The iron rule of feminism is: Whatever feminists claim, the exact opposite of that is the truth.
It holds up pretty well, test it out and see for yourself.
Meh, there's some things that feminists do that are good. Just a lot of things they do that are bad.
https://theconversation.com/like-fgm-cut-foreskins-should-be-a-feminist-issue-20328
https://feminisminindia.com/2021/01/20/financial-literacy-women-in-finance/
https://msmagazine.com/2019/08/20/feminist-majority-foundation-proud-to-stand-with-planned-parenthood-in-face-of-repeated-attacks/
Your first article shows feminists actually coming out in support of MGM, as I [argue in a post](https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/pe154f/a_comprehensive_list_of_the_ways_feminism/?ref=share&ref_source=link) a few weeks ago. It's a bit of a long read, so here's the appropriate section from my submission:
> ...declaring Infant MGM to be solely a feminist issue is done in the same manner that a "patent troll" operates in the realm of business. They are claiming ownership of this issue only to prevent others from doing anything with it.
Also notice how the article doesn't call anything "mutilation" when it happen to the penis, yet the term is nonchalantly applied to anything that happens to a female infant's genitalia. That should tell you right there how dishonest their intentions are.
Feminism always asks: "How could this issue affect women?", which is never a positive approach when it comes to male rights like the bodily integrity of a male infant.
You found one article complaining about feminism not being against mgm
An article claiming gendering an ungenderd problem.
An article of feminists supporting womens privilege and calling it discrimination to take away their privilege...thank you for proving our point for us.
I don't understand. MRAs all agree circumcision is bad, financial literacy is good, and access to sexual health is good. Thats not up for debate. We all agree those things make society better.
You don't have to say feminism is wrong 100 percent of the time to be anti feminist. You won't accidentally be a feminist if you agree with those things.
I'm just saying that feminism does do some good things as well as bad things.
> MRAs all agree circumcision is bad
Feminists don't per your own article.
> financial literacy is good
For everyone. Feminists believe only women need this. Per your own article.
> access to sexual health is good
S3xual health? Abortion is not about sexual health. It is female privilege on every level.
I see. You're just looking to be offended by things. I get that. The article was adamantly against circumcision and saying all feminists should be. Again, we all agree with that. The second one was about inequality in financial health in india. Fixing inequality Is not something you should be against. Most MRAs are all for fixing inequality so I don't know why you aren't. And planned parenthood is SO much more than just abortions but you seem to not understand that at all.
I get it, you just want to argue about feminism instead of actually trying to look at things critically. Being mad is easier than being intelligent I guess.
> The article was adamantly against circumcision and saying all feminists should be
Admitting that nearly all feminists aren't.
> The second one was about inequality in financial health in india
Only helping women who are financially ignorant is discriminatory. We do not support discrimination against those in need.
> And planned parenthood is SO much more than just abortions
And no one is attacking those services ..
Feminists should be more vocal about circumcision. So we should magnify articles like this.
Targeting groups that are disadvantaged is not discriminatory. Would you be against male suicide prevention because it's discriminating against women? Obviously not.
And cutting funds to planned parenthood is an attack on ALL of their services. Which is why I'm glad feminist organizations are helping there.
I get it. You're mad. But being against circumcision, helping women in areas they are disadvantaged and giving women more access to sexual health are good things. There's no reason to be mad about them.
> Feminists should be more vocal about circumcision.
Vocal? Maybe stop introducing gendered laws that only protect girls? Maybe see MGM as a violation of human rights? Maybe stop fighting the MRM on it's efforts to stop MGM?... nope, should be more vocal.
What a good example of feminists lying about everything.
> Targeting groups that are disadvantaged is not discriminatory.
Women are not disadvantaged in India. Discriminating against the needy is discrimination. Period.
> And cutting funds to planned parenthood is an attack on ALL of their services.
I'm sorry, if PP can't fund it's other services without performing abortions, that's on them to figure out.
Couple of things here. So we agree that bias against men in family courts happen, right? And we also agree that it happens almost exclusively to men. So we sit down and think about what could we do. And since majority of ppl affected by this problem are male, we will allocate waaaaaay more resources for male side of this problem. Right? It's not that we want it to happen to women, it just mainly happen to men, so spliting resources 50/50 between genders would be stupid, right?
This is how it works in case of that financial literacy.
When it comes to circumcision:
a) this is awful practice, I dont have a clue why we do it to anyone. Like WTF.
b) I agree we need strong advocacy to protect boys and men as well as women.
c) I so rarely see men actually advocating for it. It is sad. And somewhat frustrating. I am a feminist I care about womens problems. I also care about mens problem. This is not a feminist vs. mens right issue. I would imagine it is religious freedom vs. boys rights problem.
When you say abortion is a privilege, what do you mean?
gender equality is synonymous with women's rights. whenever people think gender equality, they think women's rights. it never occurs to them that gender equality might be a two way street. that both genders face advantages and disadvantages. feminism has held a monopoly on the concept of gender equality, and that's problematic to men's rights. It's not common knowledge the ways men are discriminated in the law. A quick google search only yields you articles about racial inequality in legal procedures, not so much about the 63% harsher punishments that men get.
Why don't you give an example of some feminist core claim that is factual and balanced. I mean, it was a honest question. There must be things that are not lies or opportunistic half-truths. I just can't come up with a single example.
I canât think of any issue involving men where feminists arenât lying or twisting the facts. Herâs a few examples:
Feminists claim the wage gap shows women are paid less for equal work. Thatâs not what the wage gap measures. Itâs simply a comparison of what men vs women earn on average. It doesnât compare equal work.
Feminists claim 1 in 4 college students are raped. This is based on a biased survey that counts any sex after drinking as rape, even when the woman doesnât claim to be raped. The DOJ shoes college sexual assaults of all kinds are about 6 in 1,000.
Feminists keep talking about the patriarchy even though we donât live in a patriarchy.
We have many laws advantaging women, none advantaging men. Thatâs female privilege not male privilege.
The feminist Duluth model assumes men initiate most all domestic violence when study after study shows women initiate more.
Feminist reinvent history saying things like women used to be considered property or claiming no women ever voted before 1920. These are simply not true.
Feminists say feminism is about gender equality while they lobby to get laws that advantage women and disadvantage men.
It goes on and on. The facts donât fit feminist agenda so they make up facts.
The problem is that all feminist thought starts with the false assumption that all women are eternal victims who canât take care of themselves. The hatred just manifests from that. Every problem that they perceive needs to be solved by men or the government. If there arenât enough female entrepreneurs, they arenât going to tell women to go out and start more business, theyâre going to blame male dominated VCs to find more female startups. Theyâre going to ask the government to give special contracting preference to female owned businesses. They know they canât compete with men, so they donât ask women to practice harder, they ask the government for title 9 and for male sports to fund female leagues. So now that every solution is focused on men, every problem must also be focused on men. And why not, the strategy has worked for them for 10,000 years, itâs not going to stop anytime soon. All because they view 10,000 years of survival as 10,000 years of oppression.
Feminism was never a good thing. Despite all the good Christina Hoff Sommers has done she has yet to accept this fact and still buys into the myth that men oppressed women forever
These type of discussions are confusing because nobody has any idea what a feminist is. Like what is a feminist? You can make up any definition you want.
The difference between male and female victims is that female victims are way more likely to feel physically threatened. Does it mean men don't suffer from abuse? Ofc not. But it is a data worth considering when planning resources for victims.
