# Do misandrist women know they hate men?



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

just to mirror the other thread.
thoughts?


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

You are such a shit starter. :laughing:

But to entertain your thread, some do, some don't, and some are in between. Having a bad experience with a man really isn't the best excuse to bring up so and so at every chance you get, or hold it against every member of that gender. Perhaps they feel this anger is justified, but an outsider observer would quickly feel it were over the top (I've posted quotes from PerC elsewhere). 

In short: two wrongs don't make a right.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

WamphyriThrall said:


> You are such a shit starter. :laughing:


so it's being a shit starter to make a thread about misandry, but not misogyny? how does that work? :tongue:



> But to entertain your thread, some do, some don't, and some are in between. Having a bad experience with a man really isn't the best excuse to bring up so and so at every chance you get, or hold it against every member of that gender. Perhaps they feel this anger is justified, but an outsider observer would quickly feel it were over the top (I've posted quotes from PerC elsewhere).
> In short: two wrongs don't make a right.


you say that quite a bit more softly, but a pretty much agree. 
I'll reiterate this a little more bluntly. misandry is just as *ignorant*, *discriminatory* and *harmful* as misogyny. a man hurt you? use you? victimized you?....great! *get over it!* that was 1 man's deal, not everyone else's.


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

Because this is PerC, specifically the S&R section of PerC, AKA "no man's land" (literally). 

I won't mince words: some of the users here can be complete bitches, and the amount of double standards, generalizations, biases, groupthink, and displaced aggression are enough to frustrate anyone. 

Yet somehow it seems perfectly okay to bash men non-stop, and people either act like this phenomenon doesn't exist, or is somehow justified. If someone continually develops unhealthy relationships with despicable types, well, guess what? That's probably no coincidence. 

Same for those who like to drone on and on about how miserable and pathetic others are when they spend large chunks of their free time studying, thinking about, and bringing these types up.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

WamphyriThrall said:


> Because this is PerC, specifically the S&R section of PerC, AKA "no man's land" (literally).
> I won't mince words: some of the users here can be complete bitches, and the amount of double standards, generalizations, biases, groupthink, and displaced aggression are enough to frustrate anyone.
> Yet somehow it seems perfectly okay to bash men non-stop, and people either act like this phenomenon doesn't exist, or is somehow justified. If someone continually develops unhealthy relationships with despicable types, well, guess what? That's probably no coincidence.
> Same for those who like to drone on and on about how miserable and pathetic others are when they spend large chunks of their free time studying, thinking about, and bringing these types up.


you summed it up nicely, except you forgot one of my favorites: trying to act like "people think I'm weak and don't respect my strength because I'm a woman! they need to stop being so sexist!" then 5 minutes later "help! men (whom I could easily avoid) are victimizing me! how could they do this to little ol me :crying: "

women have gonads too, and such women need to grow a pair and stop expecting society to deal with every one of their little, insignificant (or completely imaginary) problems.


anyway, I'm gonna slow down before this gets Spam Zoned, so seriously, anyone else, do you think misandrist women (or men) know they're being misandrist, or is it unconscious.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

I don't hate men as a group.

I did hate a few individuals of both genders, but I finally found that hate is really exhausting and induces headaches.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

koalaroo said:


> I don't hate men as a group.
> *I did hate a few individuals of both genders, but I finally found that hate is really exhausting and induces headaches*.


congratulations, you're integrating to 7 (it's that 1-ish _resentment_ which was probably the source. I have it myself when I'm stressed and go to 1) roud:


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> you summed it up nicely, except you forgot one of my favorites: trying to act like "people think I'm weak and don't respect my strength because I'm a woman! they need to stop being so sexist!" then 5 minutes later "help! men (whom I could easily avoid) are victimizing me! how could they do this to little ol me :crying: "
> 
> women have gonads too, and such women need to grow a pair and stop expecting society to deal with every one of their little, insignificant (or completely imaginary) problems.
> 
> ...


It's times like these I truly pity straight guys. *evil smirk*


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> congratulations, you're integrating to 7 (it's that 1-ish _resentment_ which was probably the source. I have it myself when I'm stressed and go to 1) roud:


Righteous indignation burns a little too hot and is probably stroke-inducing, so I try to be more zen.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> just to mirror the other thread.
> thoughts?


Usually, it's pretty obvious when there's a misogynist or misandrist involved.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> congratulations, you're integrating to 7 (it's that 1-ish _resentment_ which was probably the source. I have it myself when I'm stressed and go to 1) roud:


The stereotypical SJWs are Type 1's who disintegrate into Type 4's.

It makes sense now.

---

Oh, to answer your question, of course not. Misandry don't real, remember?


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

koalaroo said:


> Righteous indignation burns a little too hot and is probably stroke-inducing, so I try to be more zen.


I like to switch back and forth between the two. being righteously indignant is much more fun, but sometimes I get tired and just want to watch the birds, listen to Enya or watch children fralicking in the park.


----------



## Bear987 (May 13, 2012)

Quite recently my opinion was dismissed on this forum based on my being a guy. I figure that falls under the umbrella of misandry. Funny thing: my Firefox's English dictionary add-on doesn't include the word 'misandry' or any of its derivatives! Misogyny and its derivatives do feature in it, though. I know that, because I keep spelling it wrong!

Anyway, it felt weird being dismissed based on my gender. I sort of expected the other person to go: just kidding! at some point, but no. She remained quite sure of herself.

I figure both misandry and misogyny stem from a world of hurt. The person lashing out in hatred probably feels justified in being misandrous or misogynistic, because the hurt it is rooted in is real.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

I shall mirror my answer from the other thread.

I can see where a girl has resentment toward men due to an experience as actual misandry. A cultural norm that is biased against men to me doesn't imply a personal hatred of men.

I am also well aware of the previous response(s) to my statement. Mirror it/those as you please.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Bear987 said:


> Quite recently my opinion was dismissed on this forum based on my being a guy. I figure that falls under the umbrella of misandry. Funny thing: my Firefox's English dictionary add-on doesn't include the word 'misandry' or any of its derivatives! Misogyny and its derivatives do feature in it, though. I know that, because I keep spelling it wrong!
> 
> Anyway, it felt weird being dismissed based on my gender. I sort of expected the other person to go: just kidding! at some point, but no. She remained quite sure of herself.
> 
> I figure both misandry and misogyny stem from a world of hurt. The person lashing out in hatred probably feels justified in being misandrous or misogynistic, because the hurt it is rooted in is real.


I follow Richard Dawkins on twitter and women would comment saying "you're a middle aged white male, we don't care about your opinion!" It may seem counterproductive to listen other views and be fair but that what would be fair.


----------



## killerB (Jan 14, 2010)

Isn't the refusal to acknowledge Misandry in and of itself Misandy?


----------



## DeductiveReasoner (Feb 25, 2011)

#mensrights


----------



## perfectcircle (Jan 5, 2011)

Bear987 said:


> Quite recently my opinion was dismissed on this forum based on my being a guy. I figure that falls under the umbrella of misandry.


No, it doesn't.



> Funny thing: my Firefox's English dictionary add-on doesn't include the word 'misandry' or any of its derivatives!


Cause it's barely a thing.




This thread is ridic.


----------



## gwennylou (Jun 19, 2009)

I don't hate men, but there a few that I ignore so as not to end up in jail for murder.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

adverseaffects said:


> Cause it's barely a thing.


Oh ok, I guess we should ignore it then. Phew. Dodged that bullet.


----------



## perfectcircle (Jan 5, 2011)

LostFavor said:


> Oh ok, I guess we should ignore it then. Phew. Dodged that bullet.


You should of course not ignore it when it's relevant, but stirring up an imagined social phenomenon that you're making sound like it's sweeping the nation, which was ONLY brought up because of a thread about misogyny, is not that. You know it's a valid discussion it enters your mind due to it effecting your life. not just seeing a thread about misogyny and suddenly remembering that term that means the opposite thing.

Have a good day


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

adverseaffects said:


> No, it doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Why do you believe misandry is 'barely a thing'? Also, why do you believe someone telling a guy their opinion doesn't matter solely because of their gender is not misandry?


----------



## perfectcircle (Jan 5, 2011)

Sporadic Aura said:


> Why do you believe misandry is 'barely a thing'? Also, why do you believe someone telling a guy their opinion doesn't matter solely because of their gender is not misandry?


They could be stupid or misguided for saying his opinion isn't relevant cause he's a guy, but that doesn't mean it's coming from a hatred of men or is an expression of a HATRED of men. You could argue it's sexist but I don't think misandrist. And there are some contexts where a guy's opinion is NOT relevant, without that information, it's silly to assume it's about hating men.

And misandry is not commonly exhibited by many people. I don't think many people hate women either, but our society may have some internalized misogyny, and misogyny is more commonly held by people than misandry. If I saw misandry occur I'd be disgusted & annoyed by it but it just isn't coming from a general social perspective, it's the aberration. And a reaction to misogyny or sexism is not the same as misandry, I'm sorry. Once again, I'm not saying misandry would be ok by any means, but the fact I have to clarify that is so dumb.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

adverseaffects said:


> They could be stupid or misguided for saying his opinion isn't relevant cause he's a guy, but that doesn't mean it's coming from a hatred of men or is an expression of a HATRED of men. You could argue it's sexist but I don't think misandrist. And there are some contexts where a guy's opinion is NOT relevant, without that information, it's silly to assume it's about hating men.
> 
> And misandry is not commonly exhibited by many people. I don't think many people hate women either, but our society may have some internalized misogyny, and misogyny is more commonly held by people than misandry. If I saw misandry occur I'd be disgusted & annoyed by it but it just isn't coming from a general social perspective, it's the aberration. And a reaction to misogyny or sexism is not the same as misandry, I'm sorry. Once again, I'm not saying misandry would be ok by any means, but the fact I have to clarify that is so dumb.


You don't need to clarify that you don't condone misandry. No one has said that you do, I certainly didn't think you did.

What is a situation where a guys opinion wouldn't be relevant solely because he is a guy? Does this also mean you think there are situations where a woman's opinion wouldn't be relevant solely because she is a woman? I ask mostly because I can't think of any situations myself.

Also, why do you think there are less misandrists than misogynists? I agree that both are a very small minority. Though I've experienced both misogynistic view points first hand and misandrinistic view points first hand. I think hatred towards any group is a serious issue, no matter on what scale it is on.


----------



## gwennylou (Jun 19, 2009)

Feminism in any form is said to be misandry. Anyone who claims to be a feminist is almost always ridiculed and painted out to hate men, especially for daring to discuss the inequalities between men and women. Yet, men can say things like, "get in the kitchen and make me a sandwich" and tell women to know their role/place and everyone can laugh about it, when really that kind of thinking/behavior is rooted in misogyny and any attempt to fight back against misogyny is turned into misandry. Is misandry real? Absolutely, there are some weird fucking women out there who do hate men, who say ridiculous things about them (like cutting off their penises, killing all the men in the world, etc...), but for the most part all the misandry being talked about are just women fed up with being treated like second class citizens, because they happen to have a vagina.


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

This isn't really a mirror thread and I won't be repeating what was said because there are key differences. I will point out why. 

Misandry isn't an inclusive part of society's makeup (causing issues of backlash to keep men in their place) of a balance of rights and the word masculanism (which isn't a movement as far as I know) does not set anyone's teeth on edge and feel they have to blame a group of masculinist men for standing up to get men's votes, right to choose what their body does, raise awareness of how many rapes occur when there is a buildup femininity around and their fight for equal wages was already won. Misandry is more isolated and not part of an inherent system traditionally speaking.

If a woman is a misandrist then it's probably more likely that she was repeatedly humiliated by men in one way or another. Not part of a cycle of underlying expectations versus reality that misogynists would have to grapple with.

I think a misandrist would be far more likely to know if she hated men because there isn't a cognitive dissonance of a society's double standard there that she has to think her way through.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

adverseaffects said:


> but our society may have some internalized misogyny


What is 'our society'? It varies greatly depending on what society you mean. Saudi Arabia's society has far more internalized misgoyny than say Sweden's. Although as a whole, its more accurate to say that society has internalized sexism, instead of saying that it has internalized mysogyny. Gender roles are harmful to both genders.


----------



## perfectcircle (Jan 5, 2011)

Sporadic Aura said:


> Well first, you don't need to clarify that you don't condone misandry. No one has said that you do, I certainly didn't think you did.
> 
> What is a situation where a guys opinion wouldn't be relevant solely because he is a guy? Does this also mean you think there are situations where a woman's opinion wouldn't be relevant solely because she is a woman? I ask mostly because I can't think of any situations myself.
> 
> Also, why do you think there are less misandrists than misogynists? I agree that both are a very small minority. Though I've experienced both misogynistic view points first hand and misandrinistic view points first hand. I think hatred towards any group is a serious issue, no matter on what scale it is on.


Tbh I was going to write you a long reply, but I think you're fully capable of realizing if you think, and if you can't, looking up the bajillions of resources and posts and books written about it, why there is more misogyny than misandry. That does not mean I think one is more serious than the other, except that misogyny is part of our societal structure and so it IS more serious because it's more dangerous to us. That has nothing to do with the inherent values of misogyny/misandry. Furthermore, the more prevalant problem is the one that deserves face time so treating them like equal issues is dumb. That's why creating this mirror thread is an inapt comparison and the motive behind it is gross. The two issues aren't comparable. It's like if we're comparing hunting pandas or deer. The life of an individual panda is not worth more than a deer, but it matters cause there's the overlying problem of panda extinction and deer do not face that. Yes deer to get hunted but it isn't a pervasive problem of inbalance that's wiping them out. So then if someone made a campaign to save pandas and then people kept saying "well deer get shot too" it'd be like, could we please stop making this about deer? Are the motive to do that shows some real entitlement, sexism, or confusion, I'm not sure which, on the part of those who do it.


----------



## perfectcircle (Jan 5, 2011)

Sporadic Aura said:


> What is 'our society'? It varies greatly depending on what society you mean. Saudi Arabia's society has far more internalized misgoyny than say Sweden's. Although as a whole, its more accurate to say that society has internalized sexism, instead of saying that it has internalized mysogyny. Gender roles are harmful to both genders.


We're both from the US so let's work with that, though this is a problem expressed in many parts of the world and in some to a more extreme degree.

I hope you don't mind but tbh I've had this discussion several times over; and it isn't my job to educate you on this issue. I appreciate the qs you've asked so far are out of genuine interest, but I'm going to let you take over if you're interested pursuing this topic and forming your own opinions, b/c I'm tired. If you want to learn more about sexism, women's POV, or feminism, there are many resources to do so. That info may inform my responses.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

adverseaffects said:


> Tbh I was going to write you a long reply, but I think you're fully capable of realizing if you think, and if you can't, looking up the bajillions of resources and posts and books written about it, why there is more misogyny than misandry. That does not mean I think one is more serious than the other, except that misogyny is part of our societal structure and so it IS more serious because it's more dangerous to us. That has nothing to do with the inherent values of misogyny/misandry. Furthermore, the more prevalant problem is the one that deserves face time so treating them like equal issues is dumb. That's why creating this mirror thread is an inapt comparison and the motive behind it is gross. The two issues aren't comparable. It's like if we're comparing hunting pandas or deer. The life of an individual panda is not worth more than a deer, but it matters cause there's the overlying problem of panda extinction and deer do not face that. Yes deer to get hunted but it isn't a pervasive problem of inbalance that's wiping them out. So then if someone made a campaign to save pandas and then people kept saying "well deer get shot too" it'd be like, could we please stop making this about deer? Are the motive to do that shows some real entitlement, sexism, or confusion, I'm not sure which, on the part of those who do it.


Hmm, well both of these issues deserves face time. Maybe the problem is people try to tie them together, when they are really two very separate issues. Like the issues of hunting pandas vs hunting deer. I don't think they are comparable either, but your stance has change quite a bit from saying 'it is barely a thing', to acknowledging that it very much is a thing, so maybe I misunderstood you when you first posted? I think another part of the issue is that people can be very emotionally involved with these types of issues, which can lead to miscommunication.

I wish you did write me a very long post. I'm honestly probably less knowledgeable about this than you are, I'm not a mens rights activist or a feminist, I haven't spent much time researching or discussing these issues. PerCafe has been really my first exposure to it.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

adverseaffects said:


> We're both from the US so let's work with that, though this is a problem expressed in many parts of the world and in some to a more extreme degree.
> 
> I hope you don't mind but tbh I've had this discussion several times over; and it isn't my job to educate you on this issue. I appreciate the qs you've asked so far are out of genuine interest, but I'm going to let you take over if you're interested pursuing this topic and forming your own opinions, b/c I'm tired. If you want to learn more about sexism, women's POV, or feminism, there are many resources to do so. That info may inform my responses.


You ninja'd me! :ninja: Yeah that's fine, no worries. I'm sure there are others here who will be able to pick up this conversation as well.


----------



## perfectcircle (Jan 5, 2011)

Sporadic Aura said:


> Hmm, well both of these issues deserves face time. Maybe the problem is people try to tie them together, when they are really two very separate issues. Like the issues of hunting pandas vs hunting deer. I don't think they are comparable either, but your stance has change quite a bit from saying 'it is barely a thing', to acknowledging that it very much is a thing, so maybe I misunderstood you when you first posted? I think another part of the issue is that people can be very emotionally involved with these types of issues, which can lead to miscommunication.
> 
> I wish you did write me a very long post. I'm honestly probably less knowledgeable about this than you are, I'm not a mens rights activist or a feminist, I haven't spent much time researching or discussing these issues. PerCafe has been really my first exposure to it.


Your eagerness on it has made me decide to write a longer post another day. Just not tonight.

Furthermore I have a hard time communicating these issues in a manner that seems digestible to Ti types or maybe to people who aren't in the feminist cannon, so communicating with you will help me iron it all out & any possible contradictions/issues in communication, or at least work towards that.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

bethdeth said:


> This isn't really a mirror thread and I won't be repeating what was said because there are key differences. I will point out why.
> 
> Misandry isn't an inclusive part of society's makeup (causing issues of backlash to keep men in their place) of a balance of rights and the word masculanism (which isn't a movement as far as I know) does not set anyone's teeth on edge and feel they have to blame a group of masculinist men for standing up to get men's votes, right to choose what their body does, raise awareness of how many rapes occur when there is a buildup femininity around and their fight for equal wages was already won. Misandry is more isolated and not part of an inherent system traditionally speaking.
> 
> ...


I think this is the first time I've ever felt the need to say this, but... if you're not a man, you don't know what it's like to be one. 

I don't think you realize that with the way feminism can manifest itself these days, it's relatively easy for a misandrist to hide in plain sight under the guise of women's rights.

That is not to say that misandry is as prevalent as misogyny - it probably isn't - but you seem to be dismissing misandry as an issue at all. I'd understand why - it's difficult to see certain perspectives unless you've actually lived them. I mean, I support equal rights on principle, but I can't actually understand many of the cultural struggles that women go through. I would just appreciate women acknowledging that they can't understand many of the cultural struggles that men go through.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

LostFavor said:


> I think this is the first time I've ever felt the need to say this, but... if you're not a man, you don't know what it's like to be one.


Oh here we go. Invalidate any woman's opinion on anything having to do with men, ever. Ok, but you might want to stop baiting them into answering questions related to the topic if thats what you're going to pull.


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

LostFavor said:


> I think this is the first time I've ever felt the need to say this, but... if you're not a man, you don't know what it's like to be one.
> 
> I don't think you realize that with the way feminism can manifest itself these days, it's relatively easy for a misandrist to hide in plain sight under the guise of women's rights.
> 
> That is not to say that misandry is as prevalent as misogyny - it probably isn't - but you seem to be dismissing misandry as an issue at all. I'd understand why - it's difficult to see certain perspectives unless you've actually lived them. I mean, I support equal rights on principle, but I can't actually understand many of the cultural struggles that women go through. I would just appreciate women acknowledging that they can't understand many of the cultural struggles that men go through.


I didn't dismiss misandry as being an issue. I said it was more isolated and probably more due to women having issues of a personal nature rather than a widespread sociological issue. 

Also I do pretty much understand what men go through as I live with them, listen to them, talk to them, I have a son, a father and a brother and I am really quite empathetic. My empathy dwindles a little if the men start whining at me and telling me all their problems are caused by me (none of the men I know do that). The men I know are as supportive of me as I am of them and we do actually understand each other very well. 

Feminism is a socio-political ideology targeting sociological and psychological perspectives and patterns to bring fairness regarding gender issues. It really does not follow that feminists are misandrists. Looking at patterns of rape, equality in wages, politics of affordability in childcare does not a man hater make. 

Men may go through struggles because, well, everyone does. It's not because women or feminists in particular are making it difficult for them. If a woman in droves are saying 'no' to you it might more of a personal matter and not anything to do with my ideologies.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

i haven't read the entire thread, but LostFavor does have a point (not saying bethdeth doesn't... i just don't know why either point has to cancel the other out--there isn't anything inherent to either that would cause this). i would also say, in regards to the issue, SOM's intentions for creating the thread aren't relevant, and they don't hinge on the ability to discuss the issue, so i also don't understand why that's brought up either--unless it's to point out the obvious and move the topic entirely. 


for the record: no, the two aren't the same (in every way). they operate with the same mechanisms--sure--but the extent to which each is present isn't equal... but it is a _real thing_ (lol that a person could say otherwise). attempting to belittle it, or to downgrade it's existence, _is_ no different than attempting to actively engage in misogyny; for both, you have to close your mind to the other sides experience and apply no further thought.


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

> I would just appreciate women acknowledging that they can't understand many of the cultural struggles that men go through.


Oh lord.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Promethea said:


> Oh here we go. *Invalidate any woman's opinion on anything having to do with men, ever.* Ok, but you might want to stop baiting them into answering questions related to the topic if thats what you're going to pull.


Well if that's what you took from what I said, then now you know how many men feel talking to certain self-proclaimed feminists.

But I'm not trying to invalidate. I'm just trying to say that there's a point where you cannot understand certain perspectives in the way that the other party does and it's productive to acknowledge that, so that we can move past it to the things that we _can_ understand. I can't speak for everyone, but I know that I certainly don't gain anything from pretending to understand something that I don't and physically can't.

Shutting people down is the last thing on my mind.



bethdeth said:


> I didn't dismiss misandry as being an issue. I said it was more isolated and probably more due to women having issues of a personal nature rather than a widespread sociological issue.
> 
> Also I do pretty much understand what men go through as I live with them, listen to them, talk to them, I have a son, a father and a brother and I am really quite empathetic. My empathy dwindles a little if the men start whining at me and telling me all their problems are caused by me (none of the men I know do that). The men I know are as supportive of me as I am of them and we do actually understand each other very well.
> 
> ...


Fair enough. I misunderstood you regarding misandry then. 

Much of it I'm sure you do understand and I wouldn't claim otherwise. Just trying to say that there is a disconnect and it helps to have an open mind about the blind spots.

Yes, the theory of feminism is not man-hating. It's the practice that can lean in that direction. No, it's not a situation where "one follows from the other." It's that the culture of subtly turning "fighting equal rights" into "hating on men because they're the source of the problem" is something that exists. It may not be prevalent at all - maybe it's just a screaming minority - but it happens.

Please don't guess that I harbor some kind of frustration with women as a whole and that's why I'm talking about mens' struggles (it's about as far from the truth as you can go). It has nothing to do with women saying no, or anything that women or feminists are doing to "make life difficult." I'm talking about cultural norms, expectations, etc. This isn't a blame game that I'm trying to play here. I'm talking about culture, not individuals.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

LostFavor said:


> Well if that's what you took from what I said, then now you know how many men feel talking to certain self-proclaimed feminists.
> 
> But I'm not trying to invalidate. I'm just trying to say that there's a point where you cannot understand certain perspectives in the way that the other party does and it's productive to acknowledge that, so that we can move past it to the things that we _can_ understand. I can't speak for everyone, but I know that I certainly don't gain anything from pretending to understand something that I don't and physically can't.
> 
> ...


Yep, like I thought, another member with an ax to grind.


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

Promethea said:


> Yep, like I thought, another member with an ax to grind.


This place is sockpuppet central.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Promethea said:


> Yep, like I thought, another member with an ax to grind.


I would be cynical too if I was an administrator on a site like this. I've been there, in similar circumstances - can't say I'd act any differently in your position. Hope you have a good day.


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

LostFavor said:


> Well if that's what you took from what I said, then now you know how many men feel talking to certain self-proclaimed feminists.
> 
> But I'm not trying to invalidate. I'm just trying to say that there's a point where you cannot understand certain perspectives in the way that the other party does and it's productive to acknowledge that, so that we can move past it to the things that we _can_ understand. I can't speak for everyone, but I know that I certainly don't gain anything from pretending to understand something that I don't and physically can't.
> 
> ...


Again, the practice of feminism is not man hating. It's a socio-political ideology which looks at biases, double standards and all the wonderful things that come with gender roles and unbalanced power between them. The practice is to point them out. 1 in 6 women in Australia report rape, in QLD (Australian state) 1 in 8 men do prison time for being found guilty for rape. This means that if there is a balance between sexes in numbers then 1 in 6 men are raping women or one really crazy dude channeling his Viking forefathers is doing 20 at a time (you do the numbers on that one). 87% of the women in one of the links I put up in the other thread shows the attackers were known to the victim (woops there goes the Viking channeling maniac theory). That is in fact the practice. To look at gender imbalance and talk about it so people can understand that women aren't just asking for it because they wore a pretty dress and men can control the urges. They don't accidentally rape because she looked so damn good. There is a real and prevalent issue. It doesn't follow that if you point this out that you are blaming every single man in Australia for being the 1 in 6 perp. There are good men out there. I know this to be true.

Women shy away from calling themselves 'feminist' like I once did because they just can't handle getting all the ignorance of cavedudes ramming 'what about me?','I'm not paying for dinner', 'take your own garbage out', 'men have it tough' 'feminists are all lezzos with hairy armpits'. Feminism is about calling out fairness in theory and in practice and finding new ways to achieve awareness of said issues.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

I remember my first impressions of feminism as it existed on the Internet at the time. They were supposed to be feminists or something or identified themselves as feminists. It was just a group of users on a thread complaining about how they weren't getting a fair deal with sex. The OP said something along the lines of "my boyfriend says he's uncomfortable with giving me a blowjob, what the fuck?" And some rant about not getting sex for her and he gets the sex he likes. At the time I was under the impression that both partners are supposed to enjoy sex since it's a two person activity. But the thread continues with people telling her to dump the guy because he's a wimp or something. It was just a cesspool of ridiculousness and ultimately laughable. Which gave me the immediate impression of the whole website being a congregation for sex talk and complaints about their personal sex experiences. I'm sure when women first saw the men websites they thought the same thing.


----------



## Watercolourful (Jan 12, 2013)

I think misandrist women are the women who don't acknowledge misandry as existing, so no, I don't think misandrist women know they hate men.


----------



## IncoherentBabbler (Oct 21, 2013)

bethdeth said:


> Again, the practice of feminism is not man hating. [...] Women shy away from calling themselves 'feminist' like I once did because they just can't handle getting all the ignorance of cavedudes ramming 'what about me?','I'm not paying for dinner', 'take your own garbage out', 'men have it tough' 'feminists are all lezzos with hairy armpits'. Feminism is about calling out fairness in theory and in practice and finding new ways to achieve awareness of said issues.


 From what I've read (of other people's views on the subject) there seem to be two distinct groups of feminists. If I recall correctly, they are the originators of the movement and what some of them have developed into. The originators were fighting for equal rights - the ones that men and women should both respect. The other group are the extremists that guys end up complaining about. To ignore the bad while focusing on the good is denial, hence this thread was created. Some people strive for male dominance, some strive for female dominance. Those are the topics of this and it's mirror thread. The original feminists, and rational men, aim for equality (to varying degrees).


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

IncoherentBabbler said:


> From what I've read (of other people's views on the subject) there seem to be two distinct groups of feminists. If I recall correctly, they are the originators of the movement and what some of them have developed into. The originators were fighting for equal rights - the ones that men and women should both respect. The other group are the extremists that guys end up complaining about. To ignore the bad while focusing on the good is denial, hence this thread was created. Some people strive for male dominance, some strive for female dominance. Those are the topics of this and it's mirror thread. The original feminists, and rational men, aim for equality (to varying degrees).


The first wave had misandrists as well. Many of the people pushing Prohibition were suffragettes who did so because they believed women were morally superior to men.

Within any rights movement, there's going to be people who hate the dominant group. As a bi person, I've witnessed a lot of heterophobes who quite literally hate straight people. I do not condone their actions in any manner, but I understand why they believe what they believe.


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

IncoherentBabbler said:


> From what I've read (of other people's views on the subject) there seem to be two distinct groups of feminists. If I recall correctly, they are the originators of the movement and what some of them have developed into. The originators were fighting for equal rights - the ones that men and women should both respect. The other group are the extremists that guys end up complaining about. To ignore the bad while focusing on the good is denial, hence this thread was created. Some people strive for male dominance, some strive for female dominance. Those are the topics of this and it's mirror thread. The original feminists, and rational men, aim for equality (to varying degrees).


This is not a mirror thread. It was a backhand slap at the other thread which asked a question as to the psychology of misogynists. This thread is to have a dig and an overestimation of misandry to start a a discussion about sexes as if there was some type of war between them. 

There isn't.

You basically get dicks wherever you go. If you go to the footy match, line up in a queue, sit in a bus station. There are pricks out there to ruin your day....so what? 

It's just like the old typical threads you see here in your separate type subforums. 'My INTJ is a a selfish jerk so you all are too.' Do you look at those threads and say wow, isn't that ignorant? Well, because a minority is speaking whoever speaks the loudest and does most stupid thing is pretty representative of the entire group if there is already a bias there. So, out of a thousand kind earnest voices asking for recognition you see the c**t out of the group, you just confirmed your bias by not listening to the rest of the voices.


----------



## Grainy (Jul 2, 2013)

I do read a fair amount of discussions related to feminism, and I have to say that I _very_ rarely see these manhating feminists that people talk about. I see so many more people who claim that "many/all/some feminists hate men/discriminate men/somethingsomething" (even though they, too, appear to be a minority, fortunately) than I see feminists who do those things. It's really getting on my nerves, and they hardly ever seem to be able to point to specific cases. There ARE examples of it, yes, but I have trouble finding them among all the complaints about them.

Yes, sexism towards men exist. But I really wish people would take the bull by the horns instead of blaming it on "feminists". If someone says something that crosses a line, tell them. If someone who claims to be a feminist says something that is unfair to men, tell them. Stop blaming feminism for something that largely exists in your minds. And by that I don't mean sexism/misandry, I mean this "group of feminists who hate men". The vast majority of those who label themselves as feminists fight for equality and do _not_​ hate men.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

LostFavor said:


> Fair enough. I misunderstood you regarding misandry then.
> 
> Much of it I'm sure you do understand and I wouldn't claim otherwise. Just trying to say that there is a disconnect and it helps to have an open mind about the blind spots.
> 
> ...


It's not that discussions on men's issues are invalid, but it often devolves into people saying that patriarchy doesn't exist or that men are the real oppressed group.

A lot of feminists tend to be disillusioned by the idea of misandry or men's issues even existing, mainly because a bunch of the people who talk about men's issues are doing so from the point of view of a zero-sum game. In essence, if men have gender-specific issues, that must mean that women don't.

But this is fallacious thinking. It is because women have issues that men have issues. The sexes are very intertwined and binary in our mind. You can only be one or the other. Male or female. Any negative stereotype about one turns into a positive stereotype about the other. In essence, dichotomy overrides the spectrum.

Sexism started in a slightly different way from other forms of discrimination. With the advent of agriculture, we had the concept of ownership and individual property. Children started to be seen as the property of their parents, instead of the entire village or commune. Essentially, that meant that sex should be regulated in order to ensure that children were brought to a minimum and that women, the childbearing sex, were the property of men, who could accumulate the most resources due to the inability to become pregnant. 

Since children are harder to raise in a two-parent situation than a communistic situation, the idea that men should risk their life and limb for resources started to bear fruit. If men were the primary source for ensuring a child's resources, then it becomes fit that they should do whatever they can in order to secure resources for their wife and child.

