? well i guess perhaps it doesn't matter to you either way given your earlier response

"It does mostly protect women from getting raped."

well no it actually protects men too but ultimately the aggressor is always classed as a man since men do the penetrating

again the point is to enforce the stereotype that men are the sexually deviant violent sex while women are less capable of evil

"Many of the laws are there to protect women.  You know why?  Because biologically, men are stronger than women. "

ah ok so therefore because men are more capable of certain forms of evil they must have more restrictions placed upon them because of the actions of a relatively small amount of men

lol do you not see that you are backpeddling now? i thought you said feminism was about equality and not about putting more restrictions on men via laws?

let me ask you something how does evil manifest itself in women since they are less capable of violence? have you ever thought about that? ah forget it its irrelevant

" Historically, women have been dominated.  This is fact. "

yes women were and men died for them in the millions let us not pretend that women did not benefit from the old arrangement in anyway

women were denied many basic rights by men who if the time called for it were expected to die for women

and i'm not saying that this justifies it in anyway i'm simply making the point that the old arrangement oppressed men also

in those days in times of adversity you can be sure i would have rather been a woman than a man

" But you're cherry picking little articles and bits and pieces of these laws and indicating that they COULD be used for bad."

i kind of thought that was the point... you asked me to provide examples and i did

"Also, Bayonetta is an absolutely ridiculous game in terms of its blatent sexuality."

yes because it is bad for women to be overtly sexual correct? isn't that slut shaming? or is it victim blaming? honestly i'm losing track of all of these terms lol

one thing i must say though is that for someone who isn't here to defend feminism you really do seem to be bending over backwards to do so

My apologies, when  did my SEN module we did a lot of Equality and Diversity, however the emphasis was on Equality being "equal" while Diversity was the part which emphasised on giving the tools for people to be able to accomplish the same (whether this was printing work sheets on coloured paper for people with dyslexia etc.) however having read textbook definitions of Equality as legislation I see that refers to giving people the level playing field.

However "equality" is always spouted by proclaimed feminists as the purpose of their campaigns, which even more so viewing it like this, really isn't the agenda at all.

Of course we all know this is correct, but we can't really point these things out because they lead to conclusions that society is uncomfortable with. The same thing could be said about race for instance.

However, simply ignoring biological factors leads to unfair policies based upon false ideas of equality - the unwarranted persecution of "priveleged" groups for their successes and the unjustified elevation of historically underprivileged groups to positions of power which they did not earn and are not qualified for.

if you are accessing individuals as a group then you have no choice but to generalise them

people are not allowed to drive before age 16 because it is accepted by society that individuals are not mature enough to do so before age 16

that is a generalisation that is wrong at times i personally knew guys who drove at age 14 regularly and were responsible

and most laws are based like that because people can only be accessed as a group and not as individuals with regards to laws

this is why i brought up the laws that are put in place to protect women because of the generalisation that men are more capable and prone to violence

"You have no right to tell me I am "more sexually driven, more physically powerful and more violent" "

i didn't i was speaking of men as a group

"and judge me to those standards just because "generally men are"."

well my friend you have no choice but to leave society because all of the laws society has are based on generalisations

sounds like you subscribe to libertarian philosophy

"Not all feminist think the same and there are splits within. Most of your opinions comes from the most narrowed minded people of feminism"

well yes i know that there are various factions in feminism but no i'm pretty sure that i'm talking about the majority or at least the most active group of feminists since they are the ones pushing the laws i spoke of

btw do not misunderstand i don't think generalisations are always fair or justified but i do understand the need for them in many cases, however, i think they are going too far with the ones that apply to men

its kind of strange to see a feminist who doesn't believe in generalisations though 

*Spell check*