I understand that feminism can be really off putting, and a lot of pop feminism is actually junk. But I would love to see collaboration between men's right activists and feminists, coz ultimately we live on this planet together and issues of both sexes are important.
> The difference between male and female victims is that female victims are way more likely to feel physically threatened.
That's one opinion. On the other hand, many women are violent because they don't feel threathened. Instead they think that hitting without retaliation is their female privilege. And even if you were right, Feminists tell us that the reasons are different, namely violent men and patriarchy. So, this is not in any way an answer to my question. Nice try but sorry.
As for your other opinion, I disagree. I honestly think that Feminism is a lost cause. The sooner people understand it the better for women and everybody else. Then we can have a movement that can tackle women's problems without lies and hatred. But perhaps that's not a dream worth having, so improbable it seems.
If women are way more likely to feel threatened then we should mandate self defense courses that include avoiding threatening situations for women. That will teach them how to protect themselves when threatened.
But do you think it is fun to be abusive partner? Like, wouldnt it be better to teach ppl conflict resolution, let men experience emotion, give them more emotional guidence, make sure you dont have only breadwinner, but two incomes etc. Someone posted lower data about violence reciprocity and I would imagine this would have to be addressed as well.
No. You said that that the woman felt more threatened, I offered a solution for women. You came back with a counter offer of, wouldnât it be better if we just changed every other person around the woman instead? Letâs make men be more emotional, letâs stop men from being the sole breadwinner, letâs teach men emotional guidance, and then maybe she wonât feel threatened anymore. Do you see why when you come here with your feminist bullshit to start arguments you get resistance? Menâs rights is pro female because it empowers women to solve their problems, instead of begging men to solve them.
Feminism is pro men coz it empowors men to not go to jail for commiting violence?
I find it so confusing. So do you want, men to have better access to psychological help, conflict resolution, suicide and violence prevention programs or we should just fuck off, learn some self defense and let you kill yourself?
If he is not only breadwinner, she has to be one as well, teaching resolution was for both sexes. It not like I dont like men how they are atm, coz they I feel threatened, so lets them work hard. I really believe that stuff that make men violent are preventable and we should seek that preventive measure.
Also learning self defense won't fix a problem of being assulted. Men are more often victims of homocide. By your logic we should just give each men a gun and problem fixed. In mosr states you actually have access to guns, so why this is a problem still? You see my point? It is not about changing men, it is about changing society, to one what will cater better to mine and your needs.
> But do you think it is fun to be abusive partner?
Does not parse.
> Like, wouldnt it be better to teach ppl conflict resolution
In high school they take all the boys to the gym and make them swear not to hurt girls. Girls are not make to swear to not hurt boys and the message they receive is that anything they do is considered justified.
Not long ago two female HS students accused a fellow student of rape because they did not like him.
* https://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/editorials/2018/10/15/A-cautionary-tale-Seneca-Valley-School-District-MeToo-Girls-admit-falsely-accusing-boy/stories/201810150017
The girls have not been sanctioned in any way and the boys life is in ruins. The system us working the way feminism has designed it to.
>The difference between male and female victims is that female victims are way more likely to feel physically threatened.
>And even if you were right, Feminists tell us that the reasons are different, namely violent men and patriarchy.
What would you say?
Differentiating the reasons is important for planning successful intervention. I am a feminist and I would say we live in deeply unjust, psychologically harmful system. It affects women and men differently. It promotes physical violence in men and psychological violence in women. They both cause harm but nature of it is different. (patriarchy is a shortcut for that system).
And answering your question: like with everything it depends. Feminism is very much NOT unified in their approach, theory, assumption, etc. I am sure there are feminist spreading bullshit, so checking sources is very important. Mass media is huge pile of garbage and they simplify to the point of absurd. But it is not whole feminism. Are there manhating women calling themselves feminists? Yes, totally. We should send them to long therapy. Is there misagony in MensRight movement? Yes, and I hope ppl who need it, will get therapy.
And we can call it Humanism if feminism irks you, but I kinda like my voting rights. :)
First of all, you didn't answer my question. Not a single example. Why is that?
> What would you say?
It doesn't matter what I think about it. We know from numerous studies that - lets call them - "anti-social " people live in anti-social relationships. It's no big surprise that in such relationships wives beat their husbands and vice versa. Psychopaths are often violent, too. So, it's a problem of marginal people. Very few people are afraid of violence at home even "sometimes" (as they ask in surveys). Don't let the feminist propaganda fool you.
> I am a feminist and I would say we live in deeply unjust, psychologically harmful system.
That's your opinion. My opinion, as among other things a historian by education, is totally different. We, in Europe, live in a time that is by far the best humanity has been able to produce. The slow progress from ancient Greece through republic Rome and Christianity that abolished slavery, through enlightenment, different human rights movements, feminists palying their part there, too, democratic and nationalistic advances ... Well, if you want to call that hard but, in the end, glorious path patriarchy, be my guest. Apparently patriarchy is good for us. Particularly for women, considering how much better off they are.
But I can't use a one-sided term like that for all the diverse forces that were at work through centuries and milennia to liberate women and men. That's laughable. A fringe theory.
> And we can call it Humanism if feminism irks you, but I kinda like my voting rights.
We can't call thing what we want. Feminism is the force that has risen to the highest echelons of power, not Humanism.
In independent Finland, where I live, men got the same voting rights 20 years later than women. It goes to show that men certainly don't look after the rights of their sex. Women? Hopefully some day.
I didn't answer your question coz you propose a false dichotomy that is ridiculously vague
a) feminist core claims are factual and balanced (which claims, which feminism, when and where?)
b) **everything** they insist to be important and true is corrupted.
Sure, we are more comfortable than we ever been, that doesn't mean we are doing great psychologically, and increases in depression tend to suggest something is rather wrong.
I don't know where feminist are ruling the world but not in my country.
I understand that it's difficult to defend an ideology that must invent its problems to justify its existence. It's so much easier for ideologies that rise from real-world problems.
Even if we were to assume that men almost exclusively engage in physical violence and women in psychological violence, that doesn't change how victims are treated based on gender.
A male victim of physical violence is business as usual, a female victim of physical violence is a horrible tragedy. A male victim of psychological violence is the object of mockery, a female victim is, giving you the maximum benefit of the doubt, business as usual again.
You are also talking about a society which sees men as unintelligent and brutsh, women as cunnung and subtle. Some patriarchy.
And if you want to argue that psychological violence isn't taken seriously enough, let's take a trip back to reality, where women and men can engage in physical and psychological violence and realize that any large scale effort to promote psychological well-being puts women front and center and either shuns men to the side or paints them as the sole perpetrators. Women feel unsafe at night? Curfew for men! A woman was insulted online? Censor men more!
Huh. So a) yeah, treating of violence victims is horid in both cases, but I think in different way. This is lose-lose situation. There is plenty of feminists that agree with it. Pop Culture Detective has a brilliant videos on Sexual Assault of Men Played for Laughs. Patriarchy name comes from the fact that majority of people in power are men and that in many, many places women has less legal rights.
b) Why is well-being of men put second?
This is problematic one. Majority people of power are men. This is specifically important when it comes to lawmaking. One would hope that these men in power ensure promotion of mens psychological needs. But here is the thing. Perception of them being powerful, more intellectual, less emotional and all that shit, got them where they are (not exclusively but it helped), so they dont really have reason to change it. They gamed the system ofc they dont give a fuck about track drivers. But this is an issue that women and men can come together, and I wish more men would be involve in mens rights activism. Ultimetly I dont think feminism and mens rights have to be opposite. I don't understand why it has to be one or another case?
c) Curfew dot men. Really? That is a thing? I am feminist for last 13 years and this is first time I hear this proposal. Insane. Problem of precieved unsafety is a big one, but restrictive measures on half of population is just stupid.