Most, if not, all of men's issues are due to this patriarchal view of the world. Men own women and children, but we care about women and children, so it's necessary for men to provide for them. It's what partially fuels the bystander effect. "It's not my problem, and it should resolve itself anyway."

The way to have a discussion about men's issues should include feminist principles. To abolish the issues of discrimination that both genders face, we should learn to fight the patriarchal ways of thinking that pervade our system. 

It's an oft said thing that, "Patriarchy is the main reason for men's issues, so advocate for women instead of men." That's not the point of view I intend to take. Instead, we should be saying, "Patriarchy is the main reason for men and women's issues, so advocate against the patriarchal system in favor of solving both."


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

bethdeth said:


> Again, the practice of feminism is not man hating.


Right, I know what it's about in theory and what the practice of it is supposed to be. However, some people identify as feminists and muddy up the meaning because they aren't actually sticking to the ideals at all.
@IncoherentBabbler put it quite well. 



Torai said:


> It's not that discussions on men's issues are invalid, but it often devolves into people saying that patriarchy doesn't exist or that men are the real oppressed group.
> 
> A lot of feminists tend to be disillusioned by the idea of misandry or men's issues even existing, mainly because a bunch of the people who talk about men's issues are doing so from the point of view of a zero-sum game. In essence, if men have gender-specific issues, that must mean that women don't.
> 
> ...


No disagreement from me. Incidentally, although it doesn't change my advocacy for equal rights, discussions on women's rights sometimes devolves into hate against men, so I think there's a similarity there that causes people from both ends (who are, in reality, in complete agreement) to react against a perceived notion of aggression that isn't actually present among those who are truly fighting for feminist ideals.

Extremists tend to scream the loudest, unfortunately.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

adverseaffects said:


> You should of course not ignore it when it's relevant, *but stirring up an imagined social phenomenon that you're making sound like it's sweeping the nation, which was ONLY brought up because of a thread about misogyny, is not that.* You know it's a valid discussion it enters your mind due to it effecting your life. not just seeing a thread about misogyny and suddenly remembering that term that means the opposite thing.
> Have a good day


so according to you, misandry is an "imaginary social phenomenon" and sexism is completely one sided? 











...that's almost as ridiculous as Creationists denying evolution or conspiracy theorists denying the Holocaust


----------



## perfectcircle (Jan 5, 2011)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> so according to you, misandry is an "imaginary social phenomenon" and sexism is completely one sided?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I didn't say that. It exists but it isn't a social issue in the sense that it's happens frequently or is an ingrained part of society. Misandry is not the same thing as sexism. Sexism against men definitely exists. As long as we have restricting gender roles sexism will exist for both sexes. 

Your gifs, over-aggressive/one-sided/over-simplying/indigant style of argumentation, and dramatic comparisons aren't really as convincing as you think they are...


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

adverseaffects said:


> I didn't say that. *It exists but it isn't a social issue in the sense that it's happens frequently or is an ingrained part of society.* Misandry is not the same thing as sexism. Sexism against men definitely exists. As long as we have restricting gender roles sexism will exist for both sexes.


clearly I was close enough.


----------



## perfectcircle (Jan 5, 2011)

double post don't know how that happened


----------



## perfectcircle (Jan 5, 2011)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> clearly I was close enough.


Want to give me some examples of how misandry is a societal problem to challenege my understandings, or are you just gonna vaguely try to make me feel unpolitcally correct and ignorant? Cause if you give me valid data my mind will totally change. That means more than a couple situations, that means OVER-ALL trends expressing inherent societal values. Saying a woman somewhere cut off a guy's junk does not count, sorry.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

adverseaffects said:


> Want to give me some examples of how misandry is a societal problem to challenege my understandings, *or are you just gonna vaguely try to make me feel unpolitcally correct and ignorant*? Cause if you give me valid data my mind will totally change.


oh, I'm not being vague lol. if you'd rather I come out and call you ignorant, I'd be more than happy to do so, problem is I'd probably get an infraction, so I'd rather your content speak for itself.

anyway, here are some things to start you off

the example and and of itself could be interpreted as an outlier, but not if you listen to the judge's commentary in the second half of the clip about how she's handled doesn't of these cases and believes that men are less likely to report such crimes due to embarrassment or believing that no one will listen to them.






or try this one






there is this notion in society that women are innocent little damsels in distress and that if anything happens to a grown man (and, to a lesser extent, a boy), he "got what was coming to him".

PS: to be fair, I probably should have labeled this thread "do misandrist PEOPLE know they are misandrist" because there are plenty of misandrist MEN out there too, and imo, they do just as much to promote these kinds of beliefs.


----------



## CaptSwan (Mar 31, 2013)

From personal observation (I have 24/7 access to one)... not always. The one I know has no idea of her man-hating habits; despite having been married for 26 years. They act and behave in a dismissive manner towards men; but, they don't do it in a conscious manner.


----------



## perfectcircle (Jan 5, 2011)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> oh, I'm not being vague lol. if you'd rather I come out and call you ignorant, I'd be more than happy to do so, problem is I'd probably get an infraction, so I'd rather your content speak for itself.
> 
> anyway, here are some things to start you off
> 
> ...


Domestic assault or physical assault isn't the same as misandry either... I don't think it's necessarily motivated out of sexism. It is possible there are women out there who beat up men cause they hate them but it's more likely they just are unstable, violent people who are manipulative, violent, and immature in their interpersonal relationships. I am not saying physical assault against men is ok, or that is deserves to be minimized because women are "angels". However society is patriarchal and is not inherently misandrist. Men ARE punished in our current society, but for the role of elevation they are supposed to uphold-- punished for showing weakness or emotion or "feminine" traits because they have to be the ones occupying the 'above' role-- a male who deviates as this is seen as less of a male-- the male role is still the ideal & superior role..-- he is insulted using words that connote he is feminine/female or denied the recognition that he can be a victim. This is a stereotype removed from reality, that men are only X traits, but these traits are valued as "good" and the female traits "bad" and that each belongs to one sex only, or should. So even the sexism against men also expresses the idea that the "traditional male" is superior to woman. that is where the "hatred against a sex comes in". That is unfair and wrong because it traps men into arbitrary roles (the irony being the can socially benefit from these false roles), but it isn't the same as hatred, where women are supposed to hold the "weak" role and yet also seen as "lesser" for it. That said I admit you have some points and I should look more into men's issues for a better understanding. If anything I feel uncomfortable with the overly rigid definitions in such discussions. But I am not going to pretend I think "misandry" is part of our societal structure. You gave some examples that you're right, I do find more incidental... it's true there's 800,000 plus instances of domestic violence against men which isn't tooooo far off from the 1,300,000 cases (I mean, it is 500,000 off, but it isn't a competition) for women by men, but that isn't necessarily rooted in sexism. A sexist/hate motivated crime isn't the same as a domestic issue. It is a sexist issue if male domestic victims are ignored due to being male, however.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

@adverseaffects

it's _not_ the presence of domestic assault against men that entails sexism. it's the fact that people turn a blind eye to it and that it's often _encouraged_. advocates of rape culture usually bring up the concept of "victim shaming". that concept applies here in spades.

Edit: wow lol


----------



## perfectcircle (Jan 5, 2011)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> @adverseaffects
> 
> it's the presence of domestic assault against men that entails sexism. it's the fact that people turn a blind eye to it and that it's often _encouraged_. advocates of rape culture usually bring up the concept of "victim shaming". that concept applies here in spades.


 Yes I agree that is_ sexist._ It is possible the perpetrators of the crime were misandrist but we have no way of knowing & it frankly probably doesn't account for the majority of cases. The reaction to the crime is not necessarily motivated out of hatred of men, rather a sexist definition of what it is to be a man (they can't imagine a man could be a victim or a woman could take advantage of a man), which is sexism. I don't see it motivated by hatred of men. Perhaps a different situation would show me a misandrist motivation. I do believe misandry exists but I have not seen anything in my lifetime to show it as a perpetual societal problem. Sexism against males and restricting gender roles? Yes, definitely.


----------



## perfectcircle (Jan 5, 2011)

In any case @Swordsman of Mana I will buy there are misandrist peopel out there, I just do not see it prominently displayed in the media or out collective consciousness to the same degree. I also feel upon hearing what you've said that it is important to think about men's issues as well even more so than I did before... I think gender roles can't be crushed from one side... women face more negative daily effects than men, but the focus on women's issues has also become allowed in society (thought often mocked or nto taken seriously) while men's issues are often not. You are right in bringing up they are often dismissed. I was just thinking how it is now common place for a woman to wear pants whereas it probably won't be common for a man to wear a skirt in public for a long time. That's relatively "harmless" but telling fact about the state of things.


----------



## gwennylou (Jun 19, 2009)

Still not misandry, but this thread is ridiculous to be honest. Because misandry does exist, but it does not exist on the level that misogyny does and it never has. You ever wonder why online dictionaries don't even recognize misandry as a real word? Because it didn't have a name until very recently. 

Until males on a whole can say that they had their right to vote blocked by the opposite gender for hundreds of years, or use their sexual gender as an insult to their own, they don't get to claim that misandry has been a prevalent and pervasive issues, because it simply has not. Of course violence against any gender is wrong, just as it's wrong to blame actual victims. But there is a difference between a female being raped and an abusive asshole getting hit in return. The majority of the domestic issues I have seen have stemmed from the men systematically abusing and raping their wives/girlfriends and when the women fight back, it' becomes "misandry". Nope that's karma. 

However, the case of real misandrists, who actually hate men, who also systematically abuse men, are absolutely in the wrong and should be held accountable for their actions. My uncles ex-wife was a woman like this. She was miserable, bitter, and horrible to not only him but to their children as well. She was and still is a misandrist. She was arrested more than once for domestic disturbance and is currently in jail for another assault charge against a different ex of hers. These women do exist and they are dangerous. I recognize and validate that they are a problem, but they do not make up the majority of women in the world. Misogynists don't make up the majority of men either, but as a whole patriarchy has systematically degraded matriarchy and the role of females in society. Until females on a whole have enough privilege and power to do that, misandry cannot and will not be on the same level as misogyny. Even if some men aren't aware that they are behaving in misogynistic ways (i.e. calling their friend a girl because they cried at something, or did poorly at sports, or did something the guy thought was "feminine and weak and something to make fun of him for"), it's still prevalent and pervasive in society.


----------



## killerB (Jan 14, 2010)

I don't buy that it is not as prevelant as Misogyny. 

I have seen it several times and made my thought and views well known on that subject to those involved. Saying it does not exist is also perpetuating the belief that Misogyny does not exist either, and is just a social a construct. To me, saying that attempts to minimize any problems that do exist. It's like saying you can't rape your wife because you are married, racism cannot happen to white people, or that gays don't discriminate and hate straights. (I also viewed that one night at my local gay bar, it made my wife and I very angry). I believe it is like male rape and abuse. It is under reported or brushed off with a laugh because "women don't do that!" Or "they deserve it for holding women down and making them sex objects". No one is safe from discrimination as long as we feel one is more prevelant, or worse than the other type of hate.


----------



## gwennylou (Jun 19, 2009)

Well, I'd like to see this prevalence of misandry in the media then or showcased on television. I'd like to see the jokes agaisnt males and females making disparaging jokes against other females saying, "You're such a boy! Or you throw like a boy!" or even, "Oh he got raped? He was asking for it, because he was wearing clothing that was just too seductive". Oh wait, that's not gonna happen, since 97% of mainstream media is run by males. The thing is that, misogyny is ingrained in our culture and society, because it's run by a patriarchy. Misogyny is more prevalent, because that's what is shown on a daily basis to the masses. To even suggest that misandry is on that level is seriously ludicrous.


----------



## Eggsies (Feb 5, 2013)

This thread has become a shitshow regardless of the realization of what this thread was, and the possibilities of how it would develop.

I think we all know what's happening, as it always seems to do with each thread like this. With no disrespect to anyone I think it'd be better to just close it.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Eggsies said:


> This thread has become a shitshow regardless of the realization of what this thread was, and the possibilities of how it would develop.
> *I think we all know what's happening, as it always seems to do with each thread like this. With no disrespect to anyone I think it'd be better to just close it.*


there's no need to close every thread that gets heated.
can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.


----------



## Emerald Legend (Jul 13, 2010)

Why reflect on that when hating on men and blaming them for everything brings about guaranteed moral support and unconditional sympathy from a well-known movement. It's like a net of delusional women fingering each other psychically and cumming together. Self-reflection is the last thing in their list.


----------



## Eggsies (Feb 5, 2013)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.


Unfortunately, you've proved the intent of this thread, and context of this discussion with this statement.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Eggsies said:


> Unfortunately, you've proved the intent of this thread, and context of this discussion with this statement.


I've done nothing of the sort. I'm simply saying that such discussions are controversial and will get a little heated. such is the nature of the beast.

that said... @adverseaffects
I apologize for my previous comment. not because I was mean (I don't care about being mean when it's warranted, albeit, in this case the original comment was incorrect), rather that it framed the interaction more into a battle of egos (ie: a pissing contest which just wastes time) than a constructive exchange of perspectives. despite this, you were still willing to look at my evidence and concede that I had a point. that is commendable, and gives me hope that this conversation will be at least somewhat fruitful in getting people to at least consider the point.

@Emerald Legend
LMAO! :laughing:


----------



## perfectcircle (Jan 5, 2011)

IncoherentBabbler said:


> From what I've read (of other people's views on the subject) there seem to be two distinct groups of feminists. If I recall correctly, they are the originators of the movement and what some of them have developed into. The originators were fighting for equal rights - the ones that men and women should both respect. The other group are the extremists that guys end up complaining about. To ignore the bad while focusing on the good is denial, hence this thread was created. Some people strive for male dominance, some strive for female dominance. Those are the topics of this and it's mirror thread. The original feminists, and rational men, aim for equality (to varying degrees).


That's actually not true. There have been many diff types of feminism. I don't worry too much about making a complex ideology because all it really means to me, is working towards sex equality, from the feminine perspective, so I just go by dictionary definition. 
I would describe all the diff developments in feminism but honestly that'd take too long. Early on feminism was in some ways less radical (not being aware of trans women, women of color, ect) and in some ways mistakenly radical (there was one off shoot that believed we should do without men entirely... this unfortunate individual misunderstood MEN as the problem instead of patriarchal values and gender roles/societal stereotypes that men & women have become conditioned to that hold women to a disadvantage). Some early feminists were anti-pornography or thought many sex acts were degrading because they made women objects to men. This was in some ways correct regarding dehumanizing/the negative side effects of our sexualizing culture, but in other ways still trapped in the "women's value is in if they have sex/not and to do so degrades them/men are sexual/women not"... new feminism embraces women's right to choice and to dress as they please, while also recognizing women are sexual beings like men and as long as sex or sexuality is consensual it is not necessarily degrading & many feminists now are not anti-porn... and there are many different approaches to feminism within old and current feminist movements.


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

Eggsies said:


> Unfortunately, you've proved the intent of this thread, and context of this discussion with this statement.


The obvious aim is obvious.

Now onto meta description of the two non-mirrored threads:

When discussing idea of misogyny and how it eventuates and is perpetuated the obvious backlash answer is to apply it to feminism as if gaining rights over the last 100 years was a bad thing. Put in theory most men agree that their female counterpart has just as much right to vote, have a say over her own reproductive organs, the right not to be raped, (in a way rape is traumatic to men too if it has happened to a loved one such as a daughter, mother or sister) and a right to have equal wages. These ideas are fine but in between all of this there is a cognitive dissonance. The behaviour and attitude stays the same but the theory changes. 

If there is little change of the vast amounts of rapes (with little justice handed out to perpetrators against women) occurring in a land that has all those rights then it does seem pretty obvious that the theory might be there but the practice is not. This is what being in the throes of cognitive dissonance means. When you look at rape victims' stories you will see that there is a common theme especially if you look at the quashing of stories by Aus men's team sports and US military's disturbing stories and a the vastness of the percentages. The common theme is victim blaming. The person who is raped is blamed for stupid things like not wearing bras, being an alcoholic or drug addict, being hysterical, basically anything to undermine her authority or knowledge of what happened to them. The perpetrators are rendered blameless in these situations, boys will be boys, she was asking for it by being a slut.

What goes on inside people's minds when a woman says she is a feminist is of some hysterical woman ranting about how men are shits and have to be dealt with and that she is the reason for everything that has happened. It's a guilty secret and a lie that we tell ourselves in the throes of cognitive dissonance, so we can keep perpetuating the same behaviour. Sure you get your dickheads who can't reason their way out of an argument or get frustrated and hate the system and lash out at the way things are and it comes out as something completely different from what the real issues are but are they the reasons why 1 in 6 reports of rape still happen in Aus? Are they the reason why childcare is so expensive, or that 1 in 8 convicted rapists in Queensland will see jail time?

Women don't tend to like being victims of rape, they don't like being doubly raped by being the blame for being raped. They like to have control over their reproductive organs, they like to have equal wages and general autonomy for themselves. Men I would think would appreciate it too. So why are feminists blamed and called misandrists for wanting the same thing that men want?

This thread is exemplary of the lies that are perpetuated and shunted back as if there was a war between the sexes. When you mention misogyny there is a slap of feminism straight back in your face and a mention of misandry. Misandry exists but it isn't perpetuated with such backhandedness as an argument against misogyny. I think we have to ask ourselves why that is.


----------



## Derange At 170 (Nov 26, 2013)

gwennylou said:


> Well, I'd like to see this prevalence of misandry in the media then or showcased on television. I'd like to see the jokes agaisnt males and females making disparaging jokes against other females saying, "You're such a boy! Or you throw like a boy!" or even, "Oh he got raped? He was asking for it, because he was wearing clothing that was just too seductive". Oh wait, that's not gonna happen, since 97% of mainstream media is run by males. The thing is that, misogyny is ingrained in our culture and society, because it's run by a patriarchy. Misogyny is more prevalent, because that's what is shown on a daily basis to the masses. To even suggest that misandry is on that level is seriously ludicrous.


You don't view men being encouraged to sacrifice their lives (for women or for a cause bigger than themselves) on TV is misandrist and devalues male lives? It reflects the mindset that a desirable man is one who doesn't value his own life. Which is why men were used as canonfodder by the state in exchange for suffrage. Something which wasn't expected of women in return for their voting rights. Seeing male protagonists make self-sacrifices time and time again, often to help women, reaffirms this in the minds of male viewers.

You mean "don't drop the soap" or other jokes about prison rape on TV? Those are frequent. Heterosexual male rape doesn't get a mention on TV because there's an erasure of it in society. Men who come forward about being raped by women get called lucky or asked if the girl was hot.

One gender never held down another gender. Society is contructred in a way that is detrimental to both men AND women. But it wasn't until very recently that we started to care about the wellbeing of men and at this point, there is only discussion about it, and very little action -- men still aren't afforded many safety nets such as battered men's shelters. Political action and change is very unlikely at this point because the consensus still is that men are 'privileged', rather than privileged in one aspect and completely disadvantaged in another (just like women) and men who do raise the issue of men's rights are called sexist.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

It boils down to experiences with men and how they're influenced by others around them. According to social media like Facebook and tumblr they're way more aware than men.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Derange At 170 said:


> You don't view men being encouraged to sacrifice their lives (for women or for a cause bigger than themselves) on TV is misandrist and devalues male lives? It reflects the mindset that a desirable man is one who doesn't value his own life. Which is why men were used as canonfodder by the state in exchange for suffrage. Something which wasn't expected of women in return for their voting rights. Seeing male protagonists make self-sacrifices time and time again, often to help women, reaffirms this in the minds of male viewers.


the worst part is, feminists look at these self sacrificing protagonists and think they are sexist against _women_ for thinking the woman needs saving (pop culture feminism has some of the worst examples of projection and single cause fallacy I have ever seen...)



> You mean "don't drop the soap" or other jokes about prison rape on TV? Those are frequent. Heterosexual male rape doesn't get a mention on TV because there's an erasure of it in society. Men who come forward about being raped by women get called lucky or asked if the girl was hot.


when I was in junior high, a guy was sexually harassing me (kept teasing me and grabbing my ass after being repeatedly told to stop). when I told the assistant principle, he chuckled, "he's just playing with you", so I threatened to sue if he didn't do something about it...worked like a charm (admittedly, I did it more for the power trip than anything else, but that's beside the point lol).



> One gender never held down another gender. Society is contructred in a way that is detrimental to both men AND women. But it wasn't until very recently that we started to care about the wellbeing of men and at this point, there is only discussion about it, and very little action -- men still aren't afforded many safety nets such as battered men's shelters. Political action and change is very unlikely at this point because the consensus still is that men are 'privileged', rather than privileged in one aspect and completely disadvantaged in another (just like women) and men who do raise the issue of men's rights are called sexist.


exactomundo!


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

Derange At 170 said:


> One gender never held down another gender. Society is contructred in a way that is detrimental to both men AND women. But it wasn't until very recently that we started to care about the wellbeing of men and at this point, there is only discussion about it, and very little action -- men still aren't afforded many safety nets such as battered men's shelters. Political action and change is very unlikely at this point because the consensus still is that men are 'privileged', rather than privileged in one aspect and completely disadvantaged in another (just like women) and men who do raise the issue of men's rights are called sexist.


I know you might have good intentions when you say that there is not one gender being held down but I really have to disagree. We have misogynists in powerful places and what they say goes unless there is a big enough stink about it. It's not only women who will suffer at the hand of our Govt but any minority group or any young person, or old person, in fact anyone who doesn't have a billion fricken dollars in business that he can sidle up to. The predecessor Liberal govt before him was a nicer version of a 50s man who rolled back many of the childcare options that I keep on rambling about. Here is a a caricatured version of what he is like from past to present. Here is an independent trying to change laws on abortion in Victoria. This is real, not some TV show or whatever pop feminist @Swordsman of Mana refers to. Take a look.


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

Oh, I didn't see this thread earlier.

Anyway, yeah. I'm perfectly aware of it. :tongue:


----------



## Derange At 170 (Nov 26, 2013)

bethdeth said:


> I know you might have good intentions when you say that there is not one gender being held down but I really have to disagree. We have misogynists in powerful places and what they say goes unless there is a big enough stink about it.


There are also misandrists in powerful places, innitiating some very dangerous change. 

Blacks in the United States military were historically the ones who were put on front and the first to engage the enemy to catch bullets and keep whites safe. I think that if men were intent on systematically oppressing women, they would have put women on the frontlines to catch bullets along with blacks, rather than safeguard them at home (which mind you, does carry its own negative consequences, but it does show that it isn't done for the purpose of suppressing women).



bethdeth said:


> It's not only women who will suffer at the hand of our Govt but any minority group or any young person, or old person, in fact anyone who doesn't have a billion fricken dollars in business that he can sidle up to. The predecessor Liberal govt before him was a nicer version of a 50s man who rolled back many of the childcare options that I keep on rambling about. Here is a a caricatured version of what he is like from past to present.


That's a false dichotomy, 'there being misogynists in positions of power, means that there are no misandrists in positions of power'. This is not true. No one denied that there aren't some right assholes of any kind who have legal authority (though I would not define 'legal authority' as the absolute position of power you would). However, the modern political system has created many safety nets for women that it doesn't offer to men, so you can't just pick and choose 1 asshole out of the bunch and ignore all the others that are passing laws that enable the advancement of women in society while ignoring men's wellbeing.



bethdeth said:


> Here is an independent trying to change laws on abortion in Victoria. This is real, not some TV show or whatever pop feminist @Swordsman of Mana refers to. Take a look.


I see nothing about sexism, this is about abortion. You are falsely assuming that because abortion is about women's rights to you, that it is also to other people, since you're taking the unborn child out of the equasion, assuming that everyone believes it's an inhuman lump of cells the way you do. This is an inadequate way of approaching the issue of abortion (it is both intellectually dishonest and disrespectful towards others). To many people, and most abortion opponents, it is not about women's rights, but fetal rights. You may not value the rights of a fetus, but they are considered human beings by many and you can't discuss abortion fairly if you do not consider this position without your ideological views interfering.

It would also be false to assume that there is a hidden sexist agenda behind the support of fetal rights, since hardly any (and none that I know of) conservative anti-abortion activist is promoting research for male contraceptives, or for men to be relieved from being legally bound to pay for child support, which are 2 things that severely limit male reproductive rights. These people no doubt exist, it would make sense for them TO exist, but they would be a tiny minority. So most clearly are not approaching this from a 'reproductive rights between the sexes' angle, but from an angle of fetal rights.

I personally am "pro-choice", but gender doesn't come into play in forming my opinion on abortion. I approach it from property rights, self-ownership and personhood. Gender is irrelevant to me in the abortion debate and you shouldn't propose a false dichotomy of 'pro-choice = feminist, pro-life = misogynist', since this is a complicated issue that can be tackled any number of ways.


----------



## Dragunov (Oct 2, 2013)

gwennylou said:


> I'd like to see the jokes agaisnt males and females making disparaging jokes against other females saying, "You're such a boy! Or you throw like a boy!"


You [insert physical action here] like a boy generally cant be used as an insult because men will usually do it better. 



gwennylou said:


> Well, I'd like to see this prevalence of misandry in the media then or showcased on television.







Wife cuts her husbands dick off and a table of women proceed to laugh and make jokes about it on national television, then call it "fabulous".


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

bethdeth said:


> I know you might have good intentions when you say that there is not one gender being held down but I really have to disagree. We have misogynists in powerful places and what they say goes unless there is a big enough stink about it. *It's not only women who will suffer at the hand of our Govt but any minority group or any young person, or old person, in fact anyone who doesn't have a billion fricken dollars in business that he can sidle up to.* The predecessor Liberal govt before him was a nicer version of a 50s man who rolled back many of the childcare options that I keep on rambling about. Here is a a caricatured version of what he is like from past to present. Here is an independent trying to change laws on abortion in Victoria. This is real, not some TV show or whatever pop feminist @Swordsman of Mana refers to. Take a look.


this actually illustrates my views nicely on how I think the concept of "privilege" is taken WAY out of appropriate proportion. maybe women have it a _little_ harder than men, black people are a _little_ more discriminated against (depending on the part of the country, in a few places it's more significant), etc, but, in the grand scheme of things, a black lesbian is still 10X more privileged than 90% of straight white males if her parents make $200,000 a year each. the most significant factor of privilege in any reasonably liberated society is, has and always will be: "how much do your parents make?".


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

Derange At 170 said:


> There are also misandrists in powerful places, innitiating some very dangerous change.
> 
> Blacks in the United States military were historically the ones who were put on front and the first to engage the enemy to catch bullets and keep whites safe. I think that if men were intent on systematically oppressing women, they would have put women on the frontlines to catch bullets along with blacks, rather than safeguard them at home (which mind you, does carry its own negative consequences, but it does show that it isn't done for the purpose of suppressing women).
> 
> ...


I am not talking about dichotomies. I'm pointing out that if you're to say there is not one gender holding another gender down. Well there are here and now. A group of lobbyists asking for a representation is not akin to a Catholic Prime Minister wanting to turn everything back to the 50s by means of sneakily taking all the rights that were fought for and won already. That and a crazed lunatic independent stating that women are doing gender selection abortions with support from some of the govt stating that women who are raped should keep the pregnancy as 'evidence' stating that paedophiles use abortion as a means to escape justice. It's not a right to life debate but based on myths perpetuated by ignoramuses who don't understand anything about pregnancy, childbearing, rape or the health system (which was stated that there is no evidence that there is any difference in the ratio of sex).


----------



## Derange At 170 (Nov 26, 2013)

bethdeth said:


> I am not talking about dichotomies. I'm pointing out that if you're to say there is not one gender holding another gender down.


That _is_ a dichotomy.

And you're arguing for that dichotomy using false dichotomies.



bethdeth said:


> Well there are here and now. A group of lobbyists asking for a representation..


Rerouting a sizable portion of economic stimulus away from sectors dominated by men, to sectors dominated by women that at times of economic decline actually _grew_ isn't just 'a group of lobbyists asking for representation'.



bethdeth said:


> ..a Catholic Prime Minister wanting to turn everything back to the 50s by means of sneakily taking all the rights that were fought for and won already.


Point being that this 'catholic prime minister' isn't approaching this from a woman's rights issue, but from a fetus rights issue. This isn't about patriarchy or subverting women, this is about the fetus. He's not working to expand male reproductive rights as I mentioned earlier, so you can't assume he's being sexist. He would call you genocidal because you support abortion, but that too would be inaccurate, correct?



bethdeth said:


> That and a crazed lunatic independent stating that women are doing gender selection abortions with support from some of the govt stating that women who are raped should keep the pregnancy as 'evidence' stating that paedophiles use abortion as a means to escape justice. It's not a right to life debate but based on myths perpetuated by ignoramuses who don't understand anything about pregnancy, childbearing, rape or the health system (which was stated that there is no evidence that there is any difference in the ratio of genders).


He may be a lunatic, but nothing indicates it's about women to him.


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> this actually illustrates my views nicely on how I think the concept of "privilege" is taken WAY out of appropriate proportion. maybe women have it a _little_ harder than men, black people are a _little_ more discriminated against (depending on the part of the country, in a few places it's more significant), etc, but, in the grand scheme of things, a black lesbian is still 10X more privileged than 90% of straight white males if her parents make $200,000 a year each. the most significant factor of privilege in any reasonably liberated society is, has and always will be: "how much do your parents make?".


I don't really understand what you mean. Aboriginals here are treated like absolute shit. Abbott (our Prime Minister) has been known for his misogyny. I shudder to think about what his plans are for us. Reasons Tony Abbott is bad for Australia » Something You Said Something You Said


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

I think that some do and some don't. I'm curious what the patterns are of man haters? Like, what are the symptoms and signs that you are perpetually attracted to man haters? I'm genuinely curious. For example, the book I recently read was really sad because it was clear as day my pattern. I get involved with men that blame me and if they're put in a predicament where you point out their cruelty they get angry. I don't think every single guy I've been involved with does this. Just of course the most intense connections. It's as if we've the same hurt and polorly are attracted to each other. They also brutally care less about your feelings the longer you're involved. It's terrible and I could probably rant for hours about all the pain in my heart I've endured by men who "loved" me. Likewise, of all the men who wanted to "save " me which is of equal sadness as it's not about me or what's in my best interest but about them and their knight in shining armor syndrome trying to save me to heal some wound of a mother they couldn't save. Seriously. Every single guy I have ever been involved with has had the same things in common.

1. An overbearing father or abusive one.

2. A mother who loved too much to the point of controlling and/or one who wasn't present and abandoned them. 


Of course it takes two to tango. I've ripped my soul apart the last some odd years for my reasons, my purpose, my happiness and my life, my future. A part of that is to recognize that I'm prime candidate to be a man hater. But I'm not. And maybe once upon a time I was and death jolted my mind awake to the full spectrum of the deeper picture (not the "bigger picture") but the deeper picture, the one that slumbers between our foreheads.

If this thread is to discuss the patterns of men who habitually date women who are "man haters" for resource, support and cathartic reasons... Fabulous!!

but if this thread is a crying platform to be "fair" then let's grow up. The fact is yes, both men and women suck. The goal should be awareness. And it wouldn't bother me in the slightest if a thread of men discussing their poor relationship patterns was created. Shit, that would make me thrilled to see!! 

But I'm nearly afraid to read through this thread. I'm afraid it's purpose isn't that but just another "battle" of the sexes. That would just be disheartening.


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

Derange At 170 said:


> That _is_ a dichotomy.
> 
> And you're arguing for that dichotomy using false dichotomies.
> 
> ...


Only the fact that it's women who have to carry this 'evidence' so they can get the paedophile who raped them by no fault of their own. LOL. Oh and take her word for it perhaps. Why are rape trials so fucking tricky again? Why are there 1 in 8 convicted rapists in Queensland going to prison?


It's clear you are not understanding what I'm saying as it's probably more complex an issue than I really care to go into and start from a bottom up bit by bit take apart of history to now. The dissonance in thinking versus theory and blah blah. Needless to say that the idea of a dichotomy of either or isn't and wasn't an intention...it's more of a linear thing of attitudes over time and the backlash against. It may be that you are expecting me to be going back and forth like this is a type of war between two tribes .......it isn't. 