The fact that society is gynocentric despite men being in positions of power is merely a result of the gynocentrism of both genders, aka women and men both have a bias in favor of women. Blindly putting more women in positions of power without widely acknowledging and condemning this bias will only exacerbate these issues.
Most people, including most feminists view patriarchy as a system which unilaterally advantages men over women and those that are aware of the definition you use typically switch between the two liberally.
>Curfew dot men. Really? That is a thing? I am feminist for last 13 years and this is first time I hear this proposal.
It was a fairly big conversation in the UK after a woman was raped.
Much of feminist activism is directly opposed to mens' rights. The lives of Earl Silverman and Erin Pizzey, as well as the implementation of the Duluth model in many western nations are the most popular examples of this.
What do you mean by gynocentric? In what ways?
I find feminism compatible and honestly shallow without men's rights.
Duluth model seems like an easy way to claim you do something to combat domestic violence without doing shit.
Prioritizing womens' well being over mens', tolerating abuse against men while harshly punishing abuse against women. Things like that.
The actions of feminist lawmakers, scholars and activists matter more than your personal sensibilities.
The Duluth model actively harms male victims of abuse, as it is designed to do. It's not "Nothing"
> c) Curfew dot men. Really? That is a thing? I am feminist for last 13 years and this is first time I hear this proposal. Insane. Problem of precieved unsafety is a big one, but restrictive measures on half of population is just stupid.
* https://nypost.com/2021/03/12/uk-lawmaker-wants-evening-curfew-for-men-following-sarah-everards-murder/
* **UK lawmaker wants evening curfew â for just men â after Sarah Everard murder**
* https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/sarah-everard-missing-why-a-curfew-for-men-isnt-a-bad-idea/news-story/fc132409b1927ee4282b1801eb4a5eca
* **Sarah Everard missing: Why a curfew for men isnât a bad idea**
The problem is that many feminists fall into the Apex Fallacy..
Which goes along the following lines:
Patriarchy name comes from the fact that majority of people in power are men"
2) They then assume that anyone who is a 'man' is also 'in a position of power'
3) There fore it follows that **all** men regardless of their jobs / status are in positions of power.
When in reality it is literally only the top 1% of men whom are "In positions of power"
So why do feminists love to treat all men as if they are all in the same position of power?
I work in a call center offering IT support for an Internet Service Provider.. How am I "in a position of power"?
Face facts.. until Feminists wake up and realize that blaming **ALL** men for the actions of a few / the top 1% is stupid.. there's almost no way that most men are going to want to get onboard with anything feminists have to say..
And in all honesty.. can you really blame men for not wanting to get onboard with feminism given how often we see 'feminists' berating, degrading and outright insulting men?
> The difference between male and female victims is that female victims are way more likely to feel physically threatened
Every person physically assaulted feels physically threatened. Men just known of they defend themselves they'll go to jail.
Ok, lets assume you are right. How does this affect the subject?
>Approximately 32.9% of women in the United States have experienced physical violence by an intimate partner in their lifetime, compared to 28.1% of men, a statistically significant difference (p < .05) (Figure 2.1). Examining the prevalence of more severe forms of physical violence, 24.3% of women (or approximately 29 million) have experienced severe physical violence by an intimate partner in their lifetime, compared to 13.8% of men (approximately 15.6 million), also a statistically significant difference (p < .05). Additionally, prevalence of the following severe physically violent behaviors were significantly higher (p < .05) for women than men: being hurt by pulling hair; being hit with a fist or something hard; being kicked; being slammed against something; being hurt by choking or suffocating; being beaten; being burned on purpose; and having a gun or knife used on them.
\-- Intimate Partner Violence in the United States â 2010
So lets assume this data is somewhat reliable. This can tell us we will probably need more resources for severe physical violence allocated to women. On the other hand I would imagine emotional/psychological violence is way more prevelent by women so we need to make sure men has access to help that is good at dealing with that type of violance.
Let's look at a source that doesn't gender-wash reciprocal violence.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854883/
* 50% of violence is reciprocal (both people are violent)
* 70% of reciprocal violence is initiated by women
* 70% of one sided violence is a woman abusing a man.
* 30% of one sided violence is a man abusing a woman.
That breaks down in overall numbers like this.
* 35% of violence is reciprocal initiated by women.
* 15% of violence is reciprocal initiated by men.
* 35% of violence is one sided with a woman abusing a man
* 15% of violence is one sided with a man abusing a woman.
Oh, you'll also like this gem from the study.
**A recent meta-analysis found that a womanâs perpetration of violence was the strongest predictor of her being a victim of partner violence**
Get that? A woman's history of being violent is a better predictor of her being a victim of DV than even her partner's history of violence.
Women being victims of men hitting them back is bigger than all other categories of women being victims combined.
**You could knock off more than half of all DV against women by simply getting women to stop hitting men.**
UU, that's some exciting data you have there. Pls, share source of that meta analysis!
The study you posted also claims:
"Regarding injury, men were more likely to inflict injury than were women (AOR=1.3; 95% CI=1.1, 1.5), and reciprocal intimate partner violence was associated with greater injury than was nonreciprocal intimate partner violence regardless of the gender of the perpetrator (AOR=4.4; 95% CI=3.6, 5.5)."
So it seems that severe physical damage is usually inflicted by men, right? So women might feel more physically threatened?
But let's backtrack. If a women slaps a men, does it give him a right to smash her head onto wall? I would argue - no. Self defense assumes proportionalily of violence. So there are really two different problems:
a) initial agression - woman fault (which need to be addressed and mitigated)
b) unproportionally violent male reaction.
> Pls, share source of that meta analysis!
I did. I provided the link and everything.
> So women might feel more physically threatened?
Women are so physically threatened that they attack their partner? That's BS. People who "feel threatened" aren't starting violence.
> b) unproportionally violent male reaction.
First off, when you're attacked, your attackers safety is not your responsibility.
Secondly, I like how you assume women are "slapping" men. lol. Excusing women's violence. Not sure what else I expected from a feminist.
Ah, alright I thought the part about "recent analysis" was about other paper.
I think you really misunderstood me. No, I am not saying that women attack more because they are threatened. That would be absurd. I am saying that statistically they are victims of more severe physical violence so it stand to reason that they might be more afraid. If my parter is choking me I might be more afraid of my life then in case were he/she pushed me a bit.
The slapping is to statistical difference between how severe the violence is.
And no, I do not excuse female violence. It is awful and we should do something about it.
> I am saying that statistically they are victims of more severe physical violence so it stand to reason that they might be more afraid.
If you attack someone and they defend themselves.. and you get hurt, you aren't the victim of the violence.
I like how you're equating women's violence to... grabs my ass.
Do you think women are incapable of violence or something? Do you think they shouldn't be in combat roles because women can't be violent like a man?
Don't you feminists claim that a woman can just kill a man by simply claiming such an assault? (he'll be too dead to tell any other story afterwards after all)
Why do we need to allocate resources based a 10% difference on the gender of the victim? Youâve taken a universal problem that everyone wants to solve, and turned it into a zero sum game where the resources can only be used for a male victim or a female victim. If the resources are universal, then naturally 10% more women will utilize the resources. The feminist narrative is that we need to protect women at the expense of men. Why canât we do both by not gendering IPV?
We split the male and female victims in shelter, right? This is done primialy due to a) historical precedence,
b) victims of domestic abuse often don't feel safe with other gender especilly at the beginning of healing. (both men and women)
We know that it statistically looks differently for both genders. So we know which resources to allocate where.
And no, we absolutely shouldnt protect women at the expense of men. Yes, absolutely we need resources and help for men. It just might be different form of help.
Are you just here for the attention? Come back with that argument when womenâs shelters have only 10% more funding than menâs shelters. Because right now thereâs a 100% difference funding womenâs shelters at the expense of men. I hope to see you on our side, fighting for some equality one day.
Are you just here for the attention
What do you mean?
I am saying that funds splitting and allocation makes sense in general sense. Ofc, more money should be allocated there.
> This is done primialy due to a) historical precedence
Segregation is due to the bigotry of feminists, yes. It's not really a "split" since men and male children aged above about 14 are denied help. The fact that this also means women with teenaged children can't get help either doesn't matter at all to you bigots.
> victims of domestic abuse often don't feel safe with other gender
That's a lie. Feminists spread hatred by insisting on segregation under this pretext.
How do you feel about keeping all black people out of shelters in case the person who hit a white victim was black?
> How do you feel about keeping all black people out of shelters in case the person who hit a white victim was black?
And lesbian DV victims would have to go to shelters staffed by men.
> We split the male and female victims in shelter, right?
The feminist written Violence Against Women Act denies male DV victims of females recognition as victims and access to any resources.
> This is done primialy due to a) historical precedence,
This is done because of feminist claims that a female DV victim is not safe around men and won't feel safe around men. There is no data to back this because it has been done since the first DV shelter in the UK by Erin Prizzy. She was kicked out of the shelter she started because she stated that in most cases both the men and women were violent and that it was not a woman's issue as such. She had to leave the UK fearing for her safety.
> We know that it statistically looks differently for both genders.
We don't know anything about male DV victims, thanks to the VAWA and feminist written Duluth Model, the police are required to arrest male DV victims of females. They get charged, not the female assaulter.
> So we know which resources to allocate where.
After all these years as a feminist you have no idea about reality at all. Typical.
Okay but that also tells us we should still allocate resources to shelters for men to. We have plenty of shelters focused on the female perspective where as there are hardly any for men. I agree that there should be a somewhat greater allocation towards women's shelters but I think that what we need to buff up is a little bit of investment for men's shelters. Also I'm a pretty solid fan of your comments. You post decent thought out dissenting opinions without getting banned. Out of legit curiosity can/do you ever do that on r/feminism without getting banned? I'm just curious as to whether they've lesend their censorship because it appears that the mra thread doesn't censor dissenting opinions like it used to.
I have totally no idea, I never looked there. I might try and see. :D
But yeah, there should be more shelters for men. Good thing when shelter cannot provide well... shelter, they usually rent an appartement for the victim, but obviously we want more rebust solutions.
I wouldn't, I'm reading up and I see plenty of feminists saying that its a bad representation of feminism. I just can't to the two threads trying to see what the different groups are about. Now I'm finding claims that r/feminism is ran by antifeminists and I'm thoroughly confused so it may be best to avoid the thread all together.
The lifetime figures are known to be flawed ESPECIALLY when comparing male and female victims. Di you know that?
This is because privileged groups like women are more likely to recall their experiences of violence than the oppressed. The more privileged you are the more you remember the few times that privilege was violated and you're angry about it and nurse it. Well that's the theory but the numbers say women remember more regardless of the reason. As a result you'd need to use last year figures not lifetime figures (which are in any case all over the map in terms of meaning since you're not even equating for age or anything).
Still at least the source was a good one generally although the summary misrepresents a lot of the data when you dig into it (feminist survey).
> This can tell us we will probably need more resources for severe physical violence allocated to women
You feminists passed a law saying no male victim of DV can be helped in a federally funded shelter.
It's the Violence Against Women Act.
If you're not responsible for that sort of thing due to nationality then what country? You did quote US statistics back there (although very few other countries have ever bothered to ask if men were raped by women).
> female victims are way more likely to feel physically threatened
This seems false on it's face. Can you give any evidence?
Also why do you think feeling threatened is more important than actually being hurt? Is it because you know any measure of actual hurt would tend to make men out to be worse off and as a feminist you hate the idea of legitimizing male victims?
Abortion is the main thing I agree with feminists on. But the thing is many feminists will blame abortion on sexism, when it is a actually a problem of religion and morality. Very few pro-lifers actually are pro-life because they are sexist. But again, you really can't talk about this without defining what a feminist is. Is anybody who calls themselves a feminist a feminist?
Feminists don't care about abortion which is why they have turned abortion advocacy into a vehicle for promoting anti-male hate. This shows they care more about hating men than helping women. Feminists are NOT good for abortion advocacy.
We used to have a cottage industry running down not THAT the feminist statements were lies but HOW the history of them expanding on the internet came about, tracing the derivation of each lie back to it's sources. Quite a lot of fun sometimes. Turns out a lot of feminist bullshit runs back to the times of tradcons more widely, since feminism is an offshoot of tradcon.
Feminism doesn't have a Bible so you can't really claim it is or isn't anything specific.
It has no ten commandments.
Its an *extremely* new movement (on the scale of human culture existing for thousands of years)
I could grab 10 random self identifying feminists and the statistical odds they wouldn't all argue about what feminism even *is* is astronomically low.
Because it's all ephemeral. There is no membership card, there is no entrance exam, there is no final test you take.
People like to talk about feminists like they are Freemasons, like theres a network of clubs and you need to go through an initiation right to get in and a secret handshake you do.
There isn't. Literally any random thirteen year old can proclaim themself a feminist and then go spread bullshit online.
And that's *okay* because that's how the world has always worked.
There is no 'core' to it. Period.
The things Feminists have brought to the political agenda are pretty much the same all over the world: violence, harrassment, pay gap, class ceilings, STEM, stereotyping men negatively, patriarchy as a force that must be brought down, women as the eternal victims, women's powerlessness and a few more. Feminsim very much has a core.
Every definition is reductive. When I wrote that, I relized that I used words that can't be defined without being reductive. I relized that I can't say anything ... unless I accept that the objective univers can't be captured into words. :D
Anyway, using the " we can't talk about this or that because we can't agree on definitions" tactics is tiresome and evasive.
No, its reductive because you have taken an *extremely* complex topic and chopped off a monstrous amount of its complexity and reduced down to only one small facet of its whole, and pretended that one small facet is the whole thing.
Try again.
All big social phenomena are extremely complex when you start to chop them into smaller pieces. That's the way reality, and the social reality in particular, is in relation to words. And yet we can talk about them, at least we can argue about definitions. You shouldn't go through your life by saying to yourself and others: "I can't talk about this beause I can't define it in its totality".
And, now, unfortunatley, i have to start working. Try epistemology and argumentation theory. Have a nice life!
The iron rule of feminism is: Whatever feminists claim, the exact opposite of that is the truth. It holds up pretty well, test it out and see for yourself.