A Catholic Prime Minister with religious zeal to enforce all Australian schools to have Chaplains instead of mental health workers, an abhorrence to gays and known for his misogyny towards women (Catholicism has been pretty well regarded as a less than ideal religious fit for equal rights for the woman with modern values it's pretty hard to separate where it begins and ends).

I don't know much about American politics lobbyists and such. It works differently here. Those in power have the power unless it's so damn stupid that all the other's with a vote in the senate. Trouble is with a such a large proportion of those parties that are in there by independents passing their preferences that sometimes a government can have complete control over the laws passed and women are highly under represented in the senate and parliament.

It's late, bed time.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

gwennylou said:


> Well, I'd like to see this prevalence of misandry in the media then or showcased on television. I'd like to see the jokes agaisnt males and females making disparaging jokes against other females saying, "You're such a boy! Or you throw like a boy!" or even, "Oh he got raped? He was asking for it, because he was wearing clothing that was just too seductive". Oh wait, that's not gonna happen, since 97% of mainstream media is run by males. The thing is that, misogyny is ingrained in our culture and society, because it's run by a patriarchy. Misogyny is more prevalent, because that's what is shown on a daily basis to the masses. To even suggest that misandry is on that level is seriously ludicrous.


Ever seen the references to "real men," "manly men," etc.? (Just watch one of the more recent Old Spice commercials - it might be subtle but it's there.) 

Just because prejudice isn't all transparent on television doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Public racism, for example, is pretty much career-destroying at this point, but does that mean people aren't racist anymore? No, they just keep it off the airwaves.

But that aside, misandry doesn't need to be as prevalent as misogyny for it to matter. Whether you have a bullet in the chest or a bullet in the arm, you still want a paramedic.


----------



## moths (May 10, 2014)

The ones I know are proud of it. Understandable.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

moths said:


> The ones I know are proud of it. Understandable.


How it being proud of hating a whole gender understandable


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

you can't deal with either separately, since each is intertwined so closely: stop using the stance of one, to break apart the stance of another--that's a backwards movement. 


when you begin to change anything in a system, other aspects will have to change in tandem since all aspects within a system are (largely) dependent on one another. the very thing that created the system we have now--you can call it "patriarchy", i call it _life_, the shitty turnings of the universe, what-have-you, etc.--forces people into certain molds, and if they decide to step outside of these predefined models, they will receive some form of pain. but, they'll also receive a form of pain--even worse--for continuing to live within these confines. it happens to both parties, and it occurs in different forms for each sex, since each form is dependent on sex to begin with. 

it affects both sexes physically and mentally. one was obviously much more apparent and immediate, since it robbed women of autonomy, and so was the first issue dredged up. as this changes, as an oppressed group of people is given what they didn't have before, it does upset the balance of whatever system is in place. it _does_ become a matter of inequality if certain members within are given different criteria for existence based on a flaw in the system, if the criteria for the "opposing" members are not also ratified _in tandem based on that very same flaw_. 

sexism does hurt men. it primes us for aggression and then chains us from what would be a natural response with the threat of losing everything if enact what we were taught. it tells us that our thoughts, feelings, and emotions (_all of them_--not just the "appropriate ones") are not real, are not worthy, and are not to be shared--this fuels the first sentence in this paragraph. it tells us that our bodies and our comfort are of secondary importance in place of a woman's (and ironically enough, the same is told to women--an obvious fucking contradiction in this system? since it creates a situation that has no outcome and is not workable). it effectively narrows our experience in life, hollows us, shames us, attempts to force certain aspects of ourselves into hiding as if they didn't exist to begin with--it does this to both "sides". 






speaking against misandry when it's brought up as if it doesn't exist, or isn't a problem in comparison (and so isn't necessary to discuss) is misandry... very similar--i imagine--to the early conversations that spoke against misogyny when it was brought up, was just further misogyny. the lack of awareness, along with the presence of double standards, ignorance, pettiness, projection, and hypocrysy in this thread is fucking ridiculous. not to mention completely ironic. 

SOM, thank ya for this thread! who cares what the intention was, as i'm sure it had more than just one. let all the sexists, and all the confused ones, keep speaking their peace, as it'd be no different otherwise in reality than their attempt to staunch this discussion. plus, it ferrets out more and more points.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

So in my discovery to what keeps me drawn to those who don't want me, I'm curious if JUST ONE dude here has addressed what issues are generally present for those commonly drawn to "man haters". Seriously. THAT is the nitty gritty of it all. 

I must confess I do not believe the run of the mill person makes the conscious choice to hate on an entire gender. I don't. I just don't. I certainly don't wake up in the morning and say."hmm, I think that INTP that's the embodiment of my mother, I think I'll get involved". No. It doesn't work that way. More like, it just happens. ... And it happens so I might grow internally enough to say, "ya know what. Fuck you!" Actions speak louder than words and it's psychology manipulative and cruel to play peek-a-boo with your emotional person, like if emotional availability were a hotdog, this asshole wants to play hide the weenie. And just when I'm like, "yo bro. I think you're just being a pussy which must be all you got" he whips it out and says, "here I am! Remember me! Me.me.me.meeeeee!!!"

but it isn't all about them. It's very much about me as well. I am the only common denominator in my relationships. And while it hurts I tend to be a total pill for those who don't deserve it, and I masochistically put my emotions on the grill to fry - there IS purpose to all this bullshit. That deeper picture I was talking ... So .. what draws men to man haters??? 

The initial draw I propose is probably the "challenge" they perceive. But why would a man stay with a woman who hurts them(resents them) and so on. ?? On my end, it was a personal problem. It's my dysfunction, not theirs and that is why I wonder if they're aware. I nearly feel guilty or bad because what if they don't know? And then they haven't a choice because they behave in a way operating from unconscious motives. So what about the women who hate men? Do they really know? Or are they just afraid like every other hater on earth who gets put in a situation they don't understand and - being human. We tend to hate what we don't understand. Because we're afraid. 

I seriously vote no - I highly doubt the majority of people know what their prob is because the majority of people out there aren't crazy to dissect their own psyche because that's just crazy.  and painful. 

Think of it this way ... 

Assholes are not proud of being assholes. They think they're good people. Like most people, they feel good about being viewed as a person of worth. Only that there are 9 different ways people curtain who they are as they rule OZ. The people who aren't assholes, are the ones that know they are. For they aren't silly little men(or women) behind the curtain. They just are(as is).


----------



## Derange At 170 (Nov 26, 2013)

bethdeth said:


> Only the fact that it's women who have to carry this 'evidence' so they can get the paedophile who raped them by no fault of their own. LOL.


Men did not hold a gun to Mother Nature's head and force her to make females the sex that gets pregnant. When someone argues from a fetal rights point of view, the fact that it's a woman carrying the fetus becomes incidental. You would be wise to try to understand the other side of the argument and that there are perspectives different from your own, also for your own good. Many pro-life women don't believe that abortion is a 'female reproductive rights issue' either for the same reason; to them it's about the fetus, which they believe have full human rights. And as I've showed before, I've reached a "pro-choice" conclusion without taking into account gender myself; I am not asking you to agree with my approach. Just to be mindful of it. The world doesn't revolve around your approach alone and nothing says that your approach is anymore objective than anyone else's.

This is becoming circular, you are repeating your mantras that I've directly tackled already, yet you're ignoring my arguments and just go back what you've been saying all along. It reflect poorly on you.



bethdeth said:


> Oh and take her word for it perhaps. Why are rape trials so fucking tricky again?


Because in a lot of cases it's 1 person's word against someone else's. And trials usually rest on concrete evidence, which is often absent in rape cases unless there is DNA evidence or evidence of harm being done by the particular perpetrator. With many women, understandably, feeling dirty or even doubting if they want to go forth with reporting the crime immediately (because they don't want to draw attention to themselves), they may shower immediately after it happened or not tell anyone/the authorities until some time past. Which also makes it very likely that much of the evidence has been lost in the process.

People have a right to due process and with some crimes, often those lacking evidence, they become hard to persecute effectively, since many cases of rape don't leave a lot of clear signs of physical abuse. It's unfortunate, but the best thing we can do for now is to encourage women to come forward with it immediately and improve forensic techniques.

You're turning this into 'men rape women, therefore women are oppressed' type of thing again, while ignoring the erasure of heterosexual male rape as well. You've been doing that continuously.



bethdeth said:


> Why are there 1 in 8 convicted rapists in Queensland going to prison?


There could be many reasons for that.



bethdeth said:


> It's clear you are not understanding what I'm saying as it's probably more complex an issue than I really care to go into and start from a bottom up bit by bit take apart of history to now.


No, it's very clear what you're saying. You're not posting any breakthrough argument. I've been addressing all your points directly and pointing out the logical fallacies in your arguments and you ignore this completely. The fact that I disagree does not mean I don't understand you, it means that I think that you make bad points.



bethdeth said:


> The dissonance in thinking versus theory and blah blah. Needless to say that the idea of a dichotomy of either or isn't and wasn't an intention...it's more of a linear thing of attitudes over time and the backlash against. It may be that you are expecting me to be going back and forth like this is a type of war between two tribes .......it isn't.


I am not. I am expecting some intellectual honesty.



bethdeth said:


> A Catholic Prime Minister with religious zeal to enforce all Australian schools to have Chaplains instead of mental health workers, an abhorrence to gays and known for his misogyny towards women (Catholicism has been pretty well regarded as a less than ideal religious fit for equal rights for the woman with modern values it's pretty hard to separate where it begins and ends).


You are saying the same thing a third time. Calling people misogynist or sexist and framing all that they do around gender while ignoring any alternative explanation isn't an argument. Again, someone could call you pro-genocide because you support abortion, but we would both agree that this is intellectually dishonest. You are doing the same thing in reverse.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

bethdeth said:


> I don't really understand what you mean. Aboriginals here are treated like absolute shit. Abbott (our Prime Minister) has been known for his misogyny. I shudder to think about what his plans are for us. Reasons Tony Abbott is bad for Australia » Something You Said Something You Said


I'm not from Australia. it appears I spoke a bit too broadly


----------



## lue (May 3, 2014)

gwennylou said:


> Well, I'd like to see this prevalence of misandry in the media then or showcased on television. I'd like to see the jokes agaisnt males and females making disparaging jokes against other females saying, "You're such a boy! Or you throw like a boy!" or even, "Oh he got raped? He was asking for it, because he was wearing clothing that was just too seductive". Oh wait, that's not gonna happen, since 97% of mainstream media is run by males. The thing is that, misogyny is ingrained in our culture and society, because it's run by a patriarchy. Misogyny is more prevalent, because that's what is shown on a daily basis to the masses. To even suggest that misandry is on that level is seriously ludicrous.


-There are a plethora of tv shows with dumb dads, goofball dads, mom is the only one who knows how to do things. 
-The whole idea of Men can't be raped by women, or he wanted it because men always want sex, duh. 
-You're such a girl (or other choice words) if men show any emotion.
-If you get in a fight with your SO, and the police show up, as a man, you better hope your SO has your back. 
-When it comes to divorces and custody, men get the shit end of the stick.

There's more, I just can't remember. Women are protected by law in so many different ways, men, not so much. You're right misandry is on a different level, it's in our laws.


----------



## Moya (May 22, 2012)

Ffs, there is so much convoluted idiocy in this thread. _Misandry doesn't exist as an institutionalized norm in Western society_, period. Prejudice and discrimination against men occurs almost entirely on an individual level or on behalf of minorities without much power. Sure, there are crazies who will cut off your dick, but that isn't misandry, it's insanity.

Men hold almost all of the power in Western society, as heads of corporations, lawmakers, media executives, and other people in positions of authority. Men are not oppressed. The fact that people on here can argue otherwise just shows how deeply rooted and normalized misogyny is. Privilege is not about money, it's about oppression. Poor white males are not oppressed for being poor. Wealthy black lesbians are still oppressed because they are racial and sexual minorities.

You can argue all you want about the so-called misandry men face on a daily basis. You can argue about how TV shows portray dads as incompetent goofballs, but you're overlooking how the wise, knowing mom is still treated as a nagging trophy wife, or how she's more of an extension of the dad's character than an individual. You can argue that society believes men can't be raped by women, but you're overlooking how 9 out of 10 rape victims are female as well as the "men can't be raped" ideology having its foundation in the belief that a woman cannot overpower a man. You can argue that men are being discriminated against by being called a girl for showing emotion, despite the fact that that is _clearly _misogyny, based on the belief that it is an insult for a man to lower himself to the level of a woman or to emulate one in any major way. You can argue that law is prejudiced against men because of false domestic abuse accusations, but once again, this is based in the idea that women are fundamentally weaker than men in every way and cannot overpower a man alone. You can argue that men get shit treatment when it comes to child custody, which is true, but still rooted in traditional misogynistic gender roles, which view women as caretakers rather than providers.

Take a step back and look at the underlying reasons behind the problems men face in society. I can guarantee you almost every single one is somehow fundamentally tied to patriarchy, gender roles, and the normalization of misogyny.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Moya said:


> Take a step back and look at the underlying reasons behind the problems men face in society. I can guarantee you almost every single one is somehow fundamentally tied to patriarchy, gender roles, and the normalization of misogyny.


What difference does it make? The important part is that inequality exists on both sides and no one who isn't sexist wants that inequality to exist. The only way in which the underlying reasons matter is in terms of dismantling the cause and replacing it with something that is more equalizing. 

But your tone doesn't suggest rooting out problems and finding solutions. It suggests some sort of need to pull the subject of suffering back to women and firmly away from men. I don't get it.


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

Derange At 170 said:


> Men did not hold a gun to Mother Nature's head and force her to make females the sex that gets pregnant. When someone argues from a fetal rights point of view, the fact that it's a woman carrying the fetus becomes incidental. You would be wise to try to understand the other side of the argument and that there are perspectives different from your own, also for your own good. Many pro-life women don't believe that abortion is a 'female reproductive rights issue' either for the same reason; to them it's about the fetus, which they believe have full human rights. And as I've showed before, I've reached a "pro-choice" conclusion without taking into account gender myself; I am not asking you to agree with my approach. Just to be mindful of it. The world doesn't revolve around your approach alone and nothing says that your approach is anymore objective than anyone else's.
> 
> This is becoming circular, you are repeating your mantras that I've directly tackled already, yet you're ignoring my arguments and just go back what you've been saying all along. It reflect poorly on you.
> 
> ...



Mother nature gave women the burden of carrying a child, errrr. Mother nature gave the woman a choice to also not carry a child by providing heaps of herbs to get rid of the child she is carrying. Then humans who are part of nature gave science to do it far more safely. It's really only been the last 100 years that religion has made laws against abortion (whilst providing a much more safer and effective way of doing it). Well that's not exactly true since it was doctors who lobbied for the laws to change (it's funny how that coincided). Then religion came into it. Since women were not in power around 100 years ago and women did not have autonomy at all then it's pretty safe to assume that men in power have been holding women down for whatever perverse reason. It's a timeline and everything that has followed has been more of a slap to get back in line and not overstep bounds. Religious arguments, especially Catholic ones can't really hold water since their belief is that life begins with the sperm and not impregnation. 

DNA evidence is collected at the time of a report of a rape. To argue to keep a baby to convict a paedophile is ludicrous. Since the girl is obviously underage, who the hell takes care of this 'evidence'? The fact that the girl has had sperm there to provide DNA should be enough. Is that too grisly for a court to grab that DNA evidence from the abortion if the rape kit happened by far too late FFS try listening to a woman about their experience of being raped and listening to her word against his about how it happened. 

I don't think that you're entirely understanding the argument. I have never said that women are raped therefore women are oppressed. I've stated a few times that women are raped because attitudes aren't changing even though laws are and it's more of a catch up game of a cognitive dissonance meaning that one day it may be resolved enough for the thinking and action to match the idea that there is double standards. Once it is resolved then all that uncomfortable feelings of actions not matching up to thoughts and ideals it will go away. Until then you have a huge amount of people blaming feminists for their uncomfortable feelings, the very people who brought about the changes to laws. None of that has been addressed at all. A miserly narrow multi-quote argument that goes tit for tat and ignores the whole is not a resolution and will go on being circular. Backhanded arguments that are he said/she said is projecting the type of thing about a war that doesn't exist and I'm a little weary of it.


----------



## HellCat (Jan 17, 2013)

I don't know how someone can justify hating another purely for their gender. Seems illogical and based in hurts or insecurities.

I prefer men but I do have amazing strong female friends who I cherish. Prior to meeting them, my best friends were always my brothers mates. Loyal, sharp witty lovable guys who were vital to my teens/twenties. 

Also Swordsman of mana, love your emotional and mental trolling. It gets people to think.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

LostFavor said:


> But your tone doesn't suggest rooting out problems and finding solutions. It suggests some sort of need to pull the subject of suffering back to women and firmly away from men. I don't get it.


Aren't they from the same thing though.
The image of man is the antithesis to woman.
If you dismantle the image of either the other has nothing to compare to.
So when people criticize the expectations of masculinity or femininity they are on the same side of the issue.
But somehow there is an interesting divide regardless where people take the focus on women's issues to mean a total disregard for men's when in a lot of cases it inherently effects them both as result of what ever changes occur.

Tony Porter summarizes it in his TED talk this rather well with a quote that went along the lines of, my liberation as a man means your liberation as a woman.
Which in itself has a focus on men's issues.
I suppose i'm just confused why there is from any side a 'we're not paying enough attention to my gender' when there's an intrinsic link.

I assume that for women they bring attention to their gender because they are the ones considered lesser, when they are on the same level as men then these issues are resolved. Men's limitations are based around not being associated with the perceived weakness of what it is to be a woman.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Wellsy said:


> Aren't they from the same thing though.
> The image of man is the antithesis to woman.
> If you dismantle the image of either the other has nothing to compare to.
> So when people criticize the expectations of masculinity or femininity they are on the same side of the issue.
> ...


Well this is a topic specifically about misandrist women. Paying attention was never about "enough" for me when I started posting in this thread - it was always about "at all." It does no one favors to marginalize problems. I'm just as mystified as you by the "pay more attention to me" attitude that some people give off.

I suspect the whole attention thing is not quite as objective as you make it sound, at least for the younger crowd (might be more measured the older you go in age). I imagine it's generally more like "I'm a part of this gender and I don't like the stuff that I have to put up with so pay attention to it."

The thing is though, while I agree with you that the two are largely connected, I don't think the reality is as clean as "every effort toward female equality helps any problems men face." Not that you said those exact words, but that seems to be the implication of what you're saying and I don't think the one necessarily follows from the other, even though it should follow in theory.


----------



## Moya (May 22, 2012)

LostFavor said:


> What difference does it make? The important part is that inequality exists on both sides and no one who isn't sexist wants that inequality to exist. The only way in which the underlying reasons matter is in terms of dismantling the cause and replacing it with something that is more equalizing.


It's impossible to dismantle the cause if most people are unaware that it even exists. The point I'm trying to make is that, although inequality exists on both sides, the basis of it lies in the oppression, subjugation, and hatred of _women_. Not men. There will be no equality until Western society acknowledges and addresses its misogynistic nature. The rights of women will not be advanced by the liberation of men from any male-specific issues because patriarchy isn't rooted in male degradation, it's rooted in male glorification.



> But your tone doesn't suggest rooting out problems and finding solutions. It suggests some sort of need to pull the subject of suffering back to women and firmly away from men. I don't get it.


My attempt to pull the subject back to women is entirely intentional, because we really don't need to focus on the "suffering of men" to achieve equality. Men don't need any more rights, they have enough as is. True egalitarianism will only be achieved by completely deconstructing the patriarchy; if every time someone brings up women's issues there's someone waiting at bay to interject "but men...", it only distracts people from the reality of how our gender hierarchy is essentially shitting exclusively on women (and gender minorities like non-binary individuals).

Does this make me a misandrist? Perhaps. I don't consider myself as someone who hates men, although I am incredibly wary of them. I do firmly believe in equality, not the social dominance of women or a matriarchal society - but I think it's laughable that anyone could consider it to be a problem to try to return focus back to women's issues, considering the fact that they're so much broader and more problematic than men's issues are.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

LostFavor said:


> Well this is a topic specifically about misandrist women. Paying attention was never about "enough" for me when I started posting in this thread - it was always about "at all." It does no one favors to marginalize problems. I'm just as mystified as you by the "pay more attention to me" attitude that some people give off.
> 
> I suspect the whole attention thing is not quite as objective as you make it sound, at least for the younger crowd (might be more measured the older you go in age). I imagine it's generally more like "I'm a part of this gender and I don't like the stuff that I have to put up with so pay attention to it."
> 
> The thing is though, while I agree with you that the two are largely connected, I don't think the reality is as clean as "every effort toward female equality helps any problems men face." Not that you said those exact words, but that seems to be the implication of what you're saying and I don't think the one necessarily follows from the other, even though it should follow in theory.


Yes I certainly agree it's simplified, not every effort for women equates to men's problems being solved in the reality, I certainly couldn't account for the complexity of reality.
It is messy, not objective at all, but that's typical to humanity hahaha. 

I have wondered about ingroup thinking which has many benefits for people but at the same time is exclusionary and has some unfortunate outcomes for outgroups, that perhaps gender roles were born out the phenotype differences between the sexes and created to distinct groups stereotypes just as groups of people are stereotyped on the basis of skin colour. Also been thinking about how often we relied on heuristics which requires less mental effort to assess people, so going off information of what a woman is like through our culture is much easier and less ambiguous than going I don't know anything about that person and having to work way through their idiosyncrasies.
Not really sure how we escape our shitty thinking hahahaha.


----------



## lue (May 3, 2014)

Moya said:


> Men hold almost all of the power in Western society, as heads of corporations, lawmakers, media executives, and other people in positions of authority. Men are not oppressed. The fact that people on here can argue otherwise just shows how deeply rooted and normalized misogyny is. Privilege is not about money, it's about oppression. Poor white males are not oppressed for being poor. Wealthy black lesbians are still oppressed because they are racial and sexual minorities.


Privilege is about money AND oppression. Poor white males are very oppressed for being poor, they can't afford healthy food, health care is an issue, they can't afford normal everyday things. Wealthy black people might be oppressed, but I guarantee money can take care of any and everything they need. Racially profiled, hire the best lawyer. Poor white males, hell, poor people in general don't have those options, black, white, blue or purple. Poor white males can't feed their families but a wealthy black woman can. Classism is a thing just like racism or sexism. 



Moya said:


> You can argue all you want about the so-called misandry men face on a daily basis. You can argue about how TV shows portray dads as incompetent goofballs, but you're overlooking how the wise, knowing mom is still treated as a nagging trophy wife, or how she's more of an extension of the dad's character than an individual. You can argue that society believes men can't be raped by women, but you're overlooking how 9 out of 10 rape victims are female as well as the "men can't be raped" ideology having its foundation in the belief that a woman cannot overpower a man. You can argue that men are being discriminated against by being called a girl for showing emotion, despite the fact that that is _clearly _misogyny, based on the belief that it is an insult for a man to lower himself to the level of a woman or to emulate one in any major way. You can argue that law is prejudiced against men because of false domestic abuse accusations, but once again, this is based in the idea that women are fundamentally weaker than men in every way and cannot overpower a man alone. You can argue that men get shit treatment when it comes to child custody, which is true, but still rooted in traditional misogynistic gender roles, which view women as caretakers rather than providers.


1) Re: Tv shows, this is false in my opinion, the dad is the comic relief and the mom is the all knowing character keeping the family together. It's easy to see misogyny when you're always looking for it. 

2) I don't know the stats on female rape victims, but I will say that part of the ideology is "men always want sex." But also instead of addressing that there is an ideology that men can't be raped, it's brought back to females as victims and misogyny/patriarchy. If anyone even tries to question a woman's rape accusation, EVERYONE is up in arms. Why is not the same way for men, and the ideology that even you say is present. Does it not matter because it's only 1 out of that 10?

3) You can argue that, that's fine. I don't agree. I think it comes from gender roles not misogyny. Just like being called a tomboy. The insinuation is, you're not supposed to act that way, you're a girl, or in this case you're not supposed to act that way, your a boy. THIS IS NOT MISOGYNY, this is calling people out for acting out against type. This happens with gender, race, culture, and class. 

4) Maybe, but if it is it's something that is perpetuated by feminists, and feminists would be the last ones to say they're misogynistic. I think it is also based on we must protect/uplift women at all costs. We must build more shelters for domestic abuse against women, we must renew the Violence against women act. Take misogyny/patriarchy out for a moment. Where are the ones for men? Why is it not Violence against people act? WHY IS NO ONE UPSET ABOUT IT (except maybe MRA's/MGTOW's) Think about it for a second. P.S. A lot of these laws that you say are because of misogyny/patriarchy were pushed for by Feminists.



Moya said:


> Take a step back and look at the underlying reasons behind the problems men face in society. I can guarantee you almost every single one is somehow fundamentally tied to patriarchy, gender roles, and the normalization of misogyny.


I disagree, the underlying reasons are: a lack of agency for women, and seeing men as expendable. Whatever this latest wave of feminism is, it robbed women of all their agency and responsibility, and pushed for legislation that completely marginalizes men.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Moya said:


> It's impossible to dismantle the cause if most people are unaware that it even exists. The point I'm trying to make is that, although inequality exists on both sides, the basis of it lies in the oppression, subjugation, and hatred of _women_. Not men. There will be no equality until Western society acknowledges and addresses its misogynistic nature. The rights of women will not be advanced by the liberation of men from any male-specific issues because patriarchy isn't rooted in male degradation, it's rooted in male glorification.
> 
> My attempt to pull the subject back to women is entirely intentional, because we really don't need to focus on the "suffering of men" to achieve equality. Men don't need any more rights, they have enough as is. True egalitarianism will only be achieved by completely deconstructing the patriarchy; if every time someone brings up women's issues there's someone waiting at bay to interject "but men...", it only distracts people from the reality of how our gender hierarchy is essentially shitting exclusively on women (and gender minorities like non-binary individuals).
> 
> Does this make me a misandrist? Perhaps. I don't consider myself as someone who hates men, although I am incredibly wary of them. I do firmly believe in equality, not the social dominance of women or a matriarchal society - but I think it's laughable that anyone could consider it to be a problem to try to return focus back to women's issues, considering the fact that they're so much broader and more problematic than men's issues are.


I'm sure your intentions are good, but you're being a bit heavy-handed. For one thing, it's kind of silly to say that a certain group "doesn't need more rights because they have enough." People who want to maintain the status quo could apply that same argument to women's rights and use it in an effort to the dismantle the cause. None of us who are for equality really benefit from utilizing an argument like that.

I also don't think it's fair to say that women will never gain from men's issues being addressed under any circumstances. If they are truly intertwined, then they are bound to bleed into each other sooner or later, no matter which end you're approaching it from. 

Furthermore, you're saying "but women..." in a thread about men - that kind of interjection is clearly not all one-sided.

Here's a question for you though, since you consider the topic of patriarchy and women's rights so important that it overrides any other way of approaching the subject: How would you suggest going about dismantling the root of the problem? 



Wellsy said:


> Yes I certainly agree it's simplified, not every effort for women equates to men's problems being solved in the reality, I certainly couldn't account for the complexity of reality.
> It is messy, not objective at all, but that's typical to humanity hahaha.
> 
> I have wondered about ingroup thinking which has many benefits for people but at the same time is exclusionary and has some unfortunate outcomes for outgroups, that perhaps gender roles were born out the phenotype differences between the sexes and created to distinct groups stereotypes just as groups of people are stereotyped on the basis of skin colour. Also been thinking about how often we relied on heuristics which requires less mental effort to assess people, so going off information of what a woman is like through our culture is much easier and less ambiguous than going I don't know anything about that person and having to work way through their idiosyncrasies.
> Not really sure how we escape our shitty thinking hahahaha.


Haha, it is quite the mess. :tongue: I think I follow you. It's an interesting thought. We certainly do a lot of instant judging when meeting people or talking about them. Can't say I know how to escape the shitty thinking either. I fall back on my standard: Everything comes back to the parents. 

Of course, that means that the parents and how they raise their kids comes back to the parents of the parents and so on. Dangit humanity.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

LostFavor said:


> Of course, that means that the parents and how they raise their kids comes back to the parents of the parents and so on. Dangit humanity.


I hate infinite loops XD


----------



## Moya (May 22, 2012)

lue said:


> Privilege is about money AND oppression. Poor white males are very oppressed for being poor, they can't afford healthy food, health care is an issue, they can't afford normal everyday things. Wealthy black people might be oppressed, but I guarantee money can take care of any and everything they need. Racially profiled, hire the best lawyer. Poor white males, hell, poor people in general don't have those options, black, white, blue or purple. Poor white males can't feed their families but a wealthy black woman can. Classism is a thing just like racism or sexism.


Sure, I can acknowledge that working class oppression is still oppression, perhaps I should have worded my sentence better. What you don't seem to realize is that money doesn't make a person not oppressed. "Hiring a lawyer" doesn't solve the problem. Being rich doesn't fix every other type of oppression by a long shot. A rich woman can still be raped, assaulted, or abused. A rich gay/bi/pan/queer person can still be denied the right to marriage - never mind the fact that PoC make up 87% of people living in poverty (and therefore classism is inherently racist). Also, theoretically, a poor white male has the possibility of escaping oppression by escaping poverty, whereas a black lesbian cannot.



> 1) Re: Tv shows, this is false in my opinion, the dad is the comic relief and the mom is the all knowing character keeping the family together. It's easy to see misogyny when you're always looking for it.


It's easy to see misogyny because it's _everywhere_. I don't see how you can't see this trope in TV - it's in so many shows; Modern Family is one that immediately springs to mind. TV Tropes' pages on similar tropes might additionally be worth looking into.



> 2) I don't know the stats on female rape victims, but I will say that part of the ideology is "men always want sex." But also instead of addressing that there is an ideology that men can't be raped, it's brought back to females as victims and misogyny/patriarchy. If anyone even tries to question a woman's rape accusation, EVERYONE is up in arms. Why is not the same way for men, and the ideology that even you say is present. Does it not matter because it's only 1 out of that 10?


It seems like you're implying that "men always want sex" is equally as problematic as, or more problematic than, the fact that women get raped and sexually assaulted every single day - the most frequent statistic I've heard is that 1 in 6 women will be sexually assaulted at some point in their life, but that doesn't even account for all of the rape cases that go unreported. It's pretty repulsive to me that you could compare rape accusations to women _actually being raped_. It's true that false rape accusations are awful and could ruin a man's life, but that is such a ridiculously unlikely scenario compared to the amount of actual rapes that take place every day. Do you really not see how the stigma against male sexual assault is inherently linked to misogyny?

Every rape and sexual assault is horrible. All of them should be prevented, and just because a very small percentage of men compared to women get raped does not mean I am claiming that the men who are raped are unimportant. I'm saying that men who get raped aren't getting raped because men are oppressed. They aren't getting raped because they've been raised in a society that teaches that it's okay for their bodies to be objectified, or that they deserve it if they "provoked" it by their behavior, clothing, or level sobriety. When they tell someone they were raped, they probably won't get asked what they were wearing. People generally don't take men who have been raped by women seriously because they don't take women seriously.



> 3) You can argue that, that's fine. I don't agree. I think it comes from gender roles not misogyny. Just like being called a tomboy. The insinuation is, you're not supposed to act that way, you're a girl, or in this case you're not supposed to act that way, your a boy. THIS IS NOT MISOGYNY, this is calling people out for acting out against type. This happens with gender, race, culture, and class.


Being a tomboy has nowhere NEAR the same level of repercussions that being an effeminate young male does. Being a tomboy is hardly even out of the norm these days. If a girl wants to play sports and video games rather than dress up and play with dolls, it's generally considered innocuous behavior. If a boy does the reverse, it's a much bigger problem. This lasts well into adulthood; why do you think it's permissible and commonplace for women to wear jeans and suits, but freakish and inappropriate for men to wear skirts and makeup? It's because it's alright for a woman to emulate a man to a certain extent, but not alright for a man to emulate a woman to that same extent.