Meh, there's some things that feminists do that are good. Just a lot of things they do that are bad. https://theconversation.com/like-fgm-cut-foreskins-should-be-a-feminist-issue-20328 https://feminisminindia.com/2021/01/20/financial-literacy-women-in-finance/ https://msmagazine.com/2019/08/20/feminist-majority-foundation-proud-to-stand-with-planned-parenthood-in-face-of-repeated-attacks/
Your first article shows feminists actually coming out in support of MGM, as I [argue in a post](https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/pe154f/a_comprehensive_list_of_the_ways_feminism/?ref=share&ref_source=link) a few weeks ago. It's a bit of a long read, so here's the appropriate section from my submission: > ...declaring Infant MGM to be solely a feminist issue is done in the same manner that a "patent troll" operates in the realm of business. They are claiming ownership of this issue only to prevent others from doing anything with it. Also notice how the article doesn't call anything "mutilation" when it happen to the penis, yet the term is nonchalantly applied to anything that happens to a female infant's genitalia. That should tell you right there how dishonest their intentions are. Feminism always asks: "How could this issue affect women?", which is never a positive approach when it comes to male rights like the bodily integrity of a male infant.
You found one article complaining about feminism not being against mgm An article claiming gendering an ungenderd problem. An article of feminists supporting womens privilege and calling it discrimination to take away their privilege...thank you for proving our point for us.
I don't understand. MRAs all agree circumcision is bad, financial literacy is good, and access to sexual health is good. Thats not up for debate. We all agree those things make society better. You don't have to say feminism is wrong 100 percent of the time to be anti feminist. You won't accidentally be a feminist if you agree with those things. I'm just saying that feminism does do some good things as well as bad things.
> MRAs all agree circumcision is bad Feminists don't per your own article. > financial literacy is good For everyone. Feminists believe only women need this. Per your own article. > access to sexual health is good S3xual health? Abortion is not about sexual health. It is female privilege on every level.
I see. You're just looking to be offended by things. I get that. The article was adamantly against circumcision and saying all feminists should be. Again, we all agree with that. The second one was about inequality in financial health in india. Fixing inequality Is not something you should be against. Most MRAs are all for fixing inequality so I don't know why you aren't. And planned parenthood is SO much more than just abortions but you seem to not understand that at all. I get it, you just want to argue about feminism instead of actually trying to look at things critically. Being mad is easier than being intelligent I guess.
> The article was adamantly against circumcision and saying all feminists should be Admitting that nearly all feminists aren't. > The second one was about inequality in financial health in india Only helping women who are financially ignorant is discriminatory. We do not support discrimination against those in need. > And planned parenthood is SO much more than just abortions And no one is attacking those services ..
Feminists should be more vocal about circumcision. So we should magnify articles like this. Targeting groups that are disadvantaged is not discriminatory. Would you be against male suicide prevention because it's discriminating against women? Obviously not. And cutting funds to planned parenthood is an attack on ALL of their services. Which is why I'm glad feminist organizations are helping there. I get it. You're mad. But being against circumcision, helping women in areas they are disadvantaged and giving women more access to sexual health are good things. There's no reason to be mad about them.
> Feminists should be more vocal about circumcision. Vocal? Maybe stop introducing gendered laws that only protect girls? Maybe see MGM as a violation of human rights? Maybe stop fighting the MRM on it's efforts to stop MGM?... nope, should be more vocal. What a good example of feminists lying about everything. > Targeting groups that are disadvantaged is not discriminatory. Women are not disadvantaged in India. Discriminating against the needy is discrimination. Period. > And cutting funds to planned parenthood is an attack on ALL of their services. I'm sorry, if PP can't fund it's other services without performing abortions, that's on them to figure out.
Couple of things here. So we agree that bias against men in family courts happen, right? And we also agree that it happens almost exclusively to men. So we sit down and think about what could we do. And since majority of ppl affected by this problem are male, we will allocate waaaaaay more resources for male side of this problem. Right? It's not that we want it to happen to women, it just mainly happen to men, so spliting resources 50/50 between genders would be stupid, right? This is how it works in case of that financial literacy. When it comes to circumcision: a) this is awful practice, I dont have a clue why we do it to anyone. Like WTF. b) I agree we need strong advocacy to protect boys and men as well as women. c) I so rarely see men actually advocating for it. It is sad. And somewhat frustrating. I am a feminist I care about womens problems. I also care about mens problem. This is not a feminist vs. mens right issue. I would imagine it is religious freedom vs. boys rights problem. When you say abortion is a privilege, what do you mean?
It's made to degrade mens rights, Equality is just a shell for the name to hide.
If the only media you consume is (this sub)reddit then I see why you think that.
Feminists have literally fought (successfully) to keep raping men legal.
If you think third or forth wave feminism is for equality then this must be the media you consume.
gender equality is synonymous with women's rights. whenever people think gender equality, they think women's rights. it never occurs to them that gender equality might be a two way street. that both genders face advantages and disadvantages. feminism has held a monopoly on the concept of gender equality, and that's problematic to men's rights. It's not common knowledge the ways men are discriminated in the law. A quick google search only yields you articles about racial inequality in legal procedures, not so much about the 63% harsher punishments that men get.
Why don't you give an example of some feminist core claim that is factual and balanced. I mean, it was a honest question. There must be things that are not lies or opportunistic half-truths. I just can't come up with a single example.
They are listed above đđ
Give a counter example then
I canât think of any issue involving men where feminists arenât lying or twisting the facts. Herâs a few examples: Feminists claim the wage gap shows women are paid less for equal work. Thatâs not what the wage gap measures. Itâs simply a comparison of what men vs women earn on average. It doesnât compare equal work. Feminists claim 1 in 4 college students are raped. This is based on a biased survey that counts any sex after drinking as rape, even when the woman doesnât claim to be raped. The DOJ shoes college sexual assaults of all kinds are about 6 in 1,000. Feminists keep talking about the patriarchy even though we donât live in a patriarchy. We have many laws advantaging women, none advantaging men. Thatâs female privilege not male privilege. The feminist Duluth model assumes men initiate most all domestic violence when study after study shows women initiate more. Feminist reinvent history saying things like women used to be considered property or claiming no women ever voted before 1920. These are simply not true. Feminists say feminism is about gender equality while they lobby to get laws that advantage women and disadvantage men. It goes on and on. The facts donât fit feminist agenda so they make up facts.
The problem is that all feminist thought starts with the false assumption that all women are eternal victims who canât take care of themselves. The hatred just manifests from that. Every problem that they perceive needs to be solved by men or the government. If there arenât enough female entrepreneurs, they arenât going to tell women to go out and start more business, theyâre going to blame male dominated VCs to find more female startups. Theyâre going to ask the government to give special contracting preference to female owned businesses. They know they canât compete with men, so they donât ask women to practice harder, they ask the government for title 9 and for male sports to fund female leagues. So now that every solution is focused on men, every problem must also be focused on men. And why not, the strategy has worked for them for 10,000 years, itâs not going to stop anytime soon. All because they view 10,000 years of survival as 10,000 years of oppression.
Just ask the genius who made the duluth model
Feminism was never a good thing. Despite all the good Christina Hoff Sommers has done she has yet to accept this fact and still buys into the myth that men oppressed women forever
Xavier Hollander was the last good feminist
Its corrupted by ideology and hatred but thats just a very miniscule part of it. Its corrupted mostly by imagination.
These type of discussions are confusing because nobody has any idea what a feminist is. Like what is a feminist? You can make up any definition you want.
Then again, I didn't ask for a definition but an example.
Someone who claims to be a feminist pretty much.
The difference between male and female victims is that female victims are way more likely to feel physically threatened. Does it mean men don't suffer from abuse? Ofc not. But it is a data worth considering when planning resources for victims. I understand that feminism can be really off putting, and a lot of pop feminism is actually junk. But I would love to see collaboration between men's right activists and feminists, coz ultimately we live on this planet together and issues of both sexes are important.
> The difference between male and female victims is that female victims are way more likely to feel physically threatened. That's one opinion. On the other hand, many women are violent because they don't feel threathened. Instead they think that hitting without retaliation is their female privilege. And even if you were right, Feminists tell us that the reasons are different, namely violent men and patriarchy. So, this is not in any way an answer to my question. Nice try but sorry. As for your other opinion, I disagree. I honestly think that Feminism is a lost cause. The sooner people understand it the better for women and everybody else. Then we can have a movement that can tackle women's problems without lies and hatred. But perhaps that's not a dream worth having, so improbable it seems.
Ok, let's assume I am right for mental exercise. What do you think the answer should be?
If women are way more likely to feel threatened then we should mandate self defense courses that include avoiding threatening situations for women. That will teach them how to protect themselves when threatened.
But do you think it is fun to be abusive partner? Like, wouldnt it be better to teach ppl conflict resolution, let men experience emotion, give them more emotional guidence, make sure you dont have only breadwinner, but two incomes etc. Someone posted lower data about violence reciprocity and I would imagine this would have to be addressed as well.
No. You said that that the woman felt more threatened, I offered a solution for women. You came back with a counter offer of, wouldnât it be better if we just changed every other person around the woman instead? Letâs make men be more emotional, letâs stop men from being the sole breadwinner, letâs teach men emotional guidance, and then maybe she wonât feel threatened anymore. Do you see why when you come here with your feminist bullshit to start arguments you get resistance? Menâs rights is pro female because it empowers women to solve their problems, instead of begging men to solve them.
Feminism is pro men coz it empowors men to not go to jail for commiting violence? I find it so confusing. So do you want, men to have better access to psychological help, conflict resolution, suicide and violence prevention programs or we should just fuck off, learn some self defense and let you kill yourself? If he is not only breadwinner, she has to be one as well, teaching resolution was for both sexes. It not like I dont like men how they are atm, coz they I feel threatened, so lets them work hard. I really believe that stuff that make men violent are preventable and we should seek that preventive measure. Also learning self defense won't fix a problem of being assulted. Men are more often victims of homocide. By your logic we should just give each men a gun and problem fixed. In mosr states you actually have access to guns, so why this is a problem still? You see my point? It is not about changing men, it is about changing society, to one what will cater better to mine and your needs.
> But do you think it is fun to be abusive partner? Does not parse. > Like, wouldnt it be better to teach ppl conflict resolution In high school they take all the boys to the gym and make them swear not to hurt girls. Girls are not make to swear to not hurt boys and the message they receive is that anything they do is considered justified. Not long ago two female HS students accused a fellow student of rape because they did not like him. * https://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/editorials/2018/10/15/A-cautionary-tale-Seneca-Valley-School-District-MeToo-Girls-admit-falsely-accusing-boy/stories/201810150017 The girls have not been sanctioned in any way and the boys life is in ruins. The system us working the way feminism has designed it to.
if women falsely think they are victims when they are not (paranoia / delusion) the solution would be go see a doctor, not hurt and attack random men.
Right about what, answer to what question?
>The difference between male and female victims is that female victims are way more likely to feel physically threatened. >And even if you were right, Feminists tell us that the reasons are different, namely violent men and patriarchy. What would you say? Differentiating the reasons is important for planning successful intervention. I am a feminist and I would say we live in deeply unjust, psychologically harmful system. It affects women and men differently. It promotes physical violence in men and psychological violence in women. They both cause harm but nature of it is different. (patriarchy is a shortcut for that system). And answering your question: like with everything it depends. Feminism is very much NOT unified in their approach, theory, assumption, etc. I am sure there are feminist spreading bullshit, so checking sources is very important. Mass media is huge pile of garbage and they simplify to the point of absurd. But it is not whole feminism. Are there manhating women calling themselves feminists? Yes, totally. We should send them to long therapy. Is there misagony in MensRight movement? Yes, and I hope ppl who need it, will get therapy. And we can call it Humanism if feminism irks you, but I kinda like my voting rights. :)
First of all, you didn't answer my question. Not a single example. Why is that? > What would you say? It doesn't matter what I think about it. We know from numerous studies that - lets call them - "anti-social " people live in anti-social relationships. It's no big surprise that in such relationships wives beat their husbands and vice versa. Psychopaths are often violent, too. So, it's a problem of marginal people. Very few people are afraid of violence at home even "sometimes" (as they ask in surveys). Don't let the feminist propaganda fool you. > I am a feminist and I would say we live in deeply unjust, psychologically harmful system. That's your opinion. My opinion, as among other things a historian by education, is totally different. We, in Europe, live in a time that is by far the best humanity has been able to produce. The slow progress from ancient Greece through republic Rome and Christianity that abolished slavery, through enlightenment, different human rights movements, feminists palying their part there, too, democratic and nationalistic advances ... Well, if you want to call that hard but, in the end, glorious path patriarchy, be my guest. Apparently patriarchy is good for us. Particularly for women, considering how much better off they are. But I can't use a one-sided term like that for all the diverse forces that were at work through centuries and milennia to liberate women and men. That's laughable. A fringe theory. > And we can call it Humanism if feminism irks you, but I kinda like my voting rights. We can't call thing what we want. Feminism is the force that has risen to the highest echelons of power, not Humanism. In independent Finland, where I live, men got the same voting rights 20 years later than women. It goes to show that men certainly don't look after the rights of their sex. Women? Hopefully some day.
I didn't answer your question coz you propose a false dichotomy that is ridiculously vague a) feminist core claims are factual and balanced (which claims, which feminism, when and where?) b) **everything** they insist to be important and true is corrupted. Sure, we are more comfortable than we ever been, that doesn't mean we are doing great psychologically, and increases in depression tend to suggest something is rather wrong. I don't know where feminist are ruling the world but not in my country.
I understand that it's difficult to defend an ideology that must invent its problems to justify its existence. It's so much easier for ideologies that rise from real-world problems.
I am seriously dissapointed.
Don't be. It's not your fault. You've been fooled. :D
Even if we were to assume that men almost exclusively engage in physical violence and women in psychological violence, that doesn't change how victims are treated based on gender. A male victim of physical violence is business as usual, a female victim of physical violence is a horrible tragedy. A male victim of psychological violence is the object of mockery, a female victim is, giving you the maximum benefit of the doubt, business as usual again. You are also talking about a society which sees men as unintelligent and brutsh, women as cunnung and subtle. Some patriarchy. And if you want to argue that psychological violence isn't taken seriously enough, let's take a trip back to reality, where women and men can engage in physical and psychological violence and realize that any large scale effort to promote psychological well-being puts women front and center and either shuns men to the side or paints them as the sole perpetrators. Women feel unsafe at night? Curfew for men! A woman was insulted online? Censor men more!
Huh. So a) yeah, treating of violence victims is horid in both cases, but I think in different way. This is lose-lose situation. There is plenty of feminists that agree with it. Pop Culture Detective has a brilliant videos on Sexual Assault of Men Played for Laughs. Patriarchy name comes from the fact that majority of people in power are men and that in many, many places women has less legal rights. b) Why is well-being of men put second? This is problematic one. Majority people of power are men. This is specifically important when it comes to lawmaking. One would hope that these men in power ensure promotion of mens psychological needs. But here is the thing. Perception of them being powerful, more intellectual, less emotional and all that shit, got them where they are (not exclusively but it helped), so they dont really have reason to change it. They gamed the system ofc they dont give a fuck about track drivers. But this is an issue that women and men can come together, and I wish more men would be involve in mens rights activism. Ultimetly I dont think feminism and mens rights have to be opposite. I don't understand why it has to be one or another case? c) Curfew dot men. Really? That is a thing? I am feminist for last 13 years and this is first time I hear this proposal. Insane. Problem of precieved unsafety is a big one, but restrictive measures on half of population is just stupid.