> 4) Maybe, but if it is it's something that is perpetuated by feminists, and feminists would be the last ones to say they're misogynistic. I think it is also based on we must protect/uplift women at all costs. We must build more shelters for domestic abuse against women, we must renew the Violence against women act. Take misogyny/patriarchy out for a moment. Where are the ones for men? Why is it not Violence against people act? WHY IS NO ONE UPSET ABOUT IT (except maybe MRA's/MGTOW's) Think about it for a second. P.S. A lot of these laws that you say are because of misogyny/patriarchy were pushed for by Feminists.


Once again, people don't take female on male abuse seriously because they don't take females seriously. A man being abused by a male partner is widely considered to be almost as heinous as a woman being abused by a male partner. A man being abused by a female partner is overlooked because of the expectation for a man to be able to physically overpower a woman as well as to "put her in her place" if need be. It's good that there are shelters for abused women. Due to the majority of physical domestic abuse cases being man on woman, the prevention of men from joining shelters is a safety precaution. I do agree that it is time we update our laws to encompass abuse against men as well, and also to raise awareness of emotional abuse between partners of any gender or sex. 

...but you do realize that not all feminists are the same, right? Not all have the same ideologies? Regardless, I think your point about feminists pushing for X or Y is irrelevant. I think most modern feminists would firmly disagree with the concept that women need special treatment because they're women. I think women deserve to be protected as long as oppression against women is ingrained in society. Protected from oppression and the results of it, not protected because they're weak.



> I disagree, the underlying reasons are: a lack of agency for women, and seeing men as expendable. Whatever this latest wave of feminism is, it robbed women of all their agency and responsibility, and pushed for legislation that completely marginalizes men.


Remember, feminism is aiming for egalitarianism. Although I've refuted all of your points by linking them to misogyny, the point of feminism is not to undermine real problems that men face (expendability being one of the main ones) but to show how very, very few of them are separate from patriarchy and misogyny. That is why we need to focus on women rather than men. Protesting feminist movements because men have _some _disadvantages won't get us anywhere.


----------



## lue (May 3, 2014)

I'm just going to say this and I'm done. Women are protected in EVERY matter of the law. They have control over their procreative abilities (generally)---and if anybody threatens it, oh the outrage. They are always taken seriously with rape, domestic abuse, and harassment claims, usually get custody of children, have a plethora of support systems if they are raped, abused, or harassed. Discrimination protection as well. 

Men on the other hand, have no control over their procreative abilities, are less likely to be taken seriously when making a rape claim, are easy targets for false rape, false domestic abuse, and false sexual harassment claims, almost never get custody of their children, really have no support system if they are abused, raped, or harassed. 

There are so many funds for breast cancer research and women's issues, not so much for men. 

THESE THINGS ARE NOT MISOGYNY. If anything they would be misandry. At best they are a horrible oversight, at worst they are institutionalized sexism. 

And if you ever decide to point to the wage gap or talk about MOAR women in the workplace. Take a look at the types of jobs and education women normally go for vs. what men go for. And if there's still a gap, make sure that the men and women work the same amount of hours. Women might work less because of a single family household or they generally work less hours to take care of the kids--again this comes from no child care in the workplace--not misogyny. 

And yet somehow we are still talking about street harassment (this plays into the whole men + sexuality= predator/horny douchebag thing) and the word bossy. 

End rant.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

It seems that a lot of people here don't quite understand what feminists mean when they talk about women being oppressed. "Misogyny", defined loosely as a hatred of women, doesn't really represent the concept all that well. Women are oppressed because we idealise masculinity, yet pressure women to be the complete opposite. When a woman embodies masculine traits, she might be criticised for not conforming to her gender role, but she'll simultaneously be applauded for rejecting femininity and embracing the "superior" masculine ideal. 


On men being disposable (I swear I saw this argument somewhere?). They're not and that we send them to war does not indicate otherwise. Sending women to war would require the belief that they're at least similarly competent soldiers, which clearly isn't the case in our society. And when so much of war is motivated by this weird patriarchal desire to prove just how big one's country's metaphorical dick is, sending out a whole bunch of "weak" feminine soldiers kinda defeats the purpose. 

If you want to determine how much our soldiers are valued, you can't just look at the fact that some of them die. War is dangerous to the point where soldiers would die no matter how much we valued and tried to save them. It would be far more relevant to look closely at the kinds of missions that soldiers were sent on and see if their lives were risked knowingly, carelessly or needlessly. Other indicators would be how much they're paid, how well equipped they are, and how much respect they're given. War memorials are everywhere and we have annual public holidays specifically to honour current and fallen soldiers. I'm sorry, but it looks like we value them immensely.

But even if I the premise is granted. Who sees them as disposable? Who actually gets to dispose of them? That's right: other men. And the idea that it's for the benefit of women is laughable. So women appreciate the lives of their husbands, fathers, sons, brothers and friends being risked so carelessly? I think not. 


And because there's been some discussion of men and women on TV, I'll give my interpretation. When I see couples like Homer and Marge, Peter and Lois, that couple in King of Queens, and pretty much every other couple on TV, the message that I get is not that men are stupid and women are smart, it's that even the dumbest, fattest, ugliest man is deserving of an attractive, intelligent, competent woman. And he's still worth more than her. This is the extent to which femininity is devalued. Not a positive message at all. 


I might say something about domestic violence later. 

Here come the accusations of misandry!


----------



## lue (May 3, 2014)

This is my last one, because I know we're not going to get anywhere. 



Moya said:


> Sure, I can acknowledge that working class oppression is still oppression, perhaps I should have worded my sentence better. What you don't seem to realize is that money doesn't make a person not oppressed. "Hiring a lawyer" doesn't solve the problem. Being rich doesn't fix every other type of oppression by a long shot. A rich woman can still be raped, assaulted, or abused. A rich gay/bi/pan/queer person can still be denied the right to marriage - never mind the fact that PoC make up 87% of people living in poverty (and therefore classism is inherently racist). Also, theoretically, a poor white male has the possibility of escaping oppression by escaping poverty, whereas a black lesbian cannot.


I wasn't trying to say it fixed it, I was trying to say it makes it easier. Classism isn't inherently racist, classism is classism and racism is racism. Yes they can be used together or separately, but just because 87% (you're percentage not mine) of people living in poverty are people of color doesn't mean classism is inherently racist. Racism has significantly contributed to that percentage. A poor white male can escape poverty but he can't escape having a baby he doesn't want to have, or losing a baby he does want to have, he has no support if he has an abusive spouse, he can't escape a false rape, harassment, abuse claim, he can't escape losing his kids when he gets a divorce, so by your definition, white males can be oppressed. See this is the problem with the oppression game. It's not just people of color and gay/bi/pan/queer people. 



Moya said:


> It's easy to see misogyny because it's _everywhere_. I don't see how you can't see this trope in TV - it's in so many shows; Modern Family is one that immediately springs to mind. TV Tropes' pages on similar tropes might additionally be worth looking into.


I'm good. I'm pretty sure the goofball dad and all-knowing mom is pretty prevalent. If you want to argue that the show is really about the husband that's fine (but I'd argue there are quite a few female led shows), nonetheless, he's still a goofball, sometimes even stupid husband. 





Moya said:


> It seems like you're implying that "men always want sex" is equally as problematic as, or more problematic than, the fact that women get raped and sexually assaulted every single day - the most frequent statistic I've heard is that 1 in 6 women will be sexually assaulted at some point in their life, but that doesn't even account for all of the rape cases that go unreported. It's pretty repulsive to me that you could compare rape accusations to women _actually being raped_. It's true that false rape accusations are awful and could ruin a man's life, but that is such a ridiculously unlikely scenario compared to the amount of actual rapes that take place every day. Do you really not see how the stigma against male sexual assault is inherently linked to misogyny?


Women don't get raped everyday. PEOPLE get raped everyday. Yes, I think that "men always want sex" is very problematic, it's just as problematic as thinking a girl was asking for it because she had a short skirt on. If you think rape cases go unreported for women, when women are encouraged to come forward, are guaranteed to be taken seriously, guaranteed to have a support system, how many do you think go unreported for men? I don't know what you're talking about when you say comparing accusations to women being raped. All people can be assaulted/raped, all people deserve a support system, all people deserve to be taken seriously. Male sexual assault stigma has to do with not being taken seriously, no support system, and gender roles. AGAIN GENDER ROLES ARE NOT MISOGYNY. --> it's not about hating women, it's about acting outside of your type, or in this case something happening to you that most people incorrectly assume only happens to women. 



Moya said:


> Every rape and sexual assault is horrible. All of them should be prevented, and just because a very small percentage of men compared to women get raped does not mean I am claiming that the men who are raped are unimportant. I'm saying that men who get raped aren't getting raped because men are oppressed. They aren't getting raped because they've been raised in a society that teaches that it's okay for their bodies to be objectified, or that they deserve it if they "provoked" it by their behavior, clothing, or level sobriety. When they tell someone they were raped, they probably won't get asked what they were wearing. People generally don't take men who have been raped by women seriously because they don't take women seriously.


People are getting raped because other people are assholes. Do you realize that you just completely attempted to minimize male rape victims? You say the first sentence, "yes they're all bad," but then continue to minimize. I don't think that's what you're trying to do, but it comes off that way. Male victims are being objectified just like everyone else, and a lot of times rape is about power, not oppression. No, you're right, if men tell someone they were raped they probably won't even get that far, they won't even be taken seriously. That last sentence is very women-centered. How does not taking male rape victims seriously stem from not taking women seriously? Honestly, this just seems like a way for you to confirm to yourself that the world hates women. 



Moya said:


> Being a tomboy has nowhere NEAR the same level of repercussions that being an effeminate young male does. Being a tomboy is hardly even out of the norm these days. If a girl wants to play sports and video games rather than dress up and play with dolls, it's generally considered innocuous behavior. If a boy does the reverse, it's a much bigger problem. This lasts well into adulthood; why do you think it's permissible and commonplace for women to wear jeans and suits, but freakish and inappropriate for men to wear skirts and makeup? It's because it's alright for a woman to emulate a man to a certain extent, but not alright for a man to emulate a woman to that same extent.


Tomboy can be just as bad, especially when you're an NT, like boys clothes, and like hanging with boys, especially in high school. Nonetheless, this, again, plays into gender roles (and the idea of what a man/woman is supposed to be), not misogyny. Also, women have been fighting their way out that box for a while, who has done it for men? 





Moya said:


> Once again, people don't take female on male abuse seriously because they don't take females seriously. A man being abused by a male partner is widely considered to be almost as heinous as a woman being abused by a male partner. A man being abused by a female partner is overlooked because of the expectation for a man to be able to physically overpower a woman as well as to "put her in her place" if need be. It's good that there are shelters for abused women. Due to the majority of physical domestic abuse cases being man on woman, the prevention of men from joining shelters is a safety precaution. *I do agree that it is time we update our laws to encompass abuse against men as well, and also to raise awareness of emotional abuse between partners of any gender or sex.*


GENDER ROLES DO NOT EQUAL MISOGYNY/PATRIARCHY. They are not overlooked, they are ignored. No, they don't take it seriously because legislation has not been pushed on behalf of abused men. The laws for domestic abuse weren't always there, they were fought for. The sentence should read DUE TO THE MAJORITY OF DOMESTIC ABUSE CASES REPORTED AND TAKEN SERIOUSLY BEING MAN ON WOMAN. I'm glad we agree on something (the bold). 



Moya said:


> ...but you do realize that not all feminists are the same, right? Not all have the same ideologies? Regardless, I think your point about feminists pushing for X or Y is irrelevant. I think most modern feminists would firmly disagree with the concept that women need special treatment because they're women. I think women deserve to be protected as long as oppression against women is ingrained in society. Protected from oppression and the results of it, not protected because they're weak.


It doesn't matter that all feminists aren't the same, the ideology is the same (misogyny and patriarchy). How is it irrelevant when it's the whole premise for your worldview? Everything you have said is attributed to misogyny and patriarchy. It is very relevant because the very laws that you are saying come from misogyny come from feminists. These two things do not fit together. One is wrong, and I guarantee it's not the fact that feminists pushed for these laws. 

Oppression of women is not ingrained in our society by definition. Are there misogynists? Yes, Are there misandrists? There will always be people who hate what's different. 



Moya said:


> Remember, feminism is aiming for egalitarianism. Although I've refuted all of your points by linking them to misogyny, the point of feminism is not to undermine real problems that men face (expendability being one of the main ones) but to show how very, very few of them are separate from patriarchy and misogyny. That is why we need to focus on women rather than men. Protesting feminist movements because men have _some _disadvantages won't get us anywhere.


The feminism today is not aiming for egalitarianism. Anyone trying to minimize the issues of men and maintain focus on women's issues, is by definition, not an egalitarian. Anyone strictly focusing on women's issues is by definition not an egalitarian. 

If feminism was about equality the difference between how we treat men's issues and women issues would not be so vast. There can be no helping with men's issues if you are unable to take them seriously, if you can't look past your own issues, if you must always relate it back to women. 

You haven't refuted anything. 

We have been focusing on women for years, that's why it's so unequal now. 

I'm not protesting feminism, I've never been one.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Moya said:


> Protesting feminist movements because men have _some _disadvantages won't get us anywhere.


Ok, strawman argument. I must have missed the part where people in this thread were protesting feminist movements. Radical man-hating feminism, sure, but not the actual ideals of equality that feminism is trying to fight for.


Also, still hoping for an answer to this question:


> Here's a question for you though, since you consider the topic of patriarchy and women's rights so important that it overrides any other way of approaching the subject: How would you suggest going about dismantling the root of the problem?


All I'm asking is for you to put your money where your mouth is.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

@Moya

you should really watch that video in the "feminists opinions on such-n-such"-thread (not the real title, but it'll easily be found--and you've already posted in that particular thread, so the hunt shouldn't be that great for you...). 

i really see the only way that we would disagree (about your main points), is that you see men as responsible (?) for the current dynamics? but, if men are just as susceptible to institutionalized sexism, and either falling into the one breeds more of the former--how is any one sex to blame? again, i feel like people hide behind labels like "patriarchy" so they can point a finger in someone's direction, but since it occurs around the world in such a similar way (with each "side" getting fucked in the process), i'd say that we're personifying something that is biological in origin. 

and talks and speeches nay-saying men's complaints--which aren't really ever noted or spoken about (not in a serious manner, and not without the "mouthpiece" being some sex-deprived angry nerd who skews the discussion in favor of his personal shortcomings)--with the argument of "well, you shouldn't bring it up cause women have it worse", or even better, "you shouldn't bring it up because all you're doing is taking attention from women's issues", do nothing but take the attention from an issue that never gets much light to begin with... 

you could even argue that people getting on here and making light of one's problems--as if that's necessary to not have your own problems fall beneath the water--fuels this duality and allows it to continue. your brand of "fighting sexism" naturally follows sexism against men by making it that much harder to enter into the behavior we're told to have no part of. 

think about what you're saying.


----------



## Moya (May 22, 2012)

LostFavor said:


> I'm sure your intentions are good, but you're being a bit heavy-handed. For one thing, it's kind of silly to say that a certain group "doesn't need more rights because they have enough." People who want to maintain the status quo could apply that same argument to women's rights and use it in an effort to the dismantle the cause. None of us who are for equality really benefit from utilizing an argument like that.


The difference between people undermining the necessity for women's rights and me dismissing the need to focus on men's rights is that men are at the top of the hierarchy. I've made myself clear on this and I don't want repeat the argument for fear of sounding redundant, but it's not that I don't think men are at a disadvantage in several areas, it's that I think men are at a disadvantage in so many more that I don't see the purpose in making discussions of sexism about men. Men are not being oppressed or discriminated against on an institutional level by women because women hold a very small percentage of influence and power on a Western cultural, as well as global, scale. Ain't no rallying cries for smashing the matriarchy.



> I also don't think it's fair to say that women will never gain from men's issues being addressed under any circumstances. If they are truly intertwined, then they are bound to bleed into each other sooner or later, no matter which end you're approaching it from.


They are intertwined in the same way any power hierarchy or 'triangle' of privilege is intertwined. The idea that women's issues will be solved by focusing on men's issues strongly reminds me of trickle down economics; the fallacy that top-down reform is as effective as working from the bottom up.
It is inevitable that men will benefit from the dismantling of cultural misogyny. It is an assumption that women will benefit from the reform of the few issues men face for being men.



> Furthermore, you're saying "but women..." in a thread about men - that kind of interjection is clearly not all one-sided.


How is this thread about men? This thread is about misandry. It's impossible to discuss misandry without discussing misogyny. Misandry is about as much of an issue as reverse racism and heterophobia. (Read: not really an issue at all)



> Here's a question for you though, since you consider the topic of patriarchy and women's rights so important that it overrides any other way of approaching the subject: How would you suggest going about dismantling the root of the problem?


Total social reform. The restructuring of nearly every aspect of society. The abandonment of harmful gender roles, the reshaping of popular media, and the abolition of the silly "men vs women" competition that children are socialized into believing from the moment they are born.
It's clearly not something that will happen in this lifetime, particularly because most of the professional, legal, large-scale issues women face are due to the fact that misogyny has been justified since civilization emerged. However, what with all the progress that has been made for gay rights in the last decade, I don't think it's impossible.

It is immensely frustrating that we, as a species, have existed for over 200,000 years, and civilization for several thousands, yet we are not socially advanced enough to abandon our archaic views of racial, sexual, financial, and material superiority. Protofeminism began in the 12th century, and yet it took until the 19th for it to be recognized as a valid movement. The struggle women to be seen as individuals rather than a possession of men has been relevant for thousands of years.



lue said:


> I'm just going to say this and I'm done. Women are protected in EVERY matter of the law. They have control over their procreative abilities (generally)---and if anybody threatens it, oh the outrage. They are always taken seriously with rape, domestic abuse, and harassment claims, usually get custody of children, have a plethora of support systems if they are raped, abused, or harassed. Discrimination protection as well.
> 
> Men on the other hand, have no control over their procreative abilities, are less likely to be taken seriously when making a rape claim, are easy targets for false rape, false domestic abuse, and false sexual harassment claims, almost never get custody of their children, really have no support system if they are abused, raped, or harassed.


Oh, really? Women have control of their procreative abilities? Forty one states have laws placing some sort of heavy restriction on abortion, 46 allow a woman to be refused an abortion by a public facility if a professional is "religiously opposed". Women do not have control over their procreative abilities if they can be raped and impregnated, and furthermore, _denied _an abortion in that circumstance. Several states have made declarations that they intend to prohibit abortion to every extent they have the legal ability to. That is not a right, that is not control, and when you see male politicians and legislators making statements that women's bodies have the ability to "shut down" rape you can't possibly believe that the power lies with the women.
Additionally, men have the ability to go deadbeat and skip out on their families, most women don't.



> There are so many funds for breast cancer research and women's issues, not so much for men.
> 
> THESE THINGS ARE NOT MISOGYNY. If anything they would be misandry. At best they are a horrible oversight, at worst they are institutionalized sexism.


There are funds for all kinds of cancer research. Breast cancer is extremely common and awareness is not misandry. There are many funds supporting testicular cancer research and awareness as well...researching breast cancer is not a female privilege, I honestly don't know what you're on about there.
_
Institutionalized sexism is misogyny. Misandry does not exist on an institutional scale. _It is true that there are more support systems for women who are victims of abuse and assault, but I would also like to point out that this is a fairly recent development. Abuse, assault, rape, and harassment of women, additionally, are not taken nearly as seriously as you seem to think they are.




> And if you ever decide to point to the wage gap or talk about MOAR women in the workplace. Take a look at the types of jobs and education women normally go for vs. what men go for. And if there's still a gap, make sure that the men and women work the same amount of hours. Women might work less because of a single family household or they generally work less hours to take care of the kids--again this comes from no child care in the workplace--not misogyny.


"Take a look at the types of jobs and education women normally go for vs. what men go for."
"Women might work less because of a single family household or they generally work less hours to take care of the kids--again this comes from no child care in the workplace--not misogyny."

You're digging yourself deeper with every word here, friend.



> And yet somehow we are still talking about street harassment (this plays into the whole men + sexuality= predator/horny douchebag thing) and the word bossy.


Wait, are you honestly saying that pointing out street harassment is _prejudice against men_? I can't speak for you, but I can speak for myself and every other woman I have spoken to about it. Since the age of _ten years old_ I have received street harassment, catcalling, sexual objectification, and unwarranted comments from men. You think it's not a sign of patriarchy that an older man called me "heartbreaker" in a public place when I was ten years old and received no negative response from bystanders? Sure, you can argue that this is an anecdote or that he was one creepy person out of millions of men, but it's not as if that treatment from men has diminished or even lessened as years have passed. Every woman 14 or older that I have spoken to about it has received some form of street harassment in her lifetime. If men don't want to be seen as horny douchebags, maybe they should stop harassing and raping women.




lue said:


> A poor white male can escape poverty but he can't escape having a baby he doesn't want to have


Um...yes, he can. It happens all the time.



> he has no support if he has an abusive spouse, he can't escape a false rape, harassment, abuse claim, he can't escape losing his kids when he gets a divorce, so by your definition, white males can be oppressed.


That's not oppression. You are viewing these scenarios very narrowly. I'm not even going to bother justifying why this isn't oppression because I've already done it repeatedly.



> See this is the problem with the oppression game. It's not just people of color and gay/bi/pan/queer people.


The "oppression game"? It's not a "game", it's a reality, and PoC and other minorities are the ones who don't have the privilege of viewing it as a game.



> I'm good. I'm pretty sure the goofball dad and all-knowing mom is pretty prevalent. If you want to argue that the show is really about the husband that's fine (but I'd argue there are quite a few female led shows), nonetheless, he's still a goofball, sometimes even stupid husband.


I'm going to quote @Mee2 on this, who said it very well:


> When I see couples like Homer and Marge, Peter and Lois, that couple in King of Queens, and pretty much every other couple on TV, the message that I get is not that men are stupid and women are smart, it's that even the dumbest, fattest, ugliest man is deserving of an attractive, intelligent, competent woman. And he's still worth more than her. This is the extent to which femininity is devalued. Not a positive message at all.





> Women don't get raped everyday. PEOPLE get raped everyday. Yes, I think that "men always want sex" is very problematic, it's just as problematic as thinking a girl was asking for it because she had a short skirt on.


You think a stereotype about men wanting sex is as serious a problem as _blaming a woman for being raped?_
Do you know the psychological, physical, and emotional repercussions of rape? Men are called studs, Casanovas, and idolized for having high sex drives and sleeping with a large amount of women. Women are called sluts, homewreckers, and whores for emulating the same behavior that is admired in males. Women are also called sluts and whores for being rape victims. The idea that men are all horny dogs is undeniably harmful behavior, but it's not even close to being on the same scale of awfulness as blaming a woman for being a raped. Victim blaming is one of the most despicable behaviors I can imagine.



> If you think rape cases go unreported for women, when women are encouraged to come forward, are guaranteed to be taken seriously, guaranteed to have a support system, how many do you think go unreported for men? I don't know what you're talking about when you say comparing accusations to women being raped. All people can be assaulted/raped, all people deserve a support system, all people deserve to be taken seriously. Male sexual assault stigma has to do with not being taken seriously, no support system, and gender roles. AGAIN GENDER ROLES ARE NOT MISOGYNY. --> it's not about hating women, it's about acting outside of your type, or in this case something happening to you that most people incorrectly assume only happens to women.
> 
> People are getting raped because other people are assholes. Do you realize that you just completely attempted to minimize male rape victims? You say the first sentence, "yes they're all bad," but then continue to minimize. I don't think that's what you're trying to do, but it comes off that way. Male victims are being objectified just like everyone else, and a lot of times rape is about power, not oppression. No, you're right, if men tell someone they were raped they probably won't even get that far, they won't even be taken seriously. That last sentence is very women-centered. How does not taking male rape victims seriously stem from not taking women seriously? Honestly, this just seems like a way for you to confirm to yourself that the world hates women.


The world _does_ hate women. Western society is riddled with hatred of women and it is considered to be one of the most progressive societies in regards to women. Do you not see the problem with that?

Rape is universally awful, but men don't have to walk down the street at night trembling in fear for their safety, or have to worry about the men who are calling "hey sweetheart, give us a smile" from across the street and whether they're going to going to follow them home, or get taught that they have to take their own safety precautions to avoid getting raped instead of _teaching potential rapists what constitutes sexual consent_.

I hardly think I'm minimizing the struggles of male rape victims to the same degree you are minimizing the extent to which objectification of women is considered acceptable and expected.



> Tomboy can be just as bad, especially when you're an NT, like boys clothes, and like hanging with boys, especially in high school. Nonetheless, this, again, plays into gender roles (and the idea of what a man/woman is supposed to be), not misogyny. Also, women have been fighting their way out that box for a while, who has done it for men?


Being an NT has nothing to do with it, typology overall is irrelevant to this discussion. Perhaps you have not noticed, but I am an NT, and have hung out with guys and liked "guy things" my whole life despite having a very feminine presentation. I have also had male friends who are afraid to express their interests in "girly stuff" for fear of ridicule. This is not misandry.
Young girls who are tomboys, who don't fit into the idea of what a "proper" girl should be like, are considered to deviate somewhat from the norm. Their behavior is still considered acceptable. The reverse, young boys who don't fit into the idea of what a "real boy" should like, are considered unacceptable.
Once again, not misandry, but misogyny.



> Oppression of women is not ingrained in our society by definition. Are there misogynists? Yes, Are there misandrists? There will always be people who hate what's different.


Haha, ok. Feminist and pseudo-feminist movements have existed for centuries; women did not gain the right to vote in the United States until 1920, and in Great Britain until 1930. We have not revolutionized the gender structure of society since then as much as you may think we have.




> The feminism today is not aiming for egalitarianism. Anyone trying to minimize the issues of men and maintain focus on women's issues, is by definition, not an egalitarian. Anyone strictly focusing on women's issues is by definition not an egalitarian.


1
*:* a belief in human equality especially with respect to social, political, and economic affairs 

2
*:* a social philosophy advocating the removal of inequalities among people 



I see no contradiction to feminism. Egalitarianism as a principle does not state that you have to focus equally on the issues of different groups or ignore the fact that some are marginalized and some are privileged. You cannot achieve balance by giving the same amount of reform to groups that have already started out in vastly different positions.



> We have been focusing on women for years, that's why it's so unequal now.


We have been focusing on men, and continue to focus on men, for _all of history_. Certain groups have been targeting women's issues, and this movement grew in the mid-1900s. The inequality exists because people only decided women are worth paying attention to _less than 100 years ago_.

If Western society is equal, why has there never been a female US president?


----------



## Moya (May 22, 2012)

Donovan said:


> @_Moya_
> 
> you should really watch that video in the "feminists opinions on such-n-such"-thread (not the real title, but it'll easily be found--and you've already posted in that particular thread, so the hunt shouldn't be that great for you...).


I'll probably watch it eventually; to be totally honest, I don't have the patience to watch a 17 minute long video at the moment. I don't mean to dismiss your suggestion or the potential for a different viewpoint.



> i really see the only way that we would disagree (about your main points), is that you see men as responsible (?) for the current dynamics? but, if men are just as susceptible to institutionalized sexism, and either falling into the one breeds more of the former--how is any one sex to blame? again, i feel like people hide behind labels like "patriarchy" so they can point a finger in someone's direction, but since it occurs around the world in such a similar way (with each "side" getting fucked in the process), i'd say that we're personifying something that is biological in origin.


I don't think I have implied that men are just as susceptible to institutionalized sexism, only that privilege does not prevent them from experiencing disadvantages that are not directly linked to their maleness.
I do blame men for being the primary perpetrators of misogyny. I don't blame every man alive or believe them all to be sexist. 



> and talks and speeches nay-saying men's complaints--which aren't really ever noted or spoken about (not in a serious manner, and not without the "mouthpiece" being some sex-deprived angry nerd who skews the discussion in favor of his personal shortcomings)--with the argument of "well, you shouldn't bring it up cause women have it worse", or even better, "you shouldn't bring it up because all you're doing is taking attention from women's issues", do nothing but take the attention from an issue that never gets much light to begin with...
> 
> you could even argue that people getting on here and making light of one's problems--as if that's necessary to not have your own problems fall beneath the water--fuels this duality and allows it to continue. your brand of "fighting sexism" naturally follows sexism against men by making it that much harder to enter into the behavior we're told to have no part of.
> 
> think about what you're saying.


But think about the reasoning behind the mockery of men's issues. Do you expect black people to acknowledge and entertain the idea of the oppression of white people, or for queer people to be empathetic when someone is telling them how hard it is to be straight/cisgender?

Duality is perpetrated just as much by anyone who argues that men get the short end of the stick. As long as men and women are depicted as opposites and "different species" by media, duality will remain, as will cissexism/ciscentricism.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

@Moya



> I don't think I have implied that men are just as susceptible to institutionalized sexism


i know you haven't, i did. because they--and everyone else--_are_ susceptible. 



> only that privilege does not prevent them from experiencing disadvantages that are not directly linked to their maleness.


so my privilege still doesn't stop me from experiencing "bad things", but these bad things that i experience aren't related to my being male, so in the first place aren't related to my privilege. they're just "bad things" that happen. i don't understand your point here. 



> I do blame men for being the primary perpetrators of misogyny.


sorry to hear that. but i can't help but blame you--partially--for continuing "patriarchy", with views like these. not to get all corny/new-agey, but, it's a circle that turns in response to its counterpart. it is that plain and simple. 



> But think about the reasoning behind the mockery of men's issues. Do you expect black people to acknowledge and entertain the idea of the oppression of white people, or for queer people to be empathetic when someone is telling them how hard it is to be straight/cisgender?


so what explains the mockery? i still don't see what you're saying. i see a very old argument, that is--in itself--as outdated as what it's supposed to fight against. it'd be like if i told you that you have an infection, but we're not going to treat a portion of your body where the infection resides because you (personally) don't believe it's an important piece. but, that piece will harbor the infection for the time to come, and it will get worse, and this directional/societal energy will come out one way or another--regardless--and then it will be people like you who will be "responsible", because of whatever fervor you currently operate with doesn't allow you to see reality. it allows you to see popular opinion. 

and i'm not arguing for who "has the shortest stick" )), but saying that even determining that to begin with is an impossible task--especially in this day and age--and that _that_ particular argument is a flawed grounds on which to even speak about this subject.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Moya said:


> The difference between people undermining the necessity for women's rights and me dismissing the need to focus on men's rights is that men are at the top of the hierarchy. I've made myself clear on this and I don't want repeat the argument for fear of sounding redundant, but it's not that I don't think men are at a disadvantage in several areas, it's that I think men are at a disadvantage in so many more that I don't see the purpose in making discussions of sexism about men. Men are not being oppressed or discriminated against on an institutional level by women because women hold a very small percentage of influence and power on a Western cultural, as well as global, scale. Ain't no rallying cries for smashing the matriarchy.


I've had to repeat myself several times already, so one more time isn't gonna faze me: It doesn't matter whether men's disadvantages are institutionalized by a matriarchy. It doesn't matter whether they're institutionalized by a patriarchy either. It only matters that they exist. Yes, in terms of *finding solutions*, it does matter. But that's the ONLY area in which it matters.

This thread wasn't "making discussions of sexism about men." It was about an issue pertaining to *men* from the start and you're trying to make it about issues pertaining to women. Do you see what I'm saying? By insisting that it be about women is a marginalizing of men's issues in the same way that you say people marginalize women's issues.



Moya said:


> They are intertwined in the same way any power hierarchy or 'triangle' of privilege is intertwined. The idea that women's issues will be solved by focusing on men's issues strongly reminds me of trickle down economics; the fallacy that top-down reform is as effective as working from the bottom up.
> It is inevitable that men will benefit from the dismantling of cultural misogyny. It is an assumption that women will benefit from the reform of the few issues men face for being men.


I'm not talking about effectiveness though. I'm talking about "at all." 