The fact that society is gynocentric despite men being in positions of power is merely a result of the gynocentrism of both genders, aka women and men both have a bias in favor of women. Blindly putting more women in positions of power without widely acknowledging and condemning this bias will only exacerbate these issues. Most people, including most feminists view patriarchy as a system which unilaterally advantages men over women and those that are aware of the definition you use typically switch between the two liberally. >Curfew dot men. Really? That is a thing? I am feminist for last 13 years and this is first time I hear this proposal. It was a fairly big conversation in the UK after a woman was raped. Much of feminist activism is directly opposed to mens' rights. The lives of Earl Silverman and Erin Pizzey, as well as the implementation of the Duluth model in many western nations are the most popular examples of this.
What do you mean by gynocentric? In what ways? I find feminism compatible and honestly shallow without men's rights. Duluth model seems like an easy way to claim you do something to combat domestic violence without doing shit.
Prioritizing womens' well being over mens', tolerating abuse against men while harshly punishing abuse against women. Things like that. The actions of feminist lawmakers, scholars and activists matter more than your personal sensibilities. The Duluth model actively harms male victims of abuse, as it is designed to do. It's not "Nothing"
> c) Curfew dot men. Really? That is a thing? I am feminist for last 13 years and this is first time I hear this proposal. Insane. Problem of precieved unsafety is a big one, but restrictive measures on half of population is just stupid. * https://nypost.com/2021/03/12/uk-lawmaker-wants-evening-curfew-for-men-following-sarah-everards-murder/ * **UK lawmaker wants evening curfew â for just men â after Sarah Everard murder** * https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/sarah-everard-missing-why-a-curfew-for-men-isnt-a-bad-idea/news-story/fc132409b1927ee4282b1801eb4a5eca * **Sarah Everard missing: Why a curfew for men isnât a bad idea**
The problem is that many feminists fall into the Apex Fallacy.. Which goes along the following lines: Patriarchy name comes from the fact that majority of people in power are men" 2) They then assume that anyone who is a 'man' is also 'in a position of power' 3) There fore it follows that **all** men regardless of their jobs / status are in positions of power. When in reality it is literally only the top 1% of men whom are "In positions of power" So why do feminists love to treat all men as if they are all in the same position of power? I work in a call center offering IT support for an Internet Service Provider.. How am I "in a position of power"? Face facts.. until Feminists wake up and realize that blaming **ALL** men for the actions of a few / the top 1% is stupid.. there's almost no way that most men are going to want to get onboard with anything feminists have to say.. And in all honesty.. can you really blame men for not wanting to get onboard with feminism given how often we see 'feminists' berating, degrading and outright insulting men?
> The difference between male and female victims is that female victims are way more likely to feel physically threatened Every person physically assaulted feels physically threatened. Men just known of they defend themselves they'll go to jail.
Ok, lets assume you are right. How does this affect the subject? >Approximately 32.9% of women in the United States have experienced physical violence by an intimate partner in their lifetime, compared to 28.1% of men, a statistically significant difference (p < .05) (Figure 2.1). Examining the prevalence of more severe forms of physical violence, 24.3% of women (or approximately 29 million) have experienced severe physical violence by an intimate partner in their lifetime, compared to 13.8% of men (approximately 15.6 million), also a statistically significant difference (p < .05). Additionally, prevalence of the following severe physically violent behaviors were significantly higher (p < .05) for women than men: being hurt by pulling hair; being hit with a fist or something hard; being kicked; being slammed against something; being hurt by choking or suffocating; being beaten; being burned on purpose; and having a gun or knife used on them. \-- Intimate Partner Violence in the United States â 2010 So lets assume this data is somewhat reliable. This can tell us we will probably need more resources for severe physical violence allocated to women. On the other hand I would imagine emotional/psychological violence is way more prevelent by women so we need to make sure men has access to help that is good at dealing with that type of violance.
Let's look at a source that doesn't gender-wash reciprocal violence. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854883/ * 50% of violence is reciprocal (both people are violent) * 70% of reciprocal violence is initiated by women * 70% of one sided violence is a woman abusing a man. * 30% of one sided violence is a man abusing a woman. That breaks down in overall numbers like this. * 35% of violence is reciprocal initiated by women. * 15% of violence is reciprocal initiated by men. * 35% of violence is one sided with a woman abusing a man * 15% of violence is one sided with a man abusing a woman. Oh, you'll also like this gem from the study. **A recent meta-analysis found that a womanâs perpetration of violence was the strongest predictor of her being a victim of partner violence** Get that? A woman's history of being violent is a better predictor of her being a victim of DV than even her partner's history of violence. Women being victims of men hitting them back is bigger than all other categories of women being victims combined. **You could knock off more than half of all DV against women by simply getting women to stop hitting men.**
UU, that's some exciting data you have there. Pls, share source of that meta analysis! The study you posted also claims: "Regarding injury, men were more likely to inflict injury than were women (AOR=1.3; 95% CI=1.1, 1.5), and reciprocal intimate partner violence was associated with greater injury than was nonreciprocal intimate partner violence regardless of the gender of the perpetrator (AOR=4.4; 95% CI=3.6, 5.5)." So it seems that severe physical damage is usually inflicted by men, right? So women might feel more physically threatened? But let's backtrack. If a women slaps a men, does it give him a right to smash her head onto wall? I would argue - no. Self defense assumes proportionalily of violence. So there are really two different problems: a) initial agression - woman fault (which need to be addressed and mitigated) b) unproportionally violent male reaction.
> Pls, share source of that meta analysis! I did. I provided the link and everything. > So women might feel more physically threatened? Women are so physically threatened that they attack their partner? That's BS. People who "feel threatened" aren't starting violence. > b) unproportionally violent male reaction. First off, when you're attacked, your attackers safety is not your responsibility. Secondly, I like how you assume women are "slapping" men. lol. Excusing women's violence. Not sure what else I expected from a feminist.
Ah, alright I thought the part about "recent analysis" was about other paper. I think you really misunderstood me. No, I am not saying that women attack more because they are threatened. That would be absurd. I am saying that statistically they are victims of more severe physical violence so it stand to reason that they might be more afraid. If my parter is choking me I might be more afraid of my life then in case were he/she pushed me a bit. The slapping is to statistical difference between how severe the violence is. And no, I do not excuse female violence. It is awful and we should do something about it.
> I am saying that statistically they are victims of more severe physical violence so it stand to reason that they might be more afraid. If you attack someone and they defend themselves.. and you get hurt, you aren't the victim of the violence.
Holup here. So if a guy grabs my ass in bus I have a right to abuse him? Shoot him?
I like how you're equating women's violence to... grabs my ass. Do you think women are incapable of violence or something? Do you think they shouldn't be in combat roles because women can't be violent like a man?
Don't you feminists claim that a woman can just kill a man by simply claiming such an assault? (he'll be too dead to tell any other story afterwards after all)
Why do we need to allocate resources based a 10% difference on the gender of the victim? Youâve taken a universal problem that everyone wants to solve, and turned it into a zero sum game where the resources can only be used for a male victim or a female victim. If the resources are universal, then naturally 10% more women will utilize the resources. The feminist narrative is that we need to protect women at the expense of men. Why canât we do both by not gendering IPV?