Moya said:


> How is this thread about men? This thread is about misandry. It's impossible to discuss misandry without discussing misogyny. Misandry is about as much of an issue as reverse racism and heterophobia. (Read: not really an issue at all)


Um, because misandry is the hatred or dislike of *men*? Do I really have to point that out? I would have been happy letting the focus stay on women's perspectives about being misandrist, how they feel about the issue, their experiences, etc., if people weren't trying to marginalize the issue. Like you just attempted to do right now. Again.



Moya said:


> Total social reform. The restructuring of nearly every aspect of society. The abandonment of harmful gender roles, the reshaping of popular media, and the abolition of the silly "men vs women" competition that children are socialized into believing from the moment they are born.
> It's clearly not something that will happen in this lifetime, particularly because most of the professional, legal, large-scale issues women face are due to the fact that misogyny has been justified since civilization emerged. However, what with all the progress that has been made for gay rights in the last decade, I don't think it's impossible.
> 
> It is immensely frustrating that we, as a species, have existed for over 200,000 years, and civilization for several thousands, yet we are not socially advanced enough to abandon our archaic views of racial, sexual, financial, and material superiority. Protofeminism began in the 12th century, and yet it took until the 19th for it to be recognized as a valid movement. The struggle women to be seen as individuals rather than a possession of men has been relevant for thousands of years.


Although I identify with your frustration, how do we go about achieving such reform? I mean, shouting for equality loud enough is not going to change how some people feel about it. It's easy to think that our future selves will have a better climate to work it all out, but there's no guarantee that they will unless we give them one.


----------



## EccentricSiren (Sep 3, 2013)

I think a lot of people are actually at least somewhat unaware of their biases and prejudices, or at least think these prejudices are normal. Of course, there are always extremists who are really aware they hate a certain group (Like, for example, I'm sure most KKK members are very aware that they hate black people, they just don't necessarily think there's anything wrong with that). But with a lot of other people, it's more subtle, or more complex. Like for example, if you've never been treated well by a member of the opposite gender who was significant in your life and now don't trust anyone of that particular gender, does that really make you a misandrist/misogynist, or does it just make you a person who's had bad experiences and acts accordingly? Or if you've been told all your life that a certain group of people is bad and haven't had the chance to experience otherwise, would you be aware that your thought processes would be considered prejudice? I think that in order to be honest with oneself and say, "yes, I have this prejudice against X group of people," you'd have to think of that prejudice as bad, and most people who have prejudices are going to think they're justified. So a woman who hates men might be very open about it and say she hates men, but she's not going to say, "Yeah, I'm totally a misandrist" and a KKK member is probably going to be really vocal about his/her hatred of black people, but they're probably not going to say, "I'm a racist," since the terms "racist" and "misandrist" have negative connotations and they see their prejudices as being justified, even normal.


----------



## lue (May 3, 2014)

You refuse to see anything outside your worldview. 

1. Women can get an abortion/adoption, they have options (you might think there are problems with the options, but they are still there). Men have no say in their procreative abilities PERIOD. NO OPTION AT ALL. If he gets a woman pregnant, he's SOL. Perspective: If a man gets raped by a woman, and the woman decides to keep the baby, HE HAS NO SAY IN THE MATTER. Another perspective: it's like I'm saying slaves have no rights, and you're saying yes, but women barely have the right to vote, and they're trying to pass laws to keep women from voting. *Do you see the problem with this?* 


2. Misogyny isn't institutionalized at all. WOMEN HAVE EVERY SINGLE RIGHT MEN DO, EVERY SINGLE ONE. NAME ONE LAW MEN HAVE THAT WOMEN DON'T. And I said law, I'm not talking about feelings/emotions/culture, IM TALKING ABOUT LAW. 

3. There's no hole, check the wage gap stats. Not the ones from yesteryear, the current ones. 

4. NO I'M SAYING MEN ARE BEING LEFT BEHIND AND TREATED UNFAIRLY, and we are still talking about offensive words and being offended by someone approaching you on the street. That last sentence by the way is horrible, it's unfair and general, and representative of the kind of attitude I'm talking about. 

5. Hop off that high horse buddy. First off, i wasn't calling oppression a game. I was saying the who's more oppressed/privilege thing, gets us nowhere. 

6. YOUR RAPE CLAIM IS NOT VALID BECAUSE ALL MEN WANT SEX/MEN CAN'T BE RAPED BY WOMEN is the same as YOUR RAPE CLAIM IS NOT VALID BECAUSE YOU'RE DRESSED PROVOCATIVELY. They are dismissive. They are both psychologically, physically, and emotionally harmful. 

7. Two problems. If we're going to teach potential rapists not to rape, does this include women? They rape too. How about potential murderers? Potential thieves? Potential abusers? 2. I'm not talking about objectification, I'm talking about laws and your incorrect assumption that misogyny is institutionalized. But Fine, we'll compare the two, male rape victims vs. objectification of women. What happens when women are objectified? Is there a crime committed? No. Does she have a support system to deal with the objectification? Yes, friends, family, feminist groups, other women. Does she have positive role models to look up to instead of the objectified version? Yes, people speak out on behalf of women everyday. *What happens when men are raped? Is there a crime committed? Yes. Do they have a support system for when they're raped? No. * <--this is what you're minimizing (the bold), in order to keep a focus on objectification and women's issues which are paid attention to and have support, in the law and in society. 

Btw, I didn't put friends and family for men because rape is a bit harder to talk about, and when I say support system I'm talking about people who can relate to what the issue is. 

8. Incorrect. They can be called lesbian, subject to ridicule, especially by female peers, and be outcast just like boys who don't fit the role. I said NT because you're trying to imply that the girl version is not as bad as the male version. And in a society where females are typically F's I beg to disagree, especially in the pre-teen/teen years. But this is not the point you refuse to see anything outside of a misogyny lens. 

9. AGAIN SHOW ME A LAW THAT MEN HAVE THAT WOMEN DON'T. 

10. Now you want to use the real definitions. But, ok. 

egal·i·tar·i·an·ism
1
: a belief in human equality especially with respect to social, political, and economic affairs
2
: a social philosophy advocating the *removal of inequalities *among people


Feminism: noun
the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.
synonyms:	the women's movement, the feminist movement, women's liberation, female emancipation, women's rights; 

Advocacy of women's rights--NOT EGALITARIAN.

Their focus is not about black people, purple people, gay people, or anyone else, by definition. It is also partly based on the premise that women are not economically, socially, politically equal to men. AGAIN SHOW ME A LAW WHERE THEY'RE NOT. I'm not talking about objectification or anything else, I'm talking about laws.

Btw, I've mentioned about 2 or 3 issues where men are not equal, but you can't even see that, you barely even acknowledge it. That is not egalitarian. 

And if you notice I said the feminism TODAY. There have been many different waves of feminism. 

11. That is actually very incorrect. That president argument is a fallacy. Is it possible, that gender roles naturally grew over time due to our biological makeup? As things started to expand and our world got bigger, women started taking on different and more diverse roles? Because we were in those gender roles for so long, naturally men still make up a large percentage of the workplace (not because of patriarchy/misogyny), because that's what we did for so long. But now a female president is certainly viable. 

Final thoughts: 

1. look, I'm not saying there aren't assholes in the world. I'm saying you're searching for a boogeyman that isn't there. Women are equal under the law. There is not a law that men have that women don't. In fact I'd argue that women have more protection under the law than men do.

2. Re: Gender roles, they're seen as this evil thing now, and that's fine. But I think they come from our biological makeup, we spent years doing what works because it made sense. Those roles are no longer necessary, not only are they not necessary they don't fit some people, that doesn't mean they're evil or it's the patriarchy or misogyny (it's not). They're old roles that ensured our survival, but now are no longer needed. Yes, their are going to be people who judge women for venturing outside the box, but that's life and human nature. The point is, there is no law preventing women from doing so, in fact there are laws protecting when and if you decide to do so. There are also programs to help you do so. 

tl:dr SHOW ME WHERE WOMEN ARE NOT EQUAL UNDER THE LAW.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

everything i ate about 40 minutes ago is kicking in now. i'll be back later for this convo.


----------



## lue (May 3, 2014)

Donovan said:


> because of whatever fervor you currently operate with doesn't allow you to see reality. it allows you to see popular opinion.
> 
> and i'm not arguing for who "has the shortest stick" )), but saying that even determining that to begin with is an impossible task--especially in this day and age--and that _that_ particular argument is a flawed grounds on which to even speak about this subject.


This.


----------



## MindBomb (Jul 7, 2010)

So, yeah...women can be assholes too.

To be honest, I would argue that it is more socially acceptable to hate men; I've heard way more male-bashing among groups of women than female-bashing among men...and I'm around men more often.

By the way, how's that patriarchy working out for men lately?

Why Men Are Falling Behind in Higher Ed

New UGA research helps explain why girls do better in school | UGA Today

Now, I'm not arguing for "men's rights." I want to argue for an egalitarian society where all are free to choose their life path. I think we would get more people on board if we are inclusive of men and women in moving in this direction. And it will take all of us to achieve this...beginning with families on up.

Throwing around "patriarchy" and "misogyny" can make men defensive; so can dismissing their gripes about current gender roles. I don't think it's helpful to the overall cause. When you get into a separatist mindset, you lose your allies. Let's be strategic not ideological.


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

@Moya I think you're preaching to the choir but you won't win against those with an agenda. 

Lol @ 'women don't get raped everyday people do' women are getting raped attacked harrassed kidnapped everyday overwhelmingly by men. It's never off the news. Of course males get all these things too but you cannot deny its happening to women every day and the statistics are very high. 

It's reality.


----------



## lue (May 3, 2014)

isingthebodyelectric said:


> @Moya I think you're preaching to the choir but you won't win against those with an agenda.
> 
> Lol @ 'women don't get raped everyday people do' women are getting raped attacked harrassed kidnapped everyday overwhelmingly by men. It's never off the news. Of course males get all these things too but you cannot deny its happening to women every day and the statistics are very high.
> 
> It's reality.


No agenda, and I said that to make a point. It's not all about women, Violence against women act, abuse shelters for women. Women have support systems. Men are abused, harassed, raped, as well, they do not have support systems. You're seeing things through a gynocentric worldview.



> women are getting raped attacked harrassed kidnapped everyday overwhelmingly by men.


 Men aren't the enemy. Assholes are. 

And once again how many men do you think report these things?


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

Assholes who happen to be mostly men yeah. It's sad that men aren't reporting crimes against them; blame that on society. Women have these support groups as crimes against them are common.


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

Moya said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Alright, first off, a couple of thoughts. 

"Not existing _as a societal institution_" is in no way equivalent to "not existing, _period_". The fact that oh, at least these 10 _other people_ didn't get abused does not change one person's abuse. 

But, sure, I can accept that power in society is majority male. That's never something I've had a problem understanding--but at the same time, I also understand that the majority of males aren't receiving anywhere near the full benefits of this power, if they're receiving any at all. Many males, for this "power" they possess, only seem to get longer prison sentences for it.

And then, of course, there are the rape statistics. These do actually seem to be pretty damning, I'll admit, but rape isn't the only form of violence that exists. Now, these contradicting statistics have some flaws in them, to be certain--namely, that they surveyed only university students. But it's important to note that for all that general culture does to women, it's far from everything when looking at the actual situations of people. 

Lastly, though, your point about all the negative stereotypes of men being rooted in the negative stereotypes about women has some serious holes in it. In the examples you gave, I could find a good many alternate explanations--in the case of "men can't be raped", there's certainly some element of "women are weaker", going on, but what about "women are more compassionate" and even "women are predominantly victims of abuse"? Those would both _obviously_ further the idea of men as abusers, and both have been perpetrated by (politically active) feminists in the past.

Also, privilege is at least _in part_ a money thing, given that it manifests itself in the pay gap. But...


----------



## lue (May 3, 2014)

isingthebodyelectric said:


> Assholes who happen to be mostly men yeah. It's sad that men aren't reporting crimes against them; blame that on society. Women have these support groups as crimes against them are common.


False. 
@Moya 

Short quick read:Male rape in America: A new study reveals that men are sexually assaulted almost as often as women.

Please keep in mind that prison rapes aren't even in general statistics, and the FBI just recently (2012) updated their definition of rape to include men.


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

Who's raping them? Most likely men. But in general world over women are getting raped and attacked more. It's all grim though.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

@Moya
_institutionalized oppression_ of men and _hatred/discrimination_ against men are not the same thing. by that logic, abuse would only be relevant and worthy of attention if one is minority or a member of a group not in power. any other abuse would be denied to occur on any scale (or worse, _justified_ by the abuser's position on the ever-exaggerated socio-political hierarchy). I refuse to believe such a logically fallacious notion. 



> You can argue that society believes men can't be raped by women, but you're overlooking how 9 out of 10 rape victims are female as well as the "men can't be raped" ideology having its foundation in the belief that a woman cannot overpower a man


you think this because you view women's rights as a "men vs women" issue. the truth is that your opinion here is very much influenced by black and white fallacy and that it is possible to be aware of both the prevalence of female rape AND the notion that society believes you cannot rape a man. as for the belief that "a woman cannot overpower a man"...no one believes that. that's why movies/TV shows like Xena Warrior Princess, Kill Bill, Underworld etc have been so popular. oh, and don't forget the Hunger Games of Game of Thrones



> The point I'm trying to make is that, although inequality exists on both sides, the basis of it lies in the oppression, subjugation, and hatred of women.


...oh fucking please. so the fact that it's socially acceptable to hit men because they obviously "had it coming to them" is rooted in hatred of _women_? that's ridiculous. newsflash: *people abuse people they hate, not people they don't*. 



> My attempt to pull the subject back to women is entirely intentional, because we really don't need to focus on the "suffering of men" to achieve equality. Men don't need any more rights, they have enough as is. True egalitarianism will only be achieved by completely deconstructing the patriarchy; if every time someone brings up women's issues there's someone waiting at bay to interject "but men...", it only distracts people from the reality of how our gender hierarchy is essentially shitting exclusively on women (and gender minorities like non-binary individuals).


as I've already said, this thread is about _hatred_ and _mistreatment_, not rights. 

I don't even know where to begin with this. your post is an example of everything that is wrong with the current state of the feminist movement
- perpetually viewing things as one sided because of _willful ignorance_: refusal to look at data from the other side. 
- turning things into men vs women and refusing to listen to the former
- believing what is convenient, rather than what makes sense (your assertion that all discrimination against men is rooted hatred of women is a good example of this)
- Single Cause Fallacy

now take your self righteous dribble somewhere where it's actually on topic.


----------



## lue (May 3, 2014)

isingthebodyelectric said:


> Who's raping them? Most likely men. But in general world over women are getting raped and attacked more. It's all grim though.


1. "This definition includes victims who were forced to penetrate someone else with their own body parts, either by physical force or coercion, or when the victim was drunk or high or otherwise unable to consent. When those cases were taken into account, the rates of nonconsensual sexual contact basically equalized, with 1.270 million women and 1.267 million men claiming to be victims of sexual violence."

2. "A recent analysis of BJS data, for example, turned up that 46 percent of male victims reported a female perpetrator."

3. "Women were more likely to be abused by fellow female inmates, and men by guards, and many of those guards were female. For example, of juveniles reporting staff sexual misconduct, 89 percent were boys reporting abuse by a female staff member."

How did you come to your conclusion from reading that^

Again, I say anyone can be an asshole. 

Now think about those numbers, and then add the fact that there's NO SUPPORT SYSTEM FOR THESE 1.267 MILLION MEN. THERE'S NO HELP, NO SHELTER. MATTER OF FACT YOUR CLAIM WASN'T EVEN CONSIDERED VALID BY THE FBI UNTIL TWO YEARS AGO. 

AND NO ONE IS UPSET. Not only are they not upset, but the trauma is minimized and ignored.


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

Stop being rude @Swordsman of Mana. At this point you're not even reading her replies, just looking for an excuse to hate feminists. Why should she go someplace else because you don't like what she's saying?


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

isingthebodyelectric said:


> Stop being rude @Swordsman of Mana.


such ignorance is deserving of nothing less. 



> At this point you're not even reading her replies, just looking for an excuse to hate feminists.


no, I'm not. I'm arguing that it's absolutely ridiculous to argue that discrimination is a one sided issue.



> Why should she go someplace else because you don't like what she's saying?


she should go someplace else because she is off topic and trying to turn the topic completely back to _women's_ rights (being a bit off topic is fine. if it wasn't, my Ne dom ass should get kicked off of every thread ever, but deliberately trying to change the topic to something completely different is not). there are already plenty of threads where she is welcome to discuss such topics on


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

isingthebodyelectric said:


> @_Moya_ I think you're preaching to the choir but you won't win against those with an agenda.


That's cause no one is going to win anything. Or lose, for that matter. 


Wish people would be more concerned with the underlying ideals than winning and losing.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

isingthebodyelectric said:


> Who's raping them? Most likely men. But in general world over women are getting raped and attacked more. It's all grim though.


crimes against black people are usually perpetrated by other black people. do we ignore these crimes because of this. that would be racist.



> *Assholes who happen to be mostly men yeah.* It's sad that men aren't reporting crimes against them; blame that on society. Women have these support groups as crimes against them are common.


I wouldn't say that, more like men and women tend to be assholes in different ways.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> I wouldn't say that, more like men and women tend to be assholes in different ways.


Yeah, I see the appeal of this idea but unfortunately it just doesn't seem to reflect reality. The depressing truth is that men are more abusive than women on (almost?) every scale. The idea that women are more emotionally abusive is false. Men are, and women aren't even close.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Mee2 said:


> Yeah, I see the appeal of this idea but unfortunately it just doesn't seem to reflect reality. The depressing truth is that men are more abusive than women on (almost?) every scale. *The idea that women are more emotionally abusive is false.* Men are, and women aren't even close.


I'm gonna have to disagree here. women are far more likely to be emotionally manipulative than men. many are very good at eliciting feelings of guilt and playing with one's natural protective instincts, pretending to be cute and innocent when they are in fact conniving, vicious and entitled.

PS: not that there aren't men who are manipulative too, especially gay men. anyone who has ever slept with a twink knows what I'm talking about :dry:


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> I'm gonna have to disagree here. women are far more likely to be emotionally manipulative than men (and better at it).


You're welcome to be wrong if you wish - there's plenty of bad research out there to back your position up. I was expecting you to link me to some of it, actually. How disappointing.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

Mee2 said:


> You're welcome to be wrong if you wish - there's plenty of bad research out there to back your position up. I was expecting you to link me to some of it, actually. How disappointing.


You know smugness and condescendingly placed adjectives aren't arguments?




Swordsman of Mana said:


> anyone who has ever slept with a twink knows what I'm talking about :dry:


You mean the twinks are manipulative? Do they take this powerful female role from being so attractive to gay men? I thought about how good that would feel when I was younger.


----------



## Kazoo The Kid (May 26, 2013)

I feel like all these threads are just the same 10 people trapped in an eternal argument.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> You know smugness and condescendingly placed adjectives aren't arguments?


Whoa, really!? Gosh, is there anything else that I've been doing wrong?


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

Mee2 said:


> Whoa, really!? Gosh, is there anything else that I've been doing wrong?


Not from what I've seen.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> I'm gonna have to disagree here. women are far more likely to be emotionally manipulative than men. many are very good at eliciting feelings of guilt and playing with one's natural protective instincts, pretending to be cute and innocent when they are in fact conniving, vicious and entitled.
> 
> PS: not that there aren't men who are manipulative too, especially gay men. anyone who has ever slept with a twink knows what I'm talking about :dry:


I call Bullshit. Men are insanely manipulative and logically so. They'll logically manipulate a woman's emotions all the time to get what they want. I think both sexes can be seriously bad. I think they use methods that are natural to them but by no means is one sex more manipulative than another.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Kazoo said:


> I feel like all these threads are just the same 10 people trapped in an eternal argument.


Yeah. I agree. The point w/ the original thread was not to battle this angle. It was about awareness of dating guys (or girls) who habitually hurt people they love because they're "haters" unknowingly. Or at least that was my theory.


----------



## Moya (May 22, 2012)

Donovan said:


> i know you haven't, i did. because they--and everyone else--_are_ susceptible.


Seems we _are _on the same page here after all.



> so my privilege still doesn't stop me from experiencing "bad things", but these bad things that i experience aren't related to my being male, so in the first place aren't related to my privilege. they're just "bad things" that happen. i don't understand your point here.


Basically? Everyone is at a disadvantage in one sense or another. The straightest, whitest, richest man in the world still has to deal with, as you put it, "bad things". My point is that men are not at a distinct disadvantage because they're male and therefore it's inessential to talk about it as if it's a case of raging misandry when it's not. Men's problems deserve attention, but not from the perspective of "this is misandry and we need to make things equal to men because they aren't treated fair in society".



> sorry to hear that. but i can't help but blame you--partially--for continuing "patriarchy", with views like these. not to get all corny/new-agey, but, it's a circle that turns in response to its counterpart. it is that plain and simple.


Comparing it to a circle implies equality. A circle is a continuous line and any two points on that line are equidistant from the center. If the center of the circle represents equality in the cultural, social, and political sense, the insinuation is that men and women have level disadvantages and have the same amount of prejudice to conquer before they achieve equality.
I would imagine it more as an ellipse with women at the vertices and men at the co-vertices, if you catch my drift. As in they both have to trek across the metaphorical Cartesian plane, but women have a considerably longer way to go.
...tenth grade level algebra allegories, anyone? Eh? No? Alright.



> so what explains the mockery? i still don't see what you're saying. i see a very old argument, that is--in itself--as outdated as what it's supposed to fight against. it'd be like if i told you that you have an infection, but we're not going to treat a portion of your body where the infection resides because you (personally) don't believe it's an important piece. but, that piece will harbor the infection for the time to come, and it will get worse, and this directional/societal energy will come out one way or another--regardless--and then it will be people like you who will be "responsible", because of whatever fervor you currently operate with doesn't allow you to see reality. it allows you to see popular opinion.


You are functioning on the assumption that the "infection" is, firstly, equally distributed all over the body, that all parts of the body contain the same bacteria, and that leaving it untreated will cause it to fester and spread. If you suffer from a certain infection that can be found in any given area of the body, but one area of the body has more concentrated harmful bacteria than another, it is only logical that you would treat that area of the body first rather than using the same treatment on all areas when different areas require different circumstantial considerations.



LostFavor said:


> I've had to repeat myself several times already, so one more time isn't gonna faze me: It doesn't matter whether men's disadvantages are institutionalized by a matriarchy. It doesn't matter whether they're institutionalized by a patriarchy either. It only matters that they exist. Yes, in terms of *finding solutions*, it does matter. But that's the ONLY area in which it matters.


Then why bother calling it misandry in the first place? Using misandry as a rebuttal for the prevalence of misogyny is pointless. No one is denying that men are disadvantaged in a few key circumstances, like custody and conscription (despite the fact that this is defunct in the United States). The initial controversy in this thread was the use of the term "misandry", as well as the attempt to place it on the same level as misogyny, not the denial to acknowledge the existence of men's disadvantages.



> This thread wasn't "making discussions of sexism about men." It was about an issue pertaining to *men* from the start and you're trying to make it about issues pertaining to women. Do you see what I'm saying? By insisting that it be about women is a marginalizing of men's issues in the same way that you say people marginalize women's issues.


It was clearly provoking a response as misandry is a very controversial concept _and _it was a direct response (with the title almost verbatim, genders reversed) to the board about misogyny. The subject of this board is "misandrist women" and therefore is clearly going to end up tied to a discussion of feminism.



> Um, because misandry is the hatred or dislike of *men*? Do I really have to point that out? I would have been happy letting the focus stay on women's perspectives about being misandrist, how they feel about the issue, their experiences, etc., if people weren't trying to marginalize the issue. Like you just attempted to do right now. Again.





> Misandry is generally defined as a hatred of men, while misogyny is the hatred of women. Misandry is often used synonymously with the term “reverse-sexism”. However, misandry as praxis is not real. For misandry to actually be a real belief system with real consequences, it would need to be an institutionalized practice. There would have to be a centuries-old system in place in which men are treated as inferior to women, by women, in _every_ aspect of their existence. And there is no human society in which that is true.
> _Sexism = prejudice + power_
> For misandry to be a legitimate threat to men, there would have to be a consistent pattern of discrimination against men BY women. If misandry were real, men would be suffering from lower pay for equal work, disproportionate objectification, dehumanization, and lack of representation in the media, discriminatory reproductive laws, being regularly told how to modify behavior in order to not be victimized by criminals, and being blamed and shamed after falling victim to a serious sex crime. _And all those things would need to be enforced by women._


source

Do you see how frustrating it is to have your issues marginalized? Imagine that on a global scale and you have some perspective of what it is like to be a woman.



> Although I identify with your frustration, how do we go about achieving such reform? I mean, shouting for equality loud enough is not going to change how some people feel about it. It's easy to think that our future selves will have a better climate to work it all out, but there's no guarantee that they will unless we give them one.


I agree. Shouting for equality is the first step, the rest of the steps will be gradual, such as loosening laws on restrictions of abortions, electing more female officials in public office, revising the curriculum for high school sex ed classes, et cetera. It is a process, and it will be for a long time, until equality is achieved. History is built on a multitude of factors, each one lending itself towards the turning of cultural tides and the many components involved in cause-effect relationships, so baby steps are better than no steps at all.



lue said:


> You refuse to see anything outside your worldview.
> 
> 1. Women can get an abortion/adoption, they have options (you might think there are problems with the options, but they are still there). Men have no say in their procreative abilities PERIOD. NO OPTION AT ALL. If he gets a woman pregnant, he's SOL. Perspective: If a man gets raped by a woman, and the woman decides to keep the baby, HE HAS NO SAY IN THE MATTER. Another perspective: it's like I'm saying slaves have no rights, and you're saying yes, but women barely have the right to vote, and they're trying to pass laws to keep women from voting. *Do you see the problem with this?*


Of course I see the problem with laws of male responsibility for children they don't want to have. By no means am I condoning unfair treatment of men, but to say men should have the right to terminate a woman's pregnancy strips women of the rights to their own bodies. I do agree that in the case of rape, a man should not have to bear responsibility for a woman getting pregnant, as well as women sabotaging birth control, but how do you translate that into legal regulations?
My point still stands that male disadvantages will only be eradicated alongside the dismantling of societal anti-woman sentiments. I don't see why you bother arguing that men are the _truly _oppressed ones, or women are viewed as equals in society, when that is blatantly false.
Your comparison of men to slaves is extremely fallacious. Men are not viewed similarly to, treated like, or considered to be on the same level as slaves. Slaves have no rights, men have a _shit ton_.




> 2. Misogyny isn't institutionalized at all. WOMEN HAVE EVERY SINGLE RIGHT MEN DO, EVERY SINGLE ONE. NAME ONE LAW MEN HAVE THAT WOMEN DON'T. And I said law, I'm not talking about feelings/emotions/culture, IM TALKING ABOUT LAW.


Why do you assume that law is the deciding factor in status? If feelings, emotions, and culture are what define a person's treatment on an everyday basis and are, additionally, major factors that decide what laws are made, it seems incredibly silly to dismiss them. Equality under the law is not equality in a holistic sense.
(As a sidenote, I have already made my case about anti-abortion regulations.)



> 4. NO I'M SAYING MEN ARE BEING LEFT BEHIND AND TREATED UNFAIRLY, and we are still talking about offensive words and being offended by someone approaching you on the street. That last sentence by the way is horrible, it's unfair and general, and representative of the kind of attitude I'm talking about.


Have you never faced street harassment in your life? If you haven't, I am envious. I know many women who have faced it much more harshly than I; women who are raped, assaulted, beaten, and followed home. If street harassment stopped at wolf whistles and name calling, perhaps it would not be a major representation of sex discrimination. However, in a lot of cases, it doesn't stop there, and it can be life threatening in some circumstances.



> 7. Two problems. If we're going to teach potential rapists not to rape, does this include women? They rape too. How about potential murderers? Potential thieves? Potential abusers?


Yes.



> 2. I'm not talking about objectification, I'm talking about laws and your incorrect assumption that misogyny is institutionalized. But Fine, we'll compare the two, male rape victims vs. objectification of women. What happens when women are objectified? Is there a crime committed? No. Does she have a support system to deal with the objectification? Yes, friends, family, feminist groups, other women. Does she have positive role models to look up to instead of the objectified version? Yes, people speak out on behalf of women everyday. *What happens when men are raped? Is there a crime committed? Yes. Do they have a support system for when they're raped? No. * <--this is what you're minimizing (the bold), in order to keep a focus on objectification and women's issues which are paid attention to and have support, in the law and in society.


What happens when women are objectified?
Is there a crime committed? Often. The objectification of women makes sexual assault more commonplace and it makes unwarranted comments about a woman's appearance, body, or sexuality in an inappropriate setting less offensive to most people. Remember, sexual harassment is a crime, too.

Does she have a support system to deal with the objectification?
Well, gee, it really depends. You can't assume that everyone she tells about it will be accepting and supportive. Many women will turn to their friends and family for comfort only to be told that "maybe you shouldn't have worn that skirt - I mean, clearly you wanted male attention". I would know, it's happened to me. I don't know where you live, but there isn't a "feminist organization" on every corner that I can vent my troubles to. So no, a support system is not guaranteed.

Does she have positive role models to look up to instead of the objectified version?
I don't know what you mean. Women who are frequently objectified are not positive role models too?

You are clearly expressing the opinion that the rape of men is somehow more horrendous, heinous, and despicable than the rape of women, which seems clearly hypocritical as you are attempting to call me out on my "minimization" of the trauma male rape victims face.



> 10. Now you want to use the real definitions. But, ok.
> 
> egal·i·tar·i·an·ism
> 1
> ...


Are we looking at the same definitions here?

There is nothing contradictory about "a belief in human equality especially with respect to social, political, and economic affairs" and "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men." Feminism will only be necessary as long as misogyny is normalized. Feminism is, in its undistorted sense, the advocacy of gender egalitarianism. Egalitarianism encompasses gender, sex, race, sexual orientation, class, etc. equality. It is possible to identify as both.



> Their focus is not about black people, purple people, gay people, or anyone else, by definition. It is also partly based on the premise that women are not economically, socially, politically equal to men. AGAIN SHOW ME A LAW WHERE THEY'RE NOT. I'm not talking about objectification or anything else, I'm talking about laws.


Feminists target gender inequalities so that women will be viewed as men's equals. That does not mean they are selfish, greedy, or don't support the causes of other minorities. In fact, most feminists I have encountered are just as vehement about equality in all the other senses you are referring to.



> Btw, I've mentioned about 2 or 3 issues where men are not equal, but you can't even see that, you barely even acknowledge it. That is not egalitarian.


Right, I haven't acknowledged that men aren't equal in certain areas. Not at all.



> 11. That is actually very incorrect. That president argument is a fallacy. Is it possible, that gender roles naturally grew over time due to our biological makeup? As things started to expand and our world got bigger, women started taking on different and more diverse roles? Because we were in those gender roles for so long, naturally men still make up a large percentage of the workplace (not because of patriarchy/misogyny), because that's what we did for so long. But now a female president is certainly viable.


It's been centuries since the presidency began. There has been plenty of time for a woman to hold presidency, yet one never has. Men and women are not as biologially different as you think.




Swordsman of Mana said:


> @_Moya_
> _institutionalized oppression_ of men and _hatred/discrimination_ against men are not the same thing. by that logic, abuse would only be *relevant and worthy of attention* if one is minority or a member of a group not in power. any other abuse would be denied to occur on any scale (or worse, _justified_ by the abuser's position on the ever-exaggerated socio-political hierarchy). I refuse to believe such a logically fallacious notion.


Not what I'm getting at.



> you think this because you view women's rights as a "men vs women" issue. the truth is that your opinion here is very much influenced by black and white fallacy and that it is possible to be aware of both the prevalence of female rape AND the notion that society believes you cannot rape a man. as for the belief that "a woman cannot overpower a man"...no one believes that. that's why movies/TV shows like Xena Warrior Princess, Kill Bill, Underworld etc have been so popular. oh, and don't forget the Hunger Games of Game of Thrones


Is there any choice but to dichotomize it when the "differences" between the sexes are socialized into a child as soon as they enter this world, and their parents take them home in their brand new pink or blue onesies? Furthermore, if no one believed that women could not overpower men, why do so many men start white knighting and preaching about how disgusting it is to hit a woman? Why do boys still taunt each other with, "You hit like a girl"? Why are people opposed to women getting involved in combat, whether militarily or otherwise?



> ...oh fucking please. so the fact that it's socially acceptable to hit men because they obviously "had it coming to them" is rooted in hatred of _women_? that's ridiculous. newsflash: *people abuse people they hate, not people they don't*.


Since when is it socially acceptable to hit men? The only potentially "socially acceptable" form of female on male violence is a slap in the face, and even that is increasingly more and more taboo.

as I've already said, this thread is about _hatred_ and _mistreatment_, not rights. 



> I don't even know where to begin with this. your post is an example of everything that is wrong with the current state of the feminist movement
> - perpetually viewing things as one sided because of _willful ignorance_: refusal to look at data from the other side.
> - turning things into men vs women and refusing to listen to the former
> - believing what is convenient, rather than what makes sense (your assertion that all discrimination against men is rooted hatred of women is a good example of this)
> - Single Cause Fallacy


What you don't seem to realize is that I do see the situation from multiple perspectives, I just disagree with them and I've given multiple reasons as to _why_. If you want to accuse me of intolerance, at least acknowledge that it goes both ways.



> now take your self righteous dribble somewhere where it's actually on topic.


While we're on the subject of logical fallacies..


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Donovan said:


> could you point out what you consider misogyny?


I have yet to consider anything I've seen here to be misogyny. Making a misogynistic statement would be quite daring when it's a recognized problem. Any statement that states "women are (negative adjective), I (negative verb) women or other term that devalues women. This is why I ask, how much misogyny is here compared to there, after all I seen little that fits my standard. My standard for misandry is the same which is fair. But as video examples in the thread pointed out, you can say anything you want about men (or do whatever you want, beat one etc,) without incurring any significant social retribution. I wonder how it would be different if someone went over to the misogyny thread and said "misogyny is certainly a thing, but it's really not a big issue and we should focus on a bigger issue" that is what I remember so many saying about misandry on this thread. I don't consider the previous statement to be misogynistic at all, unless someone wants to define misogyny as a disregard toward female problems. And of course the disregard for male problems which I think many people interpret as misandry on this thread. I think it is clear that a disregard for male issues is more prominent than a disregard for female issues and a disregard for gender issues seems to be interpreted as misogyny or misandry on these threads.


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

Mee2 said:


> You're right. The fact that women have it worse isn't the point (though, trust me, they do). The point is that there are structures within our society that encourage the abuse of women, and none that encourage the abuse of men. The fact that women have it worse is just evidence of it (or, evidence of how harmful it is).
> 
> I have no doubt that women occasionally abuse men. I probably think it's rarer than you do, but that's beside the point. The point is that when a woman abuses a man, she is abusing him despite his maleness, not because of it. In this situation, his gender is irrelevant - it's not so much a woman abusing a man as much as it's a just person abusing another person. There is absolutely no need to have a gendered discussion about the abuse of men, and any attempt to do so draws our attention away from the structures that promote the abuse of women. This is because the discussion implies a different model of abuse; perhaps one in which there are some systems that promote abuse of women and some that promote the abuse of men, or perhaps one in which abuse (of women, as well as men) isn't gendered at all. Both of these models are wrong and are therefore severely limited in their usefulness when it comes to solving these problems.
> 
> You're also right about statistics often being stupid. I agree wholeheartedly. However, most of them show that women have it worse anyway, so you won't do yourself any harm by having a look at a few. Here is a pretty good one for you.


See, I'm actually very dubious of the assertion that our society promotes the abuse of women. How exactly? Wife-beaters and rapists are pretty much the most despised people in our ranks, and just as much of that hate (if not more) comes from men as from women. Women, on the other hand, generally receive much less scorn for hitting or abusing men, and occasionally even are encouraged to do so. I mean, just looking over this forum, women here have been able to identify as ministrists with pretty much no backlash, whereas if I were to adopt a redpill philosophy and drop some sexism against women, I'd certainly get chased off the internet by women and men alike. Believe me, I'm not arguing that women don't have some very legitimate issues in our society, but the assertion that they're way less valued and that abuse against them is encouraged seems absurd to me.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

Yomiel said:


> See, I'm actually very dubious of the assertion that our society promotes the abuse of women. How exactly? Wife-beaters and rapists are pretty much the most despised people in our ranks, and just as much of that hate (if not more) comes from men as from women. Women, on the other hand, generally receive much less scorn for hitting or abusing men, and occasionally even are encouraged to do so. I mean, just looking over this forum, women here have been able to identify as ministrists with pretty much no backlash, whereas if I were to adopt a redpill philosophy and drop some sexism against women, I'd certainly get chased off the internet by women and men alike. Believe me, I'm not arguing that women don't have some very legitimate issues in our society, but the assertion that they're way less valued and that abuse against them is encouraged seems absurd to me.


To suggest that our society promotes abuse against women is absurd, especially when comparatively analyzed with men. Heck a feminist poster just claimed that men *can't* be abused, and if they are, then it is because they are an individual, not a man. Complete rubbish.

As someone who has received *systematic oppression from women in power*, I can attest that yes, misandry most certainly does exist.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

LostFavor said:


> No disagreement from me. Incidentally, although it doesn't change my advocacy for equal rights, discussions on women's rights sometimes devolves into hate against men, so I think there's a similarity there that causes people from both ends (who are, in reality, in complete agreement) to react against a perceived notion of aggression that isn't actually present among those who are truly fighting for feminist ideals.
> 
> Extremists tend to scream the loudest, unfortunately.


Oh, totally. I see the "hate the privileged" mentality a lot among people who call themselves feminists, and I cut it down whenever I can. It promotes division, and keeps the focus away from issues. It is a mentality that impedes progress since it devolves into theatrics rather than true activism.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Torai said:


> Oh, totally. I see the "hate the privileged" mentality a lot among people who call themselves feminists, and I cut it down whenever I can. It promotes division, and keeps the focus away from issues. It is a mentality that impedes progress since it devolves into *a holier than thou circle jerk/"my group has it worse than your group" mentality*


fixed


----------



## laura palmer (Feb 10, 2014)

not all men menace women, but all women have been menaced by men.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Yomiel said:


> See, I'm actually very dubious of the assertion that our society promotes the abuse of women. How exactly? Wife-beaters and rapists are pretty much the most despised people in our ranks, and just as much of that hate (if not more) comes from men as from women. Women, on the other hand, generally receive much less scorn for hitting or abusing men, and occasionally even are encouraged to do so. I mean, just looking over this forum, women here have been able to identify as ministrists with pretty much no backlash, whereas if I were to adopt a redpill philosophy and drop some sexism against women, I'd certainly get chased off the internet by women and men alike. Believe me, I'm not arguing that women don't have some very legitimate issues in our society, but the assertion that they're way less valued and that abuse against them is encouraged seems absurd to me.


If you don't think that there's any system promoting the abuse of women, then you're left to explain the widespread abuse of women using weird essentialist arguments like, "Men are just naturally more abusive than women." Whether or not that's true, I don't think it's even close to the most significant factor. 

Society's perception of men who abuse women is somewhat complicated. It's true that some individuals and communities detest them and I'd certainly acknowledge it as a mainstream opinion, but it's not the only one. Regardless, I don't think that it's particularly helpful. It encourages us to see these men as nothing more than defective individuals, when the real problem is these patriarchal systems that encourage the abuse of women. I actually have sympathy for them, honestly. They grow up in a world that promotes the abuse of women, then when they actually do it, the same society that turned them into abusers turns its back on them and pretends that it's in no way responsible. It's a reality that I find quite sad. Don't get me wrong, these men are guilty and they must be removed from society, but we really have to stop pretending that they're solely responsible. They're not.

Anyway, much of society is actually sympathetic towards these men. It's not uncommon to meet people who will blindly assume that men who abuse have probably been abused by their wife/girlfriend in other (i.e. non-physical) ways, and that the man's abuse was just in response to it. So these men are seen more as victims. To understand just how untrue this is, all you have to do is read some of the stories from battered women. It's frightening just how little a women can do wrong to be abused so much. This perspective is predictably very common among the men's rights crowd, but one can find it outside that community as well (people are just a little more hesitant to admit to it). In fact, this little debate started in response to someone in this very thread expressing something close to this opinion. Of course, when you consider the kind of pain these men must be in to be able to subject another human being to such horrible treatment, it certainly makes sense to consider them victims. In those moments when they were abusing, they were most certainly suffering. But the suggestion that their wives/girlfriends are responsible for it is insulting. They almost never are.

Point is, I would consider both of these perspective mainstream, but I actually don't agree with either of them.


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

Mee2 said:


> If you don't think that there's any system promoting the abuse of women, then you're left to explain the widespread abuse of women using weird essentialist arguments like, "Men are just naturally more abusive than women." Whether or not that's true, I don't think it's even close to the most significant factor.
> 
> Society's perception of men who abuse women is somewhat complicated. It's true that some individuals and communities detest them and I'd certainly acknowledge it as a mainstream opinion, but it's not the only one. Regardless, I don't think that it's particularly helpful. It encourages us to see these men as nothing more than defective individuals, when the real problem is these patriarchal systems that encourage the abuse of women. I actually have sympathy for them, honestly. They grow up in a world that promotes the abuse of women, then when they actually do it, the same society that turned them into abusers turns its back on them and pretends that it's in no way responsible. It's a reality that I find quite sad. Don't get me wrong, these men are guilty and they must be removed from society, but we really have to stop pretending that they're solely responsible. They're not.
> 
> ...


So, men really aren't inherently more abusive/violent but rather some have been conditioned by society to be abusive? I think there may well be a grain of truth to that (it's not how I interpreted your first post). That said, can you pinpoint a cause? If you insist it's patriarchy then I think you need to define more clearly what that means.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Mee2 said:


> If you don't think that there's any system promoting the abuse of women, then you're left to explain the widespread abuse of women using weird essentialist arguments like, "Men are just naturally more abusive than women." Whether or not that's true, I don't think it's even close to the most significant factor.


Doesn't have to be one or the other though. For one thing, the premise relies on it being factually true that women are significantly more "abused" (I guess we're just using this as a blanket word to mean "ill-treated" or something) as a whole, in all age groups and all situations (which is dangerously reductionist to begin with).

Then there's the fact that even if the premise is true (albeit reductionist) it doesn't require the "promoting" of abuse - it only requires the _enabling_ of abuse. As in, it only requires circumstances that enable these abuses to happen. In terms of wife-beaters, for example, what would the common cause actually be? Surely it can't be "patriarchy" because that would imply that the majority of men are going to commit domestic violence. 

Likely, it's a complicated combination of things: Men who already have violent tendencies (and may even have something against women because of abusive/neglectful parents) getting into relationships with women who are unsure of themselves, were raised to give people endless second chances, don't have a strong support group of friends/family, may even have a history of being abused.

Mind you, I don't mean to portray domestic violence in a callous or all-encompassing way. I'm sure I'm only scratching the surface of these situations and may be grossly off in some of my armchair psychology. The point is that life is complex and answers don't come easily. Human beings are complex and psychology barely knows what it's talking about half the time.

To assume that a patriarchy is the one-size-fits-all core of these issues robs us of being able to shed light on the complexity of these situations and assess them on a case-by-case basis. It yanks the focus securely away from nuance and strictly into the realm of black and white thinking.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

Zibziby said:


> not all men menace women, but all women have been menaced by men.


isn't there a near equal number of each?

if that's the case, then there's a lot of men who seek out many, many women around the world... 

and if the statement is true, and there is an equal number... then it's likely the reverse follows?


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

Donovan said:


> isn't there a near equal number of each?
> 
> if that's the case, then there's a lot of men who seek out many, many women around the world...
> 
> and if the statement is true, and there is an equal number... then it's likely the reverse follows?


Lol, apparently there are a few guys who are very menacing...


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

LostFavor said:


> Doesn't have to be one or the other though. For one thing, the premise relies on it being factually true that women are significantly more "abused" (I guess we're just using this as a blanket word to mean "ill-treated" or something) as a whole, in all age groups and all situations (which is dangerously reductionist to begin with).
> 
> Then there's the fact that even if the premise is true (albeit reductionist) it doesn't require the "promoting" of abuse - it only requires the _enabling_ of abuse. As in, it only requires circumstances that enable these abuses to happen. In terms of wife-beaters, for example, what would the common cause actually be? Surely it can't be "patriarchy" because that would imply that the majority of men are going to commit domestic violence.
> 
> ...



I don't think that there is any promoting of abuse. There is pretty much the opposite going on. You look at mainstream media where a huge amount of kick arse women role models beating the shit out of men (there is a theory that gives account of the rise in women perps, usually against women well teens actually). You have the "Real Men" worldwide campaign and also local media (here anyway) campaigns against domestic violence. You have laws against and protocols by police put in place to say that if an assault has taken place it isn't just up to the victims to press charges, the police will (as so many charges are dropped by the victims because of fear of more retribution or the cycle of abuse has entered a more buy back stage). 

Women NSW - 1.3 Domestic Violence homicide*

It is more an underlying attitudinal problem that is pervasive.

If you have 1 in 6 reports (that doesn't reflect actual rapes as not everyone reports) and 1 woman in Australia dying each week from abuse in Aus then there is an issue and a pervasive one. You have waves of ideas on how women should avoid being raped then you have more waves of ideas on how women should leave or avoid abusive relationships. These things can be interpreted as going both ways too. If you're a man look out for red flags in a relationship too but what it really does come down to is the attitude that someone is lesser than you and it goes from minority to gender to ethnicity to everything. It's a pervasive egocentrism that somehow the victim is lesser and that they somehow deserve what they got. 

With all the spin doctoring going on and the blame game occurring do we really think it would be a good thing to have genders equally copping abuse? If numbers reflect that there is a gender balance of people being murdered by their spouse or raped, would that be a good thing? Definitely not. Until they actually do then of course it would be an issue for women to keep pointing out but also that men take into account and for everyone to try to do something about it by subjecting themselves to self analysis on how it could be better (without pointing fingers at each other).


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Yomiel said:


> So, men really aren't inherently more abusive/violent but rather some have been conditioned by society to be abusive? I think there may well be a grain of truth to that (it's not how I interpreted your first post). That said, can you pinpoint a cause? If you insist it's patriarchy then I think you need to define more clearly what that means.


Well, men might be inherently more abusive/violent than women - I'm open to that possibility - but if they are, it's not to the extent that it explains the widespread abuse of women. So I consider it to be mostly irrelevant. I think you interpreted me correctly, but just to make sure.

As for where it comes from, I think at the very heart of it is the idealisation of masculinity and the devaluing of femininity. Some of the most basic and obvious evidence of this is the gendered insults and compliments like, "fights like a girl," "be a man," "beaten by a girl," etc. I don't see these things as particularly malicious, but they are evidence of masculinity being valued and femininity being devalued, and they also contribute, just slightly, to the continued recycling of these ideas. 

More evidence of this is in how it's much easier for women to adopt masculine traits than it is for men to adopt feminine traits. When a man adopts a feminine trait, he's not just refusing to conform to his gender role, but he's also rejecting a "superior" masculine trait in favour of an "inferior" feminine one. Quite the transgression! However, when a woman adopts a masculine trait, while she's still criticised for her failure to conform to her gender role, a part of society also applauds her for her rejection of the "inferior" feminine ideal. Consider that it's no insult for a woman to be called, "one of the boys," and engage in lots of stereotypically male activities. It's ironic, but in this case misogyny actually limits a man's freedom more than it limits a woman's. Don't worry, women pay a hefty price for it, but the point is that the effects are a little more complex than one might think. 

The effects of this are widespread, and make up what many call "patriarchy." Look around and you'll see competent women rejected in favour of less competent men, men dominating most of society's power structures, men being in possession of most of the money, feminine industries being underpaid and devalued (i.e. childcare - the most important time in a person's life), widespread objectification and dehumanisation of women, efforts to limit women's autonomy, efforts to control women's bodies, the shaming of women for their bodies, widespread ideas about women's incompetence in masculine (i.e. the most valued, well paid and respected) positions... The list goes on and on. 

When it comes to abuse in relationships, I think that this idealisation of masculinity and devaluing of femininity encourages inequality in a relationship. Consider that the masculine ideal is supposed to be bigger, stronger, smarter, older, wiser etc. than his ideal feminine partner (who is what, apart from a body [i.e. object], exactly?). In reality, men really don't dominate women so completely (especially not when it comes to intellectual capacity) and I think that a lot of abuse comes from men trying to maintain the dominance that society has taught them that they have a right to (since they are the "superior" masculine being). In extreme cases, even when the woman is complicit, she will fail because complete dominance is impossible. Women have their own needs, desires and aspirations and one cannot ignore them no matter how hard she might try. 

The solution that I'd like to see is a society where masculinity is not idealised and femininity is not devalued, and one in which people seek equality in relationships. At the moment it's not possible because men are taught to be threatened by women who are equal to them (or worse, better than them), and women are taught to seek men who dominate them (and to dumb themselves down, as not to appear threatening!). It's a horrible system. 

Anyway, that's a pretty short version. I hope it's clear.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

bethdeth said:


> I don't think that there is any promoting of abuse. There is pretty much the opposite going on. You look at mainstream media where a huge amount of kick arse women role models beating the shit out of men (there is a theory that gives account of the rise in women perps, usually against women well teens actually). You have the "Real Men" worldwide campaign and also local media (here anyway) campaigns against domestic violence. You have laws against and protocols by police put in place to say that if an assault has taken place it isn't just up to the victims to press charges, the police will (as so many charges are dropped by the victims because of fear of more retribution or the cycle of abuse has entered a more buy back stage).
> 
> Women NSW - 1.3 Domestic Violence homicide*
> 
> ...


So last night I was all like, "I'll wait to read this post thoroughly until tomorrow when my brain is more together."

Now it's night again and I didn't read it during the day. WTF. :bored:

Anywho, I think I see your point and I'm pretty sure I don't disagree. I certainly agree that looking into these issues in a more analytical way without pointing fingers at each other is a great way to approach the issue!

Now that you mention the issue of "lesser people," it occurs to me that there's probably a lot of research on the issue that extends to things like racism, ethnocentrism, and so on. I wonder what we could find on it - probably some insightful discoveries in there somewhere.


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

LostFavor said:


> So last night I was all like, "I'll wait to read this post thoroughly until tomorrow when my brain is more together."
> 
> Now it's night again and I didn't read it during the day. WTF. :bored:
> 
> ...


I'm pretty sure that anyone would agree on the surface. It's the attitudinal undercurrent thing which does seem to be the real issue. On surface value in a family you have one thing going on but underneath something entirely different like the guy on the TED talk. He comes across as a decent human being from the off. He talked about his dad not being able to cry at his teenage son's funeral because of the idea of losing his shit in front of the women would somehow make him lesser. The series of realisations that he talked about helped him to overcome the real crux of the issue of sexism which does actually encompass the idea of racism, sexism, anything ism....eventually.

...all to come to realistion that every one of us plays a part in trying to combat the idea that because you are one group that you are somehow superior to another.

I studied Aboriginal studies, some gender studies, sociology and psychology in my degree so it's a meta perspective of infinite detailed perspectives I can't even begin to rattle off deriving from all those ideas in different areas.


----------



## chimeric (Oct 15, 2011)

Go figure. This thread is twice as long as the one about misogynistic men.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Donovan said:


> @Moya
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I wholeheartedly concur. We are all a product of our upbringing and any blame needs to be directed square at the source. Assigning blame to anyone who is a product of that upbringing - rather than examining the source - only leads to misunderstanding, unnecessary hostilities and confusion.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

chimeric said:


> Go figure. This thread is twice as long as the one about misogynistic men.


pseudo-intellectual rationalization of discrimination tends to be lengthy lol


----------



## saltana (Jan 18, 2013)

Misandrist women are probably more aware of their misandry than misogynists are aware of their misogyny. It takes a bit of consciousness to go against the cultural gradient, whereas misogyny is unfortunately widespread, perpetuated by laws and custom, internalized by many women.


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

saltana said:


> Misandrist women are probably more aware of their misandry than misogynists are aware of their misogyny. It takes a bit of consciousness to go against the cultural gradient, whereas misogyny is unfortunately widespread, perpetuated by laws and custom, internalized by many women.



Enh, lue and I both posted statistical examples of misandry already, and I've personally witnessed plenty of instances of misandry before that couldn't really be described as a conscious going-against of gender roles--for example, if two people were caught having sex at a school I went to, only the boy would be punished (or at least, more severely so).


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

Iamtp said:


> Without even googling, he probably did some Howard Stern. BRB.


Yeah, that was my thinking. 

I had to do an essay for psych on sex offenders and recidivism after voluntary chemical castration and from the studies that I saw more often than not they escalate in violence with their 'utensils'. It points ('scuse the pun) out that the member is not the enemy at all. So we can all be thankful that Bobbit gained his back.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

LostFavor said:


> I am extremely skeptical about all the statistic wars. There was a time when I took statistics for granted on this subject, but after seeing the ways that some people are able to eloquently counter the accepted viewpoints (or twist studies to fit their views), I'm inclined to think that there's a lot of unintentional distortion going on, on both sides of the fence.


You're smart to be sceptical of statistics because it's true that they often get distorted, but if you're not going to believe any of them, then what kind of evidence are you looking for? What can I show you that might convince you. The reason I really liked that Eureka Street article is because the author spoke about some of the complexities that make it difficult to collect decent data, and even provided links to studies that she implies are accurate. If you're sceptical of them, then why not scan through and see if you can find any room for error? You already know what to look for. 



LostFavor said:


> I did glance over the link you're referring to when I read the post and I wasn't impressed. Yes, the stuff that happened to those people is tragic and terrible. No, it's nothing more than a data point when you piece it into the larger picture. That women now have the support to help them in voicing the terrible things that have happened to them is awesome. That I don't see you linking a similar page where men do the same might mean that men are largely not victims. Or it might mean that the ones who are victims are too scared to say anything.
> 
> The #YesAllWomen movement, as it pertains to the ideologies of radical feminists, misses an important point: Even if all women have experienced such situations (which by the way, is one of the most unscientific claims a person can make) there's no reason to think that those situations are being perpetrated by a majority of men. In other words, some would say it's proof positive that "institutionalized misogyny" is a thing, but the data there says nothing of how many men are actually harassing/abusing/raping/etc.


I mentioned these things because they provide some insight into why some of this abuse might be happening - they suggest some thought processes that might be behind them. What I see is a portion of men that feel entitled to women's bodies and don't feel like women should/do have the right to say no. The #YesAllWomen movement suggests that this attitude is widespread. You're right that it's not a scientific claim, but it's not meant to be. All it is is an idea to be entertained: that women encounter this attitude of entitlement with frightening regularity. Dismiss it if you wish, but I have a hard time explaining how big it managed to get if there wasn't at least an element of truth in there. 



LostFavor said:


> Concerning the Eureka Street article: I don't buy the argument in there at all. The author cites a few statistics and then paints MRA movements with broad strokes (interestingly, without actually citing their positions), and quotes a fear-mongering argument from an apparent executive director of No to Violence that it's, "Dangerous to portray domestic violence as something that men and women both experience significantly."
> 
> Or as Blay puts it, "The misrepresentation of domestic violence as gender-neutral is dangerous for a number of reasons." (Which, incidentally, is a straw-man, since arguing "X group experiences this significantly too" is not the same as saying that the issue should have no focus on gender at all.)
> 
> ...


I linked you to that article because I liked the part about statistics. The quality of the article took a turn for the worse once it started discussing Blay's views on the topic. I don't have as much of an issue with them as you do, but I'm not feeling particularly motivated to defend him because, well, I guess I don't really see the point. Instead I'll give you my own views (since I'm a little better at defending those): I think that there are structures within our society that promote/encourage the abuse of women (structures that promote that sense of entitlement that I was speaking about before, for example), and when someone suggests that women abuse men just as much as men abuse women (roughly), then it draws our attention away from the possibility of these structures existing. Instead, the idea that the sexes abuse each other equally suggests either that the majority of the abuse has a fairly gender-neutral explanation or that structures exist that promote the abuse of men by women equally, and that these structures balance each other out. You can't extract solutions from these models because they're wrong, and that's why they're dangerous. 



LostFavor said:


> Some groups who call themselves MRAs are just as bad as radical feminists. I'm certainly not denying that. Their inadequacies have little to do with my complaints against radical feminism though.


Just as a side note, but when you talk about radical feminists, you're actually talking about me. There are a lot of reasons why I don't often identify with the term - mostly because it should be seen as irrelevant - but there's no denying that my views are very much in line with that ideology (most of the time... believe it or not, I also think for myself every now and then!). 



LostFavor said:


> Also, proportion of services is a red herring. Not saying that it's something you necessarily came up with, but it's a distracting illusory argument when people imply that we somehow need to figure out who gets more of the support. There's plenty of it to go around.
> 
> The Cracked article has some good rhetoric and I've seen it before, but honestly, I'm not understanding where the proof is that entitlement among men is widespread to begin with. That article's starting point, for example, is a reference to 4-10k upvotes on internet websites. Considering that there's something like 300+ million people in the US alone, even if you assume that all of those upvotes came from America, that's only in the range of 0.003% (roughly). I guess you could double it if you estimate that half of the people in America are women and they aren't providing any of these upvotes, bringing it to something like 0.006% and you could probably bring it up by factoring in the number of people who have working internet, but it's still a pathetically insignificant number. Granted, that's not the most scientific of calculations, but I think you get the point.
> 
> If you'd like me to support my position more strongly, I can try to dissect the Cracked article, but it's a lot of rhetoric to slog through and my brain is telling to chill it on the wall of words as it is.


Something tells me that the entire US population having had the opportunity to upvote a post on Reddit (was it Reddit?) perhaps isn't the most reasonable of assumptions . I guess your point was that this is a very small number of people but, when I read it, I actually got the opposite impression. To me it sounded like quite a large number. Of course, my assumptions could be just as bad, but you'll have to do a little better than that to prove it. 



LostFavor said:


> I may have lost track of something here, but going by the train of thought you're presenting, I was never trying to imply that lack of support for men is an indication of cultural misandry or something. It's just that culture likes to say that men don't need support... cause they're _men_. That is, US culture does. I can't speak for the others.
> 
> And misandry is something that happens, regardless of whether it's cultural (it probably isn't cultural and to be frank with you, I don't much care about the point of whether it is). But bigotry doesn't need to be culturally ingrained, approved, etc., for it to happen a lot.


Ah, the lack of support for men is often given as evidence of institutionalised/cultural misandry and I wasn't sure if that was your point or not. But why do you think we like to think that men don't need support? Would you agree that men themselves like to think that they don't need support, and if so, why? Personally, I think it has to do with how we pressure men to become this masculine ideal that is incompatible with needing support. Needing support is seen as feminine and a sign of weakness/inferiority so men try to distance themselves from it. On a societal level, maybe the reason we deny that men need support because we're not comfortable with the idea that perhaps men don't conform to this masculine ideal as much as we'd like to think that they do? That'd be my guess, and it's a model that we can certainly attempt to extract solutions from. 

---

Also, I just wanted to ask where you'd like this discussion to go? It seems to be morphing into a discussion about domestic violence, which is fine, but it started as one about people being dismissive towards men's issues and I was wondering if you think we came to any conclusions about that? I suppose what I'd really like to know is if it sounds like I'm being dismissive towards men's issues, and if so, which ones? At the moment, I'm thinking that perhaps the context is what's throwing you off. For example, I don't think any reasonable person denies that men don't get abused by women, but you'll often see it brought up as an attempt to shut down conversations about men's abuse of women, and in that context, it's both injurious and annoying (especially when bad data is quoted). When it's not used as an attempt to shut down conversations about women (which unfortunately isn't very often), I really don't see why anyone would have an issue with it.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Times up, let's do this, leeerooooy jeeeeenkiiiinssss



Mee2 said:


> You're smart to be sceptical of statistics because it's true that they often get distorted, but if you're not going to believe any of them, then what kind of evidence are you looking for? What can I show you that might convince you. The reason I really liked that Eureka Street article is because the author spoke about some of the complexities that make it difficult to collect decent data, and even provided links to studies that she implies are accurate. If you're sceptical of them, then why not scan through and see if you can find any room for error? You already know what to look for.


It's not so much that I'm not going to believe any of them. It's more like: I don't have the motivation to go through and vet all of them for accuracy. My main motivator in this thread from the start has been to ensure that the notion of men having significant issues to deal with does not get buried under rhetoric and posturing. In essence, I don't feel a need to prove which statistics are accurate - only a need to emphasize the inadequacy of statistics as a measuring stick in the gender-issues contest (which is a contest I try to also dismiss on the grounds of it being largely irrelevant).

I'll have to give the article another look when my mind is fresh - I don't recall getting that sort of impression from it at all.



Mee2 said:


> I mentioned these things because they provide some insight into why some of this abuse might be happening - they suggest some thought processes that might be behind them. What I see is a portion of men that feel entitled to women's bodies and don't feel like women should/do have the right to say no. The #YesAllWomen movement suggests that this attitude is widespread. You're right that it's not a scientific claim, but it's not meant to be. All it is is an idea to be entertained: that women encounter this attitude of entitlement with frightening regularity. Dismiss it if you wish, but I have a hard time explaining how big it managed to get if there wasn't at least an element of truth in there.


Right, but whether it's actually "all women" aside, the more important point is that within the movement, there is no reason - other than pre-existing bias - to think that it's a large percentage of men who espouse these attitudes.

So yes, there is a portion of men who have the attitude you mentioned, but of the tweets I saw with #YesAllWomen not a single one was implying that women regularly encounter the kind of attitude you're talking about in _most_ males that they meet. What I did see was more of a "this sort of stuff happens to all women at least once in their lives" claim, which is not farfetched at all in comparison.

And yes, you're right that the attitudes in question may be connected in some way with abuse. But the problem is that it's supposition at best. By that I mean (to give you an example) you could - in theory - do a study of men who have abused women and see what their attitudes are like. I don't think it's unreasonable to guess that many of them will have some disparaging views concerning women. 

However, just like the recent case with Elliott Rodger, these same men may simply be people who were already influenced by issues in their lives that have little to do culture, etc. (such as being abused themselves or having a personality disorder like narcissism - I am armchairing to hell with the imagined causes, mind you) and then they later developed the disparaging views against women as a kind of defense mechanism to rectify their stunted perspective on reality - if that makes sense.

What this means - hopefully you are still following me :tongue: - is that the culture may not actual be the problem but instead is more of an echo chamber, where these people who are already unstable gravitate to negative views that work for their pre-distorted perspectives. 

In other words, is there actually a culture that promotes abuse or is it simply that would-be abusers do as most people do when they want to justify their thoughts and behaviors, and try to find a way to make their perspectives look sane, i.e. mixing actual cultural elements into their hatred to make it look normal?



Mee2 said:


> I think that there are structures within our society that promote/encourage the abuse of women (structures that promote that sense of entitlement that I was speaking about before, for example), and when someone suggests that women abuse men just as much as men abuse women (roughly), then it draws our attention away from the possibility of these structures existing. Instead, the idea that the sexes abuse each other equally suggests either that the majority of the abuse has a fairly gender-neutral explanation or that structures exist that promote the abuse of men by women equally, and that these structures balance each other out. You can't extract solutions from these models because they're wrong, and that's why they're dangerous.


Fair enough. I think a large part of our discussion has gone in the direction of domestic violence because that's sort of the textbook example of abuse and I was asking for a "why" concerning the notion that abuse of women is culturally encouraged. 

Although I understand your point about the danger of it, I feel that many instances of drawing attention to male issues are simply an effort to get support for men. As I mentioned in some capacity earlier on, I think that each group needs individual attention; not necessarily because one is abused more but because of the nuance that can go into the differences of gender.