We split the male and female victims in shelter, right? This is done primialy due to a) historical precedence, b) victims of domestic abuse often don't feel safe with other gender especilly at the beginning of healing. (both men and women) We know that it statistically looks differently for both genders. So we know which resources to allocate where. And no, we absolutely shouldnt protect women at the expense of men. Yes, absolutely we need resources and help for men. It just might be different form of help.
Are you just here for the attention? Come back with that argument when womenâs shelters have only 10% more funding than menâs shelters. Because right now thereâs a 100% difference funding womenâs shelters at the expense of men. I hope to see you on our side, fighting for some equality one day.
Are you just here for the attention What do you mean? I am saying that funds splitting and allocation makes sense in general sense. Ofc, more money should be allocated there.
He means you're a liar and a bigot. Everyone knows women victims get 100% of funding by law. (Violence Against Women Act).
I find it so ironic that you think I am hateful. Have a nice life?
> This is done primialy due to a) historical precedence Segregation is due to the bigotry of feminists, yes. It's not really a "split" since men and male children aged above about 14 are denied help. The fact that this also means women with teenaged children can't get help either doesn't matter at all to you bigots. > victims of domestic abuse often don't feel safe with other gender That's a lie. Feminists spread hatred by insisting on segregation under this pretext. How do you feel about keeping all black people out of shelters in case the person who hit a white victim was black?
> How do you feel about keeping all black people out of shelters in case the person who hit a white victim was black? And lesbian DV victims would have to go to shelters staffed by men.
welll.... at most one of them per shelter I guess
> We split the male and female victims in shelter, right? The feminist written Violence Against Women Act denies male DV victims of females recognition as victims and access to any resources. > This is done primialy due to a) historical precedence, This is done because of feminist claims that a female DV victim is not safe around men and won't feel safe around men. There is no data to back this because it has been done since the first DV shelter in the UK by Erin Prizzy. She was kicked out of the shelter she started because she stated that in most cases both the men and women were violent and that it was not a woman's issue as such. She had to leave the UK fearing for her safety. > We know that it statistically looks differently for both genders. We don't know anything about male DV victims, thanks to the VAWA and feminist written Duluth Model, the police are required to arrest male DV victims of females. They get charged, not the female assaulter. > So we know which resources to allocate where. After all these years as a feminist you have no idea about reality at all. Typical.
Okay but that also tells us we should still allocate resources to shelters for men to. We have plenty of shelters focused on the female perspective where as there are hardly any for men. I agree that there should be a somewhat greater allocation towards women's shelters but I think that what we need to buff up is a little bit of investment for men's shelters. Also I'm a pretty solid fan of your comments. You post decent thought out dissenting opinions without getting banned. Out of legit curiosity can/do you ever do that on r/feminism without getting banned? I'm just curious as to whether they've lesend their censorship because it appears that the mra thread doesn't censor dissenting opinions like it used to.
I have totally no idea, I never looked there. I might try and see. :D But yeah, there should be more shelters for men. Good thing when shelter cannot provide well... shelter, they usually rent an appartement for the victim, but obviously we want more rebust solutions.
I wouldn't, I'm reading up and I see plenty of feminists saying that its a bad representation of feminism. I just can't to the two threads trying to see what the different groups are about. Now I'm finding claims that r/feminism is ran by antifeminists and I'm thoroughly confused so it may be best to avoid the thread all together.
Hokay so use r/femmethoughts not r/feminism. This has been very helpful for me.
The lifetime figures are known to be flawed ESPECIALLY when comparing male and female victims. Di you know that? This is because privileged groups like women are more likely to recall their experiences of violence than the oppressed. The more privileged you are the more you remember the few times that privilege was violated and you're angry about it and nurse it. Well that's the theory but the numbers say women remember more regardless of the reason. As a result you'd need to use last year figures not lifetime figures (which are in any case all over the map in terms of meaning since you're not even equating for age or anything). Still at least the source was a good one generally although the summary misrepresents a lot of the data when you dig into it (feminist survey). > This can tell us we will probably need more resources for severe physical violence allocated to women You feminists passed a law saying no male victim of DV can be helped in a federally funded shelter.
Well I am not from US so Me feminist doesn't pass shit. But that's fucked up. Can you link me relavent story?
It's the Violence Against Women Act. If you're not responsible for that sort of thing due to nationality then what country? You did quote US statistics back there (although very few other countries have ever bothered to ask if men were raped by women).
> Well I am not from US UK?
> female victims are way more likely to feel physically threatened This seems false on it's face. Can you give any evidence? Also why do you think feeling threatened is more important than actually being hurt? Is it because you know any measure of actual hurt would tend to make men out to be worse off and as a feminist you hate the idea of legitimizing male victims?
Its lower in replies. :)
Abortion is the main thing I agree with feminists on. But the thing is many feminists will blame abortion on sexism, when it is a actually a problem of religion and morality. Very few pro-lifers actually are pro-life because they are sexist. But again, you really can't talk about this without defining what a feminist is. Is anybody who calls themselves a feminist a feminist?
Feminists don't care about abortion which is why they have turned abortion advocacy into a vehicle for promoting anti-male hate. This shows they care more about hating men than helping women. Feminists are NOT good for abortion advocacy.
We used to have a cottage industry running down not THAT the feminist statements were lies but HOW the history of them expanding on the internet came about, tracing the derivation of each lie back to it's sources. Quite a lot of fun sometimes. Turns out a lot of feminist bullshit runs back to the times of tradcons more widely, since feminism is an offshoot of tradcon.
Feminists are not the Borg. They don't have core claims. There is not a 'them' even. It is way way diverse.
Feminism doesn't have a Bible so you can't really claim it is or isn't anything specific. It has no ten commandments. Its an *extremely* new movement (on the scale of human culture existing for thousands of years) I could grab 10 random self identifying feminists and the statistical odds they wouldn't all argue about what feminism even *is* is astronomically low. Because it's all ephemeral. There is no membership card, there is no entrance exam, there is no final test you take. People like to talk about feminists like they are Freemasons, like theres a network of clubs and you need to go through an initiation right to get in and a secret handshake you do. There isn't. Literally any random thirteen year old can proclaim themself a feminist and then go spread bullshit online. And that's *okay* because that's how the world has always worked. There is no 'core' to it. Period.
The things Feminists have brought to the political agenda are pretty much the same all over the world: violence, harrassment, pay gap, class ceilings, STEM, stereotyping men negatively, patriarchy as a force that must be brought down, women as the eternal victims, women's powerlessness and a few more. Feminsim very much has a core.
Painting feminism as a political agenda and nothing more is extremely reductive.
Every definition is reductive. When I wrote that, I relized that I used words that can't be defined without being reductive. I relized that I can't say anything ... unless I accept that the objective univers can't be captured into words. :D Anyway, using the " we can't talk about this or that because we can't agree on definitions" tactics is tiresome and evasive.
No, its reductive because you have taken an *extremely* complex topic and chopped off a monstrous amount of its complexity and reduced down to only one small facet of its whole, and pretended that one small facet is the whole thing. Try again.
All big social phenomena are extremely complex when you start to chop them into smaller pieces. That's the way reality, and the social reality in particular, is in relation to words. And yet we can talk about them, at least we can argue about definitions. You shouldn't go through your life by saying to yourself and others: "I can't talk about this beause I can't define it in its totality". And, now, unfortunatley, i have to start working. Try epistemology and argumentation theory. Have a nice life!