I don't think the question of whether structures are in place that encourage the abuse of women needs to result in an answer of "yes" for us to make a case that the genders need a somewhat case-specific kind of attention. But I do think that the place to start when examining where abuse comes from is to examine the abusers themselves - not the victims (where blame often gets placed, sadly :/) or even the abusers through the eyes of the victims (which is sort of what #YesAllWomen is).

In short, male abusers and female abusers may come from somewhat different places and that's important, but we need only recognize the differences in gender roles to extrapolate that, IMO.



Mee2 said:


> Just as a side note, but when you talk about radical feminists, you're actually talking about me. There are a lot of reasons why I don't often identify with the term - mostly because it should be seen as irrelevant - but there's no denying that my views are very much in line with that ideology (most of the time... believe it or not, I also think for myself every now and then!).


To be honest, I started using the phrase "radical feminist" because saying "feminist" was getting me the "real feminism is just about equality at its core" speech. Repeatedly. >.<

I don't mean to imply that everyone who follows the ideologies in question does not think for him/herself, or is inherently zealot-like and extreme. I confess it wasn't the most impartial choice of wording.



Mee2 said:


> Something tells me that the entire US population having had the opportunity to upvote a post on Reddit (was it Reddit?) perhaps isn't the most reasonable of assumptions . I guess your point was that this is a very small number of people but, when I read it, I actually got the opposite impression. To me it sounded like quite a large number. Of course, my assumptions could be just as bad, but you'll have to do a little better than that to prove it.


No, obviously not everybody had that opportunity. :tongue: My point was basically that the guy was citing the large number of people as though it meant something in regards to society as a whole, but it only says something about a small percentage of the population. Granted, it doesn't prove that only a few people in the US actually feel that way either.

It just doesn't mean much of anything, as far as I'm concerned, so I thought it was kind of a shaky premise to start his post on. I know Cracked is humor first, seriousness second though, so I'm not exactly expecting The American Journal of the Medical Sciences.



Mee2 said:


> Ah, the lack of support for men is often given as evidence of institutionalised/cultural misandry and I wasn't sure if that was your point or not. But why do you think we like to think that men don't need support? Would you agree that men themselves like to think that they don't need support, and if so, why? Personally, I think it has to do with how we pressure men to become this masculine ideal that is incompatible with needing support. Needing support is seen as feminine and a sign of weakness/inferiority so men try to distance themselves from it. On a societal level, maybe the reason we deny that men need support because we're not comfortable with the idea that perhaps men don't conform to this masculine ideal as much as we'd like to think that they do? That'd be my guess, and it's a model that we can certainly attempt to extract solutions from.


Yeah, I can agree with most of that. I don't know that notions of it commonly go as far as thinking that needing support is a feminine thing though. It's certainly an undertone at times - I won't argue with that - but I think that generally, men are more concerned with matching up to the fleeting ideal of "being manly" than they are concerned with not being "womanly." 

Women, in fact, to some extent, are seen as strong in their own "womanly" way. Such as the mother figure, who does 50 different things in a day and gets through it all without much help from anyone.

---



Mee2 said:


> Also, I just wanted to ask where you'd like this discussion to go? It seems to be morphing into a discussion about domestic violence, which is fine, but it started as one about people being dismissive towards men's issues and I was wondering if you think we came to any conclusions about that? I suppose what I'd really like to know is if it sounds like I'm being dismissive towards men's issues, and if so, which ones? At the moment, I'm thinking that perhaps the context is what's throwing you off. For example, I don't think any reasonable person denies that men don't get abused by women, but you'll often see it brought up as an attempt to shut down conversations about men's abuse of women, and in that context, it's both injurious and annoying (especially when bad data is quoted). When it's not used as an attempt to shut down conversations about women (which unfortunately isn't very often), I really don't see why anyone would have an issue with it.


No, I don't think you personally are being dismissive towards men's issues. It is more the rhetoric I sometimes see that is concerning to me. You have been incredibly reasonable on the whole (and I would hope that I have been the same), or else we would probably be screaming at each other by this point, if we hadn't huffed off in frustration.

I'm willing to believe that in some situations, I'm jumping at shadows, but in this thread alone, I've seen some attitudes that indicate a dismissal of men's issues as something that isn't significant or noteworthy ("especially when compared to women's," they might say). 

There is, perhaps, some truth in both sides jumping at shadows due to the war-wounds inflicted by extremists, though I think it would be foolish of both of us to think that extremists are not in good supply on both sides of the fence.


----------



## cosmiccapricorn (Jun 2, 2014)

They know what they are, and they're okay with it because they think it's justified.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Mee2 said:


> First of all, it's not groups of people that I don't care about, it's certain idiotic opinions - ones that I don't think are common enough to be harmful on a scale that justifies them receiving any of my attention. But if you're going to accuse me of not caring about something/someone, at least be clear about it. Here are the examples that I used before - which one(s) did you have a problem with?
> I compared "There's no such thing as an intelligent white person." to "There's no such thing as an intelligent black person." and said that I'd be more concerned about the second one because it's far more common and therefore more harmful. In fact, I'll add that I've never actually met anyone who assumes that white people are unintelligent, so that's been the scale of that problem in my life.
> I also compared "Women are so caught up in their emotions that they're incapable of thinking logically." to "Men are so caught up in their emotions that they're incapable of thinking logically." and said that I'd be more concerned about the former because it's far more common and therefore more harmful. And again, I've never actually seen someone dismiss a male opinion because men are too emotional and incapable of thinking logically (someone may have said that about a man, but it wasn't specifically linked to his maleness).


the main problem with your argument is that allowing one group to say things about another and not the other way around is a double standard which creates a dynamic of "I'm can talk shit on you because your group is more socially favored, but if you turn any of it back on me, I'll run away and play victim while everyone else points the finger at you". either neither group should be able to make comments like that, or both should. otherwise, another form of bullshit hypocrisy is left to grow in the place of the one which one was trying so hard to dismantle because the ultimate goal is
1) mutual respect
2) said superficial trait (race, gender etc) being irrelevant to how one treats a person. If someone treats me with respect, they will receive it in return; if someone doesn't, they're not going to "get away with it" because they are part of some supposed group of underdogs/oppressed peoples (whether or not they actually are oppressed is irrelevant to this point and will vary depending on the group). I will check you whether you're Caucasian, Indonesian, male, female, straight, bisexual etc because it shouldn't make a goddamn difference. 



> *I also said that there's a difference between saying, "The stereotypical rapist is male." and, "The stereotypical male is a rapist." and that while the former is true, the latter is not.* If the latter were true (and you hang around some weird people if you think that it is), then that would be extremely harmful, but thankfully I've never met anyone who assumes that all men are rapists.
> And stop making out like I've said that I'm an authority. I haven't and I'm well aware of how fallacious it would be to do so. Besides, what authority do I need to express how I perceive the world?


I agree. this is an obvious yet very important distinction (where we disagree is that I think it is one many people fail to make)


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> the main problem with your argument is that allowing one group to say things about another and not the other way around is a double standard which creates a dynamic of "I'm can talk shit on you because your group is more socially favored, but if you turn any of it back on me, I'll run away and play victim while everyone else points the finger at you". either neither group should be able to make comments like that, or both should. otherwise, another form of bullshit hypocrisy is left to grow in the place of the one which one was trying so hard to dismantle because the ultimate goal is
> 1) mutual respect
> 2) said superficial trait (race, gender etc) being irrelevant to how one treats a person. If someone treats me with respect, they will receive it in return; if someone doesn't, they're not going to "get away with it" because they are part of some supposed group of underdogs/oppressed peoples (whether or not they actually are oppressed is irrelevant to this point and will vary depending on the group). I will check you whether you're Caucasian, Indonesian, male, female, straight, bisexual etc because it shouldn't make a goddamn difference.


I'm baffled by how I can call something "idiotic" and "ridiculous" and somehow that's interpreted as me saying that it's acceptable behaviour. Let me be clear: it's not acceptable behaviour, it's just unacceptable behaviour that doesn't have a lot of potential to cause harm and so I con't particularly care about it. If you want to call out every ridiculous opinion that you see, then I'm certainly not going to stop you, but I will say that you might be wasting your time. I mean, if you have a look at my examples of stupid opinions that aren't particularly harmful, a big part of the reason that their potential for harm is so limited is because they're so stupid that no one's going to take them seriously. Why would you care about something that no one's going to take seriously?



Swordsman of Mana said:


> I agree. this is an obvious yet very important distinction (where we disagree is that I think it is one many people fail to make)


This fits into the "stupid, but rare enough for me to not care about it" category.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Mee2 said:


> I'm baffled by how I can call something "idiotic" and "ridiculous" and somehow that's interpreted as me saying that it's acceptable behaviour. Let me be clear: it's not acceptable behaviour, it's just unacceptable behaviour that doesn't have a lot of potential to cause harm and so I con't particularly care about it. If you want to call out every ridiculous opinion that you see, then I'm certainly not going to stop you, but I will say that you might be wasting your time. I mean, if you have a look at my examples of stupid opinions that aren't particularly harmful, a big part of the reason that their potential for harm is so limited is because they're so stupid that no one's going to take them seriously. Why would you care about something that no one's going to take seriously?


it's not a big deal as in "I'm going to get bent out of shape about it", but when someone disrespects me, I'm going to call them out on it. this is something that most people make out to be a way bigger deal and much harder to do than it actually is. telling someone "don't do that" is really quite easy, takes only a few seconds and takes minimal effort. most of the time you don't even have to say anything. simply expressing disapproval is enough to get most people to learn how to behave around you. 



> This fits into the "stupid, but rare enough for me to not care about it" category.


well, that's fine if it falls into that category for you, but I've had enough experience with it to deem it worth talking about (and for the record, it can be very harmful to be potentially viewed as a rapist). 

PS: while we're on the subject of respect, lose the condescending dribble. it's unnecessary at best and a futile attempt at inflammatory argument at worst.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> PS: while we're on the subject of respect, lose the condescending dribble. it's unnecessary at best and a futile attempt at inflammatory argument at worst.


It'd be nice if you were clear about what parts of my post you thought were "condescending dribble" (and let it be noted that you referring to my post as "condescending dribble" didn't come across as particularly respectful either). Believe it or not, it actually bothers me when my post comes across as condescending because it means that I haven't communicated properly. Don't expect me to apologise for being blunt though. 

On the rest of your post, I think we're talking about two different things. I was talking about harmful generalisations, not personal attacks.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Mee2 said:


> It'd be nice if you were clear about what parts of my post you thought were "condescending dribble"


I'm referring to stuff like this which implicit say "you're stupid" and can be left out (there were some examples from earlier which I'm too lazy to point out at the moment lol)


> I'm baffled by how I can call something "idiotic" and "ridiculous" and somehow that's interpreted as me saying that it's acceptable behaviour.





> (and let it be noted that you referring to my post as "condescending dribble" didn't come across as particularly respectful either).


it's perfectly acceptable to be harshly critical of a _behavior_. this is different than a more personal transgression. 



> Believe it or not, it actually bothers me when my post comes across as condescending because it means that I haven't communicated properly.


thank you. noted.



> Don't expect me to apologise for being blunt though.


naturally



> On the rest of your post, I think we're talking about two different things. I was talking about harmful generalisations, not personal attacks.


cool


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> I'm referring to stuff like this which implicit say "you're stupid" and can be left out (there were some examples from earlier which I'm too lazy to point out at the moment lol)
> 
> it's perfectly acceptable to be harshly critical of a _behavior_. this is different than a more personal transgression.


I admit, I fail to see how the quote you provided was interpreted as me saying that you're an idiot. I meant it literally and I was hoping that you'd explain how you came to that conclusion. Still, even if it wasn't my intention, I regret that my post caused offence and I'm sorry for not being clear. 

I'm still shocked that you still think your choice of words was respectful. And I could go further than that, actually...


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

LostFavor said:


> My main motivator in this thread from the start has been to ensure that the notion of men having significant issues to deal with does not get buried under rhetoric and posturing.


Hmm. I'm starting to think that maybe the real issue is a little deeper any of the things we've discussed so far. I'm going to try talking about something else. 

If you look at studies done on happiness, apart from revealing some pretty interesting facts and trends, what they show in relation to this discussion is that neither sex has any real advantage. On a surface level, this seems to fly in the face of feminist's claims that women are oppressed, but more importantly, I think it provides insight into why people are so threatened by the idea that women need special attention. I mean, if they're no less happy than men, why would they? That's not quite how I see things, but I wonder if your objections are the result of a similar thought process...?


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Mee2 said:


> Hmm. I'm starting to think that maybe the real issue is a little deeper any of the things we've discussed so far. I'm going to try talking about something else.
> 
> If you look at studies done on happiness, apart from revealing some pretty interesting facts and trends, what they show in relation to this discussion is that neither sex has any real advantage. On a surface level, this seems to fly in the face of feminist's claims that women are oppressed, but more importantly, I think it provides insight into why people are so threatened by the idea that women need special attention. I mean, if they're no less happy than men, why would they? That's not quite how I see things, but I wonder if your objections are the result of a similar thought process...?


That's an interesting thought. I can't say I've known of such studies to be able to use the thought process in question, but I can kind of see the similarities between that and how I think - in that, things are a lot more balanced in some areas than people want to admit (that is my opinion anyway).

That said, personally, I don't feel "threatened" by women getting special attention. If I feel threatened at all, it's more like, "I feel threatened that men aren't getting special attention." However, if I felt that mens' lives were far easier by comparison and they had no significant problems to deal with, even on a statistical level, then I wouldn't feel threatened about it at all. 

It is the promise of neglect that I'm threatened by - the insinuation that a group is fine as is and any problems it does have should be willfully ignored. In the vacuum in the past where all I knew about was the struggles of women and knew nothing about similar struggles among men (nothing I acknowledged consciously, at least), I had no reason to feel threatened by women getting special attention; it seemed prudent and necessary.

Now that I'm more aware of some of the struggles that men can face (and now that I have more readily acknowledged them) I still feel that the special attention women get is prudent and necessary to a certain extent, but it also begets the same kind of attention for men, i.e. if we are going to acknowledge and clean off the dirt on one side of the coin, we should probably clean off the other side too (else we are left with a coin that is still filthy).

Hope that makes sense. :happy:


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

LostFavor said:


> That's an interesting thought. I can't say I've known of such studies to be able to use the thought process in question, but I can kind of see the similarities between that and how I think - in that, things are a lot more balanced in some areas than people want to admit (that is my opinion anyway).
> 
> That said, personally, I don't feel "threatened" by women getting special attention. If I feel threatened at all, it's more like, "I feel threatened that men aren't getting special attention." However, if I felt that mens' lives were far easier by comparison and they had no significant problems to deal with, even on a statistical level, then I wouldn't feel threatened about it at all.
> 
> ...


Ah, thanks for sharing that. It helps a lot. I think we were almost talking past each other before. Shouldn't be like that now. 

I'm certainly no authority on what feminism is, and summing it up quickly is always going to be a difficult thing to do, but I'll try to share what it means to me and I'll leave it up to you to decide how representative you think that is of the movement as a whole. 

To me, it's about the idea that we live in a society where femininity is devalued and masculinity is idealised. Obviously there's a lot more to it than that, but most of it is secondary. Point being, it's not so much about giving special attention to women as much as it's about drawing attention to that idea. Might not sound like there's much of a difference, but think about it: if feminism is all about the latter, then it's entirely possible to talk about men's issues from a feminist perspective. Not only is it possible, but I think we should be doing a lot more of it. 

Of course, one might wonder how a system where masculinity is idealised and femininity is devalued could possibly create any issues for men, but the reality is that it does, and they're not even all that hard to find. For example, it encourages men to feel threatened every time a woman manages to beat (or even compete with) him at something, and in a world where there's no significant difference in intellectual capacity between the sexes, this is clearly a system that sets men up for unhappiness. It's also a system that encourages men to worry about being masculine far more than women have to worry about being feminine. Simply, because we idealise masculinity, we're less bothered when women choose it (or elements of it) in favour of femininity (though don't think she'll escape criticism entirely - she won't!). Again, it's not a system that encourages happiness in men. Or what about how emotions in general are associated with femininity, devalued and seen as a sign of weakness. Women certainly pay a price for embracing their emotions, often in the form of having their (often very reasonable) opinions discredited, but what this system does for men is arguably worse. Men have this entire realm of human experience sectioned off to them. Consider that they cannot love and be loved with society's blessing (especially women, who they would have to treat as equals). It's a truly awful system. 

Not sure what you're going to think of all that, but hopefully you find some truth in it. I have this habit of talking about subtle things as if they're obvious, which I hope doesn't put you off.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Mee2 said:


> Ah, thanks for sharing that. It helps a lot. I think we were almost talking past each other before. Shouldn't be like that now.
> 
> I'm certainly no authority on what feminism is, and summing it up quickly is always going to be a difficult thing to do, but I'll try to share what it means to me and I'll leave it up to you to decide how representative you think that is of the movement as a whole.
> 
> ...


No worries man. I have a habit of "supposing" things rather aggressively when I'm often just trying to stretch peoples' minds a bit (including my own).

That said, I can see the sense in what you're saying and I don't entirely disagree. I think that intellectually, you are right that because of how the gender roles are perceived, a lot of things on both ends would be resolved if our concepts of gender were more balanced. 

The problem is that because the perspective is seen through the lens of fixing the discrepancy for women, it can be somewhat blind to discrepancies that exist for men and this, I suspect, is where a lot of the extremist beliefs get justified. As in, as long as the extremists can say that "women are treated as inferior in terms of gender," situations where men are treated as inferiors are relatively easy to justify brushing aside. 

On the whole, it may be true that masculinity is idealized and femininity is... patronized (I prefer that to "devalued" - I think it encompasses the scope of it better, considering things like the pedestal that we put the female body on). But on the more individual level, we have the crimes that are perpetrated by both genders, such as rape and abuse. So while I think it does make sense to say that if masculinity is idealized and femininity is patronized, then we should level the playing field (preferably, by idealizing neither), I also think it makes sense to keep a firm eye on both angles.

Like a weighted scale, every adjustment of weight affects the other side, and vice-versa. So I would say we have to be wary of what those adjustments are doing on both sides, and we may have to approach both sides to get the weight even.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

@Mee2
perhaps I'm cherry picking (I was much too lazy to read your whole post) but


> To me, it's about the idea that we live in a society where femininity is devalued and masculinity is idealised. Obviously there's a lot more to it than that, but most of it is secondary. Point being, it's not so much about giving special attention to women as much as it's about drawing attention to that idea. Might not sound like there's much of a difference, but think about it: if feminism is all about the latter, then it's entirely possible to talk about men's issues from a feminist perspective. Not only is it possible, but I think we should be doing a lot more of it.


if this is the case, then yeah, feminism has little to do with actual gender at all and more to do with the stigmatization of feminine behaviors. however, I feel like this definition somewhat downplays the _oppression_ that feminism (indeed, any civil rights organization) tries to combat. speaking as an American, my culture values success (for the wrong reasons) and undervalues more feminine traits like artistry, sensuality etc. while I think this is retarded, unbalanced and incredibly boring, I don't think I would use the term "oppressive" to describe it the way I would more serious feminist issues which are not captured by your definition


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> @Mee2
> perhaps I'm cherry picking (I was much too lazy to read your whole post) but
> 
> if this is the case, then yeah, feminism has little to do with actual gender at all and more to do with the stigmatization of feminine behaviors. however, I feel like this definition somewhat downplays the _oppression_ that feminism (indeed, any civil rights organization) tries to combat. speaking as an American, my culture values success (for the wrong reasons) and undervalues more feminine traits like artistry, sensuality etc. while I think this is retarded, unbalanced and incredibly boring, I don't think I would use the term "oppressive" to describe it the way I would more serious feminist issues which are not captured by your definition


What I'm talking about is broader than just the "stigmatisation of feminine behaviours." I'm talking about femininity being constructed as "lesser" than masculinity, and that because we pressure women to become feminine, there's a tendency to see women as "lesser" beings. Also, that this idea of them as "lesser" causes a lot of the more "serious"/overt forms of oppression that they face. 

See if you can follow this. You've already said that not everyone deserves to be treated with respect.



Swordsman of Mana said:


> it's ok for me to call someone whatever the hell I please if they deserve it. if they feel disrespected, good. that's the point


And your idealisation of masculinity is pretty clear.



Swordsman of Mana said:


> a pussy whipped sorry ass who has decided to turn passive aggressive and cheat on his girlfriend. surprisingly enough, this is an improvement, cuz he should have dumped that narcissistic cum dumpster ions ago. the fact that he's at least starting to have conscious aggressive thoughts is a good sign.





Swordsman of Mana said:


> member who got banned for standing up to me when I called a bitch out who was trying to throw herself an emo ass pity party. despite his unnecessary belligerence and enabling of someone being a pathetic imbecile, I respected the fact that he stood up to me and wish he didn't get banned.





Swordsman of Mana said:


> refreshingly masculine INFJ whose willingness to straight talk and walk into productive conflict have gotten him flack on the INFJ forum in the past.


So isn't it conceivable that something like that would lead to you being disrespectful towards women, simply because they're women (i.e. feminine)? 

You certainly were disrespectful with a lot of the things you said there (perhaps even intentionally, considering what you said above). Apart from the name calling, you specifically said that someone cheating on his girlfriend was an "improvement" - conceivably motivated by a view of her as "lesser". So the only questions in my mind at the moment are, how related this is to your views on femininity/masculinity, and how far you'd be willing to go - i.e. how disrespectful you think it's OK to be? Ultimately, these questions are for you to answer, but hopefully you follow my thought process. 

Here's another particularly disrespectful post of yours that I already called out in another thread, but I'll mention it here as well.



Swordsman of Mana said:


> if this is the girl from your previous threads, you should have broken up with that entitled cuntwaffle a long time ago.


Now, none of these things are particularly serious, granted, and something tells me that they might even be a slightly exaggerated version of what you really think, but even still, I don't think it's a particularly outlandish claim to say that, if such views existed on a very large scale (i.e. cultural), they would serve to justify quite a lot of mistreatment.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

My mom is one. I do not think she realizes it. She tends to have a double standard for a lot of things.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

@Mee2


> See if you can follow this. You've already said that not everyone deserves to be treated with respect.


treating people with respect is the default setting, but not the only setting. 



> And your idealisation of masculinity is pretty clear.


lol I admire both masculinity _and_ femininity. what I don't admire is people being *weak* (in this case, passive aggression and an unwillingness to be assertive which got him into this mess), which is what I was criticizing the posts you brought up (I've criticized plenty of women for doing the same). there are _plenty_ of strong feminine women and men, and I respect the hell out of them. 

I think part of the problem is that these two traits are mistaken for each other in the first place.

in the case of the "refreshingly masculine" INFJ, I said that because INFJs are a type which, on the whole, could use a good dose of masculine energy. I would have said the reverse had I seen a "refreshingly feminine" ESTJ, because they on the whole are the opposite in that regard.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> @Mee2
> 
> treating people with respect is the default setting, but not the only setting.
> 
> ...


Well, it's not as if you were ever going to agree with me. I think what you might be doing is defining "strength" on masculine terms, which would lead to almost exactly the same thing. Again, it's not my place to tell you how you think, but I hope you can at least see how I'm getting this impression from those things that you said. 

Anyway, I just used your posts to illustrate how an idealisation of masculinity could lead to things that you might consider a little more serious. I'm more concerned about that than anything else. It doesn't matter whether or not it's true in this particular case, only that it could be. 

So ESTJs could use a little more feminine energy, huh? Please, tell me more


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Mee2 said:


> Well, it's not as if you were ever going to agree with me. I think what you might be doing is defining "strength" on masculine terms, which would lead to almost exactly the same thing.


strength to me is:
- perseverance through tough times
- competence and discipline
- the ability to defend yourself and your family
- having strong convictions which you have the backbone to stand behind
^there is _plenty_ of room for feminine, nurturing tendencies within this definition




> Again, it's not my place to tell you how you think,
> if you really thought that, you wouldn't have responded in the first place
> but I hope you can at least see how I'm getting this impression from those things that you said. Anyway, I just used your posts to illustrate how an idealisation of masculinity could lead to things that you might consider a little more serious. I'm more concerned about that than anything else. It doesn't matter whether or not it's true in this particular case, only that it could be.


I think you should save responding in such a manner for when it's at least a little more likely. believe it or not, I'm actually a very feminine person
- I have a natural affinity for small animals and children (hell, I have more maternal instincts than a mother with a newborn baby lol)
- my friends refer to me as "the therapist" and come to me when they need to vent or get guidance on personal issues
- I am an amateur classical singer (though this is actually a lot more masculine than people make it out to be)
- I dress in a somewhat feminine manner (not like a woman or a flamboyant gay men, but definitely in a somewhat more refined, "delicate" manner)
- I may look tough on the outside, and it's not a front. I genuinely don't give a shit 90% of the time and I am not the type to need love or acceptance from 99% of people. But when I'm with that 1% whom I do care about....oh boy...I am the *mushiest*, most *affectionate* son of a bitch you will ever meet. I would love nothing more than to cuddle up to a significant other, watch movies and stay that way for the rest of my life, but this is reality. reality requires you to to _survive_. you have to be able to defend yourself (this doesn't mean just physically), get enough resources to be comfortable and protect your loved ones and not be dependent on anyway, and I expect _everyone_ to strive for these things because otherwise their burden gets placed on me and limits my freedom. 

I also can't stand sports, physical labor, cars (especially working on them LOL), bars or almost anything conventionally considered "masculine" in my country, so believe me, I do not over emphasize the masculine side of things or believe in any kind of rigid gender role bullshit. I think it is important for _everyone_ to be in touch with both their _masculine_ and _feminine_ energies. naturally, this is going to be different from person to person (women on average are going to be more feminine; men on average are going to be more masculine. apart from that, there is tremendous individual variance), but everyone should be at least somewhat balanced, because without both, life is not complete. 



> So ESTJs could use a little more feminine energy, huh? Please, tell me more


certainly. ESTJs are very regimented and action oriented. they are highly rational, but out of touch with their feelings. expressing things like tenderness and vulnerability is usually difficult for them


----------



## Derange At 170 (Nov 26, 2013)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> I feel like many of them (again, I stress _many_ as opposed to _most_, for all y'all pedantic lil shits looking to jump on me) are more misogynist than I am because I am more accepting of a wider range of female behavior.


No you're right, they can be very limiting of what is 'appopriate behavior' and almost all of it is stereotypically male, except for stuff like empathy and compassion, which is something that often treated as something men don't naturally have and needs to be forced on them.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

LostFavor said:


> I might give it a look when my brain is rested, but the page even says that the neutrality of it is disputed. I'm sure the "sources" are highly suspect.
> 
> I'm also suspicious because apparently there are actually efforts to "inject" certain feminist perspectives into Wikipedia. See this video, starting at 8:25 in (won't let me link by time with this auto-video embedding):
> 
> (Not meaning this as some attack against feminism - just saying, this is yet another reason to be suspicious of Wikipedia as a source in the discussion we're having.)


You're right about the neutrality of that Wikipedia page being disputed, but if you have a look at the talk page, you'll see that none of the issues relate to the part that I quoted - in fact, that quote was specifically approved. But if you're not going to accept that Wikipedia provides an accurate summary, then what will you accept? I can quote lots of specific sources but you've already accepted that some of them are harmful. The problem is that you're not familiar with the movement as a whole. If I quote specific sources, you could easily just accuse me of presenting you with a biased sample. Still, since I can throw evidence at you, I may as well. Each of these things backs up the quote from Wikipedia that I gave you before.

"1 in 4 women is raped, sexually assaulted, battered or abused – is a lie
The wage gap – is a lie
Women’s historical oppression – is a lie
Rape culture – is a lie
The idea that feminism is about equality – is a lie"
- A Voice for men (I omitted a couple of irrelevant points). Also note the page title: "Why we don't try to reason with feminists". And it's worth considering their tagline as well: "A Humanist Counter-Theory". Counter to what, exactly? No prizes for guessing. 

"We acknowledge the right of all women to equality, but over-reaction is causing an imbalance leading to discrimination against men." - Men's Rights Agency. I think it's safe to assume that this "over-reaction" is to feminism. 

I also can't help mentioning Warren Farrell. He's one of the most commonly referenced people by MRAs (though I think he avoids personally identifying as one) and his most famous book is called "The Myth Of Male Power". It's not just an bold title designed to catch the eye, he means it literally. 

---

On that video: Wikipedia has standards that make injecting bias somewhat difficult. It's easy to do temporarily, but difficult to do permanently (because people fix it) and even more difficult to do continuously (because of the various restrictions that can be placed on users/articles). Not surprisingly, the example that he used in his has been removed. I'd never claim that Wikipedia is perfect, but that's not the point: we're not discussing Wikipedia's accuracy in general, we're discussing a specific quote with multiple references - ones that you're more than welcome to check out for yourself - and in that context, I really can't see how his video is relevant. 

Also, just because that woman with the red hair comes up in the preview, I can't help commenting on that famous video of her. She's quoting this article (part four). I mention this because the she actually doesn't say anything unreasonable - it just sounds that way because she's yelling. 

---

Not sure how seriously RationalWiki deserves to be taken but I just noticed that they're far more critical of the Men's Rights Movement than of feminism (the page on feminism actually sounds quite supportive). I have no opinion on RationalWiki, but in case you happen to trust it... (Also, I love the quote at the top of the MRA page: "The list of grievances for MRAs is long. It includes the elevated rate of suicide for men, educational discrimination against boys, economic and workplace conditions for men, violence against men, false rape reporting, fathers’ rights in custody battles, rates of male imprisonment and prison conditions, and the horrors of war. Many of these issues deserve a thoughtful response and the force of an organized movement for address them. It’s too bad that’s not what men’s rights activists are offering." - Jaclyn Friedman).


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> I have to ask, how do you define masculinity? how do you define femininity?
> 
> my experience with many (not necessarily most, but at least a significant portion of) feminists has been that they chastise femininity more than most of the general population (ie, thinking that they need to be competing with men on every level and criticizing less ambitious women for not "furthering the cause")


Ah, I've seen feminist like that too: ones who regard various feminine stereotypes as harmful, and then use that to justify criticising the women who embody that stereotype to some extent (that's what you're talking about, right?). Whether these people actually do attract more criticism from feminists than from mainstream society, I don't know (because I think that they attract criticism from both), but they certainly attract a different type of criticism from feminists, and it's something worth discussing. 

I agree that a lot of feminine stereotypes are harmful (as are a lot of masculine stereotypes, obviously) and so I support them being criticised, but this often has unintended consequences and I also wouldn't support attacks on specific individuals. One of the big risks when doing this kind of thing is creating a culture where women just can't win. If they don't conform to the mainstream feminine stereotypes then they face criticism from mainstream society; but if they do conform, then they face criticism from feminists. Either way, someone hates you. Not fun. I think that the most helpful message to send would be something like this: "I think that this stereotype is harmful, but don't worry if you resemble it - that's OK too!" It's hard to get it right though. 

When it comes to individual women, things get a little more complex. I don't think that anyone should be criticised for the way they are, but some people have weird opinions on where their personalities etc. came from - ones that do deserve criticism. For example, I'm critical of anyone who credits the bulk of their personality to their sex, casting society's influence as negligible. That's not just harmful, it's also wrong.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Mee2 said:


> You're right about the neutrality of that Wikipedia page being disputed, but if you have a look at the talk page, you'll see that none of the issues relate to the part that I quoted - in fact, that quote was specifically approved. But if you're not going to accept that Wikipedia provides an accurate summary, then what will you accept? I can quote lots of specific sources but you've already accepted that some of them are harmful. The problem is that you're not familiar with the movement as a whole. If I quote specific sources, you could easily just accuse me of presenting you with a biased sample. Still, since I can throw evidence at you, I may as well. Each of these things backs up the quote from Wikipedia that I gave you before.
> 
> "1 in 4 women is raped, sexually assaulted, battered or abused – is a lie
> The wage gap – is a lie
> ...


"The MRM is considered to be a backlash or countermovement to feminism, often as a result of a perceived threat to traditional gender roles.[3]"
From [3]:


> This paper provides a *feminist analysis* of the processes of men's rights collective identity, focussing on constructions of masculinity and fatherhood, and the ways in which these constructions circulate between the public and private spheres.





> Men's rights is widely understood as being the "backlash" strand of the men's movement. *[No citation attached to this in the journal article.]*


Yeah, I know that's not the only source attached to the claim. Just trying to illustrate how easy it is for "trustworthy" sources of information to throw around claims in a suspicious manner, while under the guise of credibility.

Anyway, it's not about what I'm going to accept and not accept. You said that Wikipedia defines the men's rights movement as anti-feminist, as though that's supposed to mean something. If it helps you decide what approach you want to take, then more power to you. But I feel like you're stepping into crusade territory, trying to prove that the men's rights movement (and the attached notion of an MRA) is somehow anti-feminist by definition and can't not be anti-feminist. I mean, I already agreed that plenty of it is fucked. I'm not sure what you expect me to learn here.

Side note: RationalWiki is probably 10 times worse than Wikipedia in terms of credibility. Wikipedia at least has its standards and disputing that it tries to uphold. I'm not sure RationalWiki even does that.

I mean, I have no problem looking to sources like Wikipedia for information normally, but when it comes to controversial claims where lots of clashing agendas are at work, I'm not going to swallow the first line of bullshit that comes my way.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Mee2 said:


> Ah, I've seen feminist like that too: ones who regard various feminine stereotypes as harmful, and then use that to justify criticising the women who embody that stereotype to some extent (that's what you're talking about, right?). Whether these people actually do attract more criticism from feminists than from mainstream society, I don't know (because I think that they attract criticism from both), but they certainly attract a different type of criticism from feminists, and it's something worth discussing.
> I agree that a lot of feminine stereotypes are harmful (as are a lot of masculine stereotypes, obviously) and so I support them being criticised, but this often has unintended consequences and I also wouldn't support attacks on specific individuals. One of the big risks when doing this kind of thing is creating a culture where women just can't win. If they don't conform to the mainstream feminine stereotypes then they face criticism from mainstream society; but if they do conform, then they face criticism from feminists. Either way, someone hates you. Not fun. I think that the most helpful message to send would be something like this: "I think that this stereotype is harmful, but don't worry if you resemble it - that's OK too!" It's hard to get it right though.
> When it comes to individual women, things get a little more complex. I don't think that anyone should be criticised for the way they are, but some people have weird opinions on where their personalities etc. came from - ones that do deserve criticism. For example,


...interesting, we actually agree for once . the only part I would want to elaborate on a bit is



> I'm critical of anyone who credits the bulk of their personality to their sex, casting society's influence as negligible. That's not just harmful, it's also wrong.


it's a lot more complicated than simply inherent gender traits vs societal conditioning, and I feel like the influence of society is often overestimated. imo (though I don't want to spend much time on this because it could potentially segue into a completely unrelated and complex debate), personality is far more related to genetics and development in the womb and third trimester (ie, infancy) than it is societal conditioning (even though societal influence can have a great impact on _external behavior_)


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

LostFavor said:


> Anyway, it's not about what I'm going to accept and not accept. You said that Wikipedia defines the men's rights movement as anti-feminist, as though that's supposed to mean something. If it helps you decide what approach you want to take, then more power to you. But I feel like you're stepping into crusade territory, trying to prove that the men's rights movement (and the attached notion of an MRA) is somehow anti-feminist by definition and can't not be anti-feminist.


It's sounding suspiciously like you're not going to accept anything, which is disappointing. Perhaps you think that it's irrelevant and can explain to me why you think that's the case? 

(Also, a paper providing a "feminist" analysis does not mean that it can't be trusted. Whether or not that particular article makes sense, I don't know, but you'll actually have to read it to find out).


----------



## Sunn (Mar 12, 2014)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> *so it's being a shit starter to make a thread about misandry, but not misogyny? how does that work?* :tongue:


Double standards gentlemen, double standards.

Good thing the majority of the world doesn't play with double standards though, it's just the fanatics that make the news and make entire groups look like crap.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Mee2 said:


> It's sounding suspiciously like you're not going to accept anything, which is disappointing. Perhaps you think that it's irrelevant and can explain to me why you think that's the case?


It's all there in the post you quoted.



Mee2 said:


> (Also, a paper providing a "feminist" analysis does not mean that it can't be trusted. Whether or not that particular article makes sense, I don't know, but you'll actually have to read it to find out).


No, you're right. It does not mean that it can't be trusted. However, it does mean that it is suspicious. The whole point of academia is to be unbiased. Considering that the paper is bringing up viewpoints that oppose feminism, it's obviously going to be biased.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

LostFavor said:


> It's all there in the post you quoted.


Well obviously I didn't get it. But that's OK, I'll play the guessing game. 



LostFavor said:


> I feel like you're stepping into crusade territory, trying to prove that the men's rights movement (and the attached notion of an MRA) is somehow anti-feminist by definition and can't not be anti-feminist.


It sounds like this is your main criticism. 

I'm having trouble understanding why you're so resistant to the idea that they're anti-feminist - I mean, they almost define themselves as such. There are some claims on that Wikipedia page that MRAs would probably reject - the idea that they're misogynistic, for example - but they seem quite happy with the anti-feminist label. The first part of that Wikipedia quote ("The men's rights movement contests claims that men have greater power, privilege or advantage than women and focuses on what it considers to be issues of male disadvantage, discrimination and oppression.") also isn't something that they shy away from. I know people who sincerely believe that we live in a matriarchal society, and it's their impression, as well as mine, that the men's rights movement represents their views. 

For what it's worth, they're usually talking about "modern feminism". A lot of MRAs are genuinely supportive of the various battles fought and won by feminism in the past - the right to an education, the right to work, the right to vote, the right to divorce, the right to have an abortion etc. (though you'll find the odd crazy who opposes even these, believe it or not [and not for religious reasons]). They wouldn't all agree on when feminism started to become harmful, but they would all agree that it is now.

The reason I'm saying this is because I don't want you to think that I'm running some kind of smear campaign. I'm not giving them a label that they wouldn't give themselves. I genuinely think that the majority of MRAs would more or less agree with that Wikipedia quote. I mean, if they were trying to hide it, I probably wouldn't have been able to find evidence for it on their websites' "about" pages. 

But I don't think that's your main concern. When I say that the MRM is ant-feminist, I'm saying it as an observation rather than a definition. I don't think that anyone has the kind of authority that one would need in order to define a movement - not even its most prominent figures. Movements, by their very nature - broad, nebulous and constantly evolving - resist concise definitions. The best we can do is try to make accurate generalisations, and that's precisely what I think that quote from Wikipedia is. The important distinction, in this context, being that no one gets to police how the label is used. Even if calling the MRM "anti-feminist" is an accurate generalisation, I can't stop someone who _isn't_ an anti-feminist from giving themselves that label. The best I can do is point out that their views don't represent the movement as a whole - not because I'm an authority, but because there's a plethora of evidence to support it. Similarly, I can't stop Tony Abbott from calling himself a feminist, no matter how misogynistic I (and the rest of the feminist community) think he is. 

Another important distinction is that observations leave room for the movement to evolve. Definitions don't. I don't know what the MRM will be in the future. Maybe it won't be anti-feminist? I doubt it, but I have to be open to that possibility. 

I've said before that I think we need to talk more about men's issues - about how patriarchy affects men. I'll state again that I think that this is important. It is a shame that the MRM does not do this, and it's a shame that they've hijacked what could be an appropriate label for a movement that does. But I can't change that. All I can say is that there is a part of the feminist community that does have sensible conversations about these issues and that this is currently the best place for discussions to continue.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Mee2 said:


> Well obviously I didn't get it. But that's OK, I'll play the guessing game.


Well considering that I had said "it's not about what I'm going to accept and not accept," and then you said "it sounds suspiciously like you're not going to accept anything," I had to wonder how closely you had read the post.



Mee2 said:


> It sounds like this is your main criticism.
> 
> I'm having trouble understanding why you're so resistant to the idea that they're anti-feminist - I mean, they almost define themselves as such. There are some claims on that Wikipedia page that MRAs would probably reject - the idea that they're misogynistic, for example - but they seem quite happy with the anti-feminist label. The first part of that Wikipedia quote ("The men's rights movement contests claims that men have greater power, privilege or advantage than women and focuses on what it considers to be issues of male disadvantage, discrimination and oppression.") also isn't something that they shy away from. I know people who sincerely believe that we live in a matriarchal society, and it's their impression, as well as mine, that the men's rights movement represents their views.
> 
> ...


"Usually talking about modern feminism" or "usually talking about radical feminism"? I have no trouble believing that most people who identify as MRAs are against radical feminism. What I don't see is how they are against the underlying ideals of feminism - that is, equal rights - by virtue of identifying as an MRA. As long as we're clear on that point, I don't have an issue.

Like I've said, I understand that a lot of them are ridiculous and I feel the same way about a lot of so-called feminists. It just doesn't encompass either end as a whole.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> I feel like many of them (again, I stress _many_ as opposed to _most_, for all y'all pedantic lil shits looking to jump on me) are more misogynist than I am because I am more accepting of a wider range of female behavior.


People don't take issue with statements like this because they are pedantic but because the statement is actually meaningless. Yes, you are probably right that there are "many" feminists who do that, since you have defined your terms here so vaguely. I could also say "many gay people are shallow and annoying" and that would be a similarly true, but meaningless, statement, because obviously any large group of people is going to have "many" people who can fit vaguely negative labels you attach to them. Given that the statement is so obviously and tautologically true as to be meaningless, people are left to wonder what point you're trying to make by making such meaningless statements, and it's not hard to figure out.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Shahada said:


> People don't take issue with statements like this because they are pedantic but because the statement is actually meaningless. Yes, you are probably right that there are "many" feminists who do that, since you have defined your terms here so vaguely. I could also say "many gay people are shallow and annoying" and that would be a similarly true, but meaningless, statement, because obviously any large group of people is going to have "many" people who can fit vaguely negative labels you attach to them. Given that the statement is so obviously and tautologically true as to be meaningless, people are left to wonder what point you're trying to make by making such meaningless statements, and it's not hard to figure out.


it would be more comparable to saying "many gay people have AIDS". obviously, the majority of gay men do not have AIDS, but the proportion is still significantly higher than the percentage of heterosexuals with AIDS. the same is true of feminism. feminists are disproportionately more likely to scorn femininity and try to turn everything into some dumb competition with men


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

LostFavor said:


> "Usually talking about modern feminism" or "usually talking about radical feminism"? I have no trouble believing that most people who identify as MRAs are against radical feminism. What I don't see is how they are against the underlying ideals of feminism - that is, equal rights - by virtue of identifying as an MRA. As long as we're clear on that point, I don't have an issue.
> 
> Like I've said, I understand that a lot of them are ridiculous and I feel the same way about a lot of so-called feminists. It just doesn't encompass either end as a whole.


Both, probably. I'm sure that they think they're fighting for equal rights, I just disagree. 

It's more than a lot of them who are ridiculous. In fact, I challenge you to find a single MRA website or blog that isn't ridiculous (even by your standards). If you do, link me.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Mee2 said:


> Both, probably. I'm sure that they think they're fighting for equal rights, I just disagree.
> 
> It's more than a lot of them who are ridiculous. In fact, I challenge you to find a single MRA website or blog that isn't ridiculous (even by your standards). If you do, link me.


https://www.youtube.com/user/girlwriteswhat/videos

Despite her banner saying "this is what anti-feminism looks like," I've never seen her say something that indicates she's against equal rights, so I think that tagline is just in reference to radical and/or modern feminism.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

LostFavor said:


> https://www.youtube.com/user/girlwriteswhat/videos
> 
> Despite her banner saying "this is what anti-feminism looks like," I've never seen her say something that indicates she's against equal rights, so I think that tagline is just in reference to radical and/or modern feminism.


Ah, unfortunately my data limit prevents me from watching too many YouTube videos. Luckily, her online presence isn't limited to a video blog. 

Two quick points: First, the people who are openly against equal rights are insanely rare. Expressing something like that almost guarantees that you won't be taken seriously (which usually isn't in anyone's best interest) and I think it's reasonable to assume that most people wouldn't really want to admit it to themselves either. What this all means is that proving that someone hates women, for example, usually involves some detective work - they're not nice enough to just admit it for me. 

Also, I can't help noticing that she wears the anti-feminist badge with pride and contests the idea that men have greater "power, privilege or advantage" than women*. So what was your problem with that Wiki quote again? 

* "In pretty much every marker that would be used to augment a case of systemic racial discrimination (incarceration rates, homelessness, employment, educational attainment, life expectancy, vulnerability to violence, suicide rates, rates of drug/alcohol abuse, undiagnosed/untreated depression or mental illness, being covered by medical insurance, etc), men are at a significant disadvantage to women in the west." - Karen Straughan

So while I couldn't watch her videos, I did find her on Reddit (which is where the above quote comes from). I'm not sure which posts I want to quote because I really don't have any interest in discussing most of them. The ones that stood out to me weren't really hateful, just weird. Still... 

"I think (and this is just my opinion) that the mentally healthy feminist (male or female) is probably the rare exception to the general rule." - Karen Straughan

There's also an attempt to defend Paul Elam for saying, "Should I be called to sit on a jury for a rape trial, I vow publicly to vote not guilty, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the charges are true." Yes, he really said that. Her defence consists of her basically saying that what he said is understandable. And I'd agree with her. Too bad it's irrelevant. Understandable or not, it's still misogynistic. I wonder if she'd also defend this one as well?: "In the name of equality and fairness, I am proclaiming October to be Bash a Violent Bitch Month." He actually removed that article from his website, but the internet doesn't forget so easily. You can read more wonderful quotes from Mr. Elam here. 

Speaking of defending misogynists, turns out she's done it more than once... 

And speaking of A Voice for Men, she's actually a contributing editor. Here's an article where she claims that misogyny can't be normalised in our society because, if it were, no one would be offended by being called a misogynist. Apparently she doesn't understand that, while we all agree that misogyny is bad, we don't all agree on what it actually is. The result of this being that genuinely misogynistic people will often deny that they're misogynistic. 

Ugh. So I'm writing this while I'm reading about her, which hasn't turned out to be the greatest idea because I keep finding better and better evidence that she hates women. Her articles on A Voice for Men are awful. I suppose I could talk about them later if I need to, but this has been long enough already. I'll end with her and her A Voice for Men friends telling rape jokes: source



> Nick Reading: No never means no. It only means yes. That’s an understanding that we have within the patriarchy.
> 
> Karen Straughan: It is.
> 
> ...


----------



## TheOwl (Nov 3, 2010)

I often get told I must hate men when I say something radical like, "victims shouldn't be blamed for their own rape" in a discussion about a female rape victim (I'm a misandrist because I have commented on an article about a female victim instead of a male victim). 
Apparently it's not okay to talk about women's rights without talking about men's rights, even though it's quite obvious that men hold the most power. 
If that means I'm a misandrist, then I'm a proud misandrist.


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

TheOwl said:


> I often get told I must hate men when I say something radical like, "victims shouldn't be blamed for their own rape" in a discussion about a female rape victim (I'm a misandrist because I have commented on an article about a female victim instead of a male victim).
> Apparently it's not okay to talk about women's rights without talking about men's rights, even though it's quite obvious that men hold the most power.
> If that means I'm a misandrist, then I'm a proud misandrist.


You're forgetting the false accusations of rape backlash argument. Don't forget that's all about men too. If 1 in 6 women are reporting in Australia (lets just be conservative, that's reports, not estimated numbers) then surely some of them are falsely accusing....but wait.....there are numbers who don't report too. In the inquiry on rape in the US military there were heaps of women raped more than once in an anonymous report survey and 75/fucking/percent said they'd never reported to officials as they knew they'd have nothing but grief from then on, The military would probably not reflect civilian rape in the numbers, but if you even just look at it and ponder a third of that.....

Part of the reporting in any official capacity outside of specific rape trauma trained professionals kinda reminds me of this Onion article.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Mee2 said:


> Ah, unfortunately my data limit prevents me from watching too many YouTube videos. Luckily, her online presence isn't limited to a video blog.
> 
> Two quick points: First, the people who are openly against equal rights are insanely rare. Expressing something like that almost guarantees that you won't be taken seriously (which usually isn't in anyone's best interest) and I think it's reasonable to assume that most people wouldn't really want to admit it to themselves either. What this all means is that proving that someone hates women, for example, usually involves some detective work - they're not nice enough to just admit it for me.
> 
> ...


I'm not going to play the denial game and try to say that I know her character better, or that she hasn't said anything questionable. It's pretty damn hard to be vocal about any controversial issue without saying some questionable things - more so, if you feel like you're facing glaring idiocy a lot of the time (it's the same trap that many atheists fall into with theists, and vice-versa). 

Anyway, I have no desire to try to excuse or explain away what she has and hasn't said. However, I don't see any indication in the stuff you brought up (or the stuff of hers I've watched) that she "hates women." All I see is a fair amount of snark, sarcasm, and attitude concerning radical-feminism. 

I'm obviously not 100% unbiased, but I have the benefit of not being invested in either movement - while you clearly are invested in one of them. You might want to consider the possibility that you're being a bit hasty in trying to make her into a villain - it's an easy trap to fall into, considering that she is disagreeing with a lot of things that you support.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

TheOwl said:


> Apparently it's not okay to talk about women's rights without talking about men's rights, even though it's quite obvious that men hold the most power.


What does "men holding power" have to do with equal rights? People in power only need to protect themselves as individuals - what makes you think they give a shit about their gender as a whole? Or even care about their own gender more than the other, when it comes down to it?

Your line of reasoning here is pure rhetoric with no cogent argument to be found.


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

LostFavor said:


> What does "men holding power" have to do with equal rights? People in power only need to protect themselves as individuals - what makes you think they give a shit about their gender as a whole? Or even care about their own gender more than the other, when it comes down to it?
> 
> Your line of reasoning here is pure rhetoric with no cogent argument to be found.


Just think of those middle aged men who hold the power who grew up in the 60s and 70s where like my mother who I mentioned earlier had to have her ex husband in jail for fraud and twice bankrupt go guarantor for her so she could buy a car (even though she was totally self sufficient) was a normal thing. They have no idea about what it means to try and jump though hoops for women who are raising families alone or want to put a career ahead of that. They have a blindness. It takes conscious thought to get through double standards. Not everyone does that. Very few will.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

bethdeth said:


> If one in six women report rape in Australia then 1 in 8 of Queensland rapists spend time in prison then it means there is some lag going on in people's minds as to what it means to be raped (victim blaming, sweeping it under the carpet). It also means there is something wrong with the legal system and that the paradigm shift of what it means to be equal has not actually occurred yet. That's what you might be missing.
> 
> I think that you are deliberately evading now. So I am taking a bow.


*sigh* I'm not evading anything deliberately. I get the feeling we are talking about two different things at this point (I'm not sure how else to make sense of this). 

The original argument I've been trying to relate this back to is what TheOwl said about men in power and how that is, or is not, tied to equal rights (or lack thereof). 

You are talking about Australia one minute (which I already admitted I know virtually nothing about and am thus not going to reference it as part of my arguments) and America the next (which is a completely different country with different circumstances attached to it). 

I'm genuinely confused.


----------



## TWN (Feb 16, 2012)

I once tried to explain to a friend how I know that most straight women dont like men:

"Guys like tits. They like ass. They like thighs. They like vaginas. They want to see women naked, in any context, because fuck, why not? But women? They dont even like dicks. And when I say dicks, I mean penises. They dont like looking at a mans ass. His thighs. Anything below the waist, they're not really interested in, unless they're having sex. And here's the kicker: They dont enjoy looking at flaccid penises. Men, in the nude, just chillin. They dont appreciate the male form like most men appreciate the female form, and so they cannot properly relate to, and emphasize with men."

So that's all I had to say.


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

LostFavor said:


> *sigh* I'm not evading anything deliberately. I get the feeling we are talking about two different things at this point (I'm not sure how else to make sense of this).
> 
> The original argument I've been trying to relate this back to is what TheOwl said about men in power and how that is, or is not, tied to equal rights (or lack thereof).
> 
> ...


OK. So if Australia's stats are confounding you I dug up some American ones. To my surprise they are worse. From the RAINN website it states that only 3 out of every 100 rapists are punished. 

Here's a few numbers for American racial disparities on who is going to prison also. They are relatively similar since Australia emulates the US in many ways, Dog forbid our health system ever gets as bad. I understand that Australia might be a foreign country to you but believe me, after having 911 on the TV for 3 days straight with absolutely nothing else on when it happened that the US is absolutely no stranger to Australians.

Take what it means to rape, see what it does to victims. Since it's more like hand to hand combat there is a high percentage of people who suffer PTSD symptoms after. What it means to rape isn't really about sex so much as it is about power. It takes from the victim something that would not have readily been given. It's a deliberate act, not an accidental act where permission was forgotten but assumed. Guys know when a woman is not getting into the act.

Look at stories behind rape. In nearly every single case the victim is re-victimised and blamed for the rape.

Here's a good one that doesn't even bother to make the pretense of blaming the victim. 

Ask why. Why do so many rapists go free? There are mandatory sentences on some criminal activities such as distribution of drugs but not for rape. Ask why there are mindsets such as this. Also ask why this crazy shit happens. None are isolated incidents. I get them across my facebook page every day. This last one was today the other one was last night.


----------



## mony (Jun 18, 2014)

I don't understand misandrists. I love men and I think misandrists are really missing out. I am assuming they are unable to escape their false impressions due to a tragic experience, but it probable depends on the individual.


----------



## mony (Jun 18, 2014)

TWN said:


> I once tried to explain to a friend how I know that most straight women dont like men:
> 
> "Guys like tits. They like ass. They like thighs. They like vaginas. They want to see women naked, in any context, because fuck, why not? But women? They dont even like dicks. And when I say dicks, I mean penises. They dont like looking at a mans ass. His thighs. Anything below the waist, they're not really interested in, unless they're having sex. And here's the kicker: They dont enjoy looking at flaccid penises. Men, in the nude, just chillin. They dont appreciate the male form like most men appreciate the female form, and so they cannot properly relate to, and emphasize with men."
> 
> So that's all I had to say.


I am female and love men's bodies. Plenty of women do. However, I think some women fear being condemned as overly promiscuous sluts, so they decide to avoid openly expressing their admiration for men's bodies. It is usually acceptable by society for men to freely admire women's physique, but this is not really the case for women. 

I stopped caring about potentially being condemned and will freely compliment men I like on their physique.


----------



## TheOwl (Nov 3, 2010)

TWN said:


> I once tried to explain to a friend how I know that most straight women dont like men:
> 
> "Guys like tits. They like ass. They like thighs. They like vaginas. They want to see women naked, in any context, because fuck, why not? But women? They dont even like dicks. And when I say dicks, I mean penises. They dont like looking at a mans ass. His thighs. Anything below the waist, they're not really interested in, unless they're having sex. And here's the kicker: They dont enjoy looking at flaccid penises. Men, in the nude, just chillin. They dont appreciate the male form like most men appreciate the female form, and so they cannot properly relate to, and emphasize with men."
> 
> So that's all I had to say.


A lot of people would argue that the objectification of women makes it more difficult for men to empathize (I assume you meant "empathize", not "emphasize") with women, which is exactly the opposite of what you're saying, if I understand correctly. For this reason, I find your argument interesting. Personally, I empathize with men because they have thoughts and feelings, not because I'm attracted to them. The last sentence between your quotations just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

LostFavor said:


> If you'll recall, I said that I'm not 100% free of bias. The point is that I accused you of bias in a relevant context, while you're just knee-jerk trying to say "well, you're biased too" with examples of bias that are nonexistent. I only called attention to it because I presented you with an example of someone who identifies as an MRA at your request - someone who comes across to me as pretty reasonable - and your first reaction was to quote as many things as you could of hers that were questionable in nature. Not good mixed with bad, which is what an unbiased assessment would do - no, just full-on questionable.
> 
> In short, this discussion of her character has been slanted against her since your first post on the subject.


No. Accusing someone of bias is always an attack and it's never anything more. Even if I am biased, I'm not going to realise that simply from being accused of it - such things contain no meaningful information. And no, I never accused you of bias. My point was that I _could_ accuse you of bias, but it would be just as meaningless and stupid if I did (and since I never actually did accused you of bias, I certainly don't know what these "examples" are). The reason I could is because my being a feminist is as relevant as you _not_ being one - i.e., not at all relevant. 



LostFavor said:


> When I first came across her videos, I wasn't trying to prove or disprove anything; I just stumbled upon them as I do with many things on the internet. It wasn't until long after I had started liking some of her analyses that I found out she considers herself to be an MRA. So there isn't any strong counter-bias for you to accuse me of _in this context_. And I don't throw around accusations of bias as a mindless tactic.


Well, considering that I think accusing people of bias is a mindless tactic by definition, yes, you do. And stop claiming that you can't hold "strong" biases - all you need in order to be biased (or strongly biased) is an opinion, and you clearly have one. Don't take that as an accusation because it isn't one. I have no interest in commenting on whether or not you're biased, but I do contest the idea that you're immune - neither of us are. 

I freely admit that not everything that comes out of Karen Straughan's mouth is ridiculous, but why would I quote things that have no potential to influence your perception of her (or anyone else's, for that matter)? Such things would be meaningless (not to mention boring!). No one is consistently stupid (though, she does a better job of it than most); this is obvious so I don't know why I should have to state it explicitly. I'll be very impressed if you can name someone who's never once managed to make any sense (though, don't be fooled, it won't help you even if you can).

It sounds like you're suggesting that I formed my impression of her before I even looked her up. If so, what evidence do you have to back that up? 



LostFavor said:


> If that's the case, why point out the possibility?


I pointed out the "inconsistencies" (and noted that they were only "seemingly inconsistent") so that you knew what I was referring to. It seemed important. 



LostFavor said:


> Nah, you're not seeing the way the logic of it works. It's twisted logic, but in his mind, I'm sure the "evidence" can easily be forged, misrepresented, etc. (all part of the corrupt system) so again, he wouldn't believe that he's actually trodding on real victims. In fact, he would believe that he's helping the "real" victims (the wrongly accused).


If he's closed to the possibility of a woman being a "real" victim, then wouldn't that strengthen my case against him hating women? 



LostFavor said:


> Yeah, I guess you can accuse him of being mistrustful of women in the context of rape trials, though I'm not sure that really qualifies as misogyny. And I still don't see how that's proof-positive that he doesn't trust women in general and/or hates them.
> 
> That said, it's kind of silly this tangent... I was never presenting Elam as a solid person who identifies as an MRA. I know very little about him and don't feel qualified to assess his character/intentions as a whole.


If he doesn't trust women in the context of a rape trial (even in the case of overwhelming evidence, mind you), then that's textbook misogyny. If you're wondering how that qualifies as misogyny when not trusting the man who she's accusing (assuming he denies it, obviously) _doesn't_ qualify as misandry, the answer is simple: he has a clear reason to lie (i.e., avoiding prison) where as she doesn't (well, she might, but we haven't identified it yet). And I brought Elam up because Straughan defended him (though it's irrelevant for the moment because you don't think that she was defending him). 



LostFavor said:


> Because the context is worlds different. She is a highly vocal activist, so she has to tread extra carefully in what she says and doesn't say - packs of ravenous wolves are waiting to tear apart what she says and take it out of context (that's what happens when you're an activist).
> 
> I'm just some random dude on an internet forum who cares little in comparison and my words are not going to be attached to my real name and real face.
> 
> She talked about the wider issue (corrupted trials / false testimonies) that she seems to be believe motivates his position, but doing so doesn't require that she support his position. She just obviously wants the issue to be talked about. Do I, personally, think she would label it as idiotic? I have no idea. I just see no reason to believe that she agrees with him on doing it and I believe pretty strongly in the adage "innocent until proven guilty."


We're not talking about a criminal trial so there's no reason to prove anything beyond reasonable doubt. That I suspect that she agrees with him wouldn't be meaningful at a criminal trial, but it certainly is in this context. What I would say, beyond reasonable doubt, is that she doesn't think his position is insane (which I think we both agree that it is, even if you don't agree that it's misogynistic - please clarify if not), but whether or not she actually agrees with him (i.e., whether or not she'd do it herself), I'm not sure. It's such a ridiculous thing to do that I'm not even if Elam could actually bring himself to do it in real life, but at the same time I'd only be mildly shocked if he did. Same with Straughan - I think she's capable of it. Point being, to qualify as "not crazy" I can't think that you're capable of voting not guilty despite overwhelming evidence in a rape trial. 

As a little side note, I would've thought that being as clear as possible would be in her interest.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Mee2 said:


> No. Accusing someone of bias is always an attack and it's never anything more.


No, that's not how bias works... it's called Ad Hominem Circumstantial and it's a fine line:


> Person A makes claim X.
> Person B asserts that A makes claim X because it is in A's interest to claim X.
> Therefore claim X is false.
> 
> ...


Bias is a real thing, it just doesn't automatically disprove your claims, which is why I didn't dismiss everything you have said. However, it still matters to point it out because of how it's affecting your focus. 

Anyway, I'm done with this thing about Karen. If you want to say that you won or something, feel free. I said everything there is for me to say. The whole reason I pointed out your bias is because of how clearly it's coloring this entire line of discussion. I have no desire to have an inherently defensive conversation because you're so focused on looking for things that are wrong with her.

And in retrospect, I'm kind of amazed that this whole thing stemmed from you trying to insist that the MRM has nothing but people who are anti-feminism in every sense of the word (including equal rights) - which is something I should have ignored in the first place because it's an absurd claim to make.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

bethdeth said:


> OK. So if Australia's stats are confounding you I dug up some American ones. To my surprise they are worse. From the RAINN website it states that only 3 out of every 100 rapists are punished.
> 
> Here's a few numbers for American racial disparities on who is going to prison also. They are relatively similar since Australia emulates the US in many ways, Dog forbid our health system ever gets as bad. I understand that Australia might be a foreign country to you but believe me, after having 911 on the TV for 3 days straight with absolutely nothing else on when it happened that the US is absolutely no stranger to Australians.
> 
> ...


For both of our sakes, I'm just going to move on, on this one. You were about ready to bow out before anyway and I'm still not seeing how this directly connects to men being in power as opposed to a balanced number of men and women. 

No hard feelings.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

LostFavor said:


> No, that's not how bias works... it's called Ad Hominem Circumstantial and it's a fine line:
> 
> Bias is a real thing, it just doesn't automatically disprove your claims, which is why I didn't dismiss everything you have said. However, it still matters to point it out because of how it's affecting your focus.
> 
> ...


Wikipedia gives this explanation of when ad hominem circumstantial applies (when it does, it's always fallacious): 

"The circumstantial fallacy applies only where the source taking a position is only making a logical argument from premises that are generally accepted. Where the source seeks to convince an audience of the truth of a premise by a claim of authority or by personal observation, observation of their circumstances may reduce the evidentiary weight of the claims, sometimes to zero."

I never made any claim based on authority or personal observation. I provided links for each of my quotes so that they could be verified and seen in context. In other words, your accusation was an ad hominem circumstantial (and therefore fallacious). (If you look at the cigarette company example from your post, you'll notice that they're making a claim based on authority/personal observation, which is why the fallacy doesn't apply there). 

For the record, I contest your claim that I'm biased (at least, I contest that I've shown bias in this conversation). 

And I never said that they were anti-feminism in every sense of the word.


----------



## Sangmu (Feb 18, 2014)

The blind spot of feminism is that it hasn't clearly recognized that throughout history, society dehumanized men and women. The majority of men through out history were traditionally cannon fodder yet we act like they had it made. Only those with physical prowess and high status survived wars by being commanders. And to this day we think it is acceptable to mutilate their genitalia while they are defenseless babies. I believe this is a symbol of our view towards the worth of mens bodies.

Women like to say patriarchy caused this violence but the truth is women were huge in upholding patriarchal systems because they benefited from it. Patriarchy is a myth. It was Humanarchy - and humans, male or female, ain't nice, are mostly full of shit, and are fatally infatuated with power. I have personal experience of loving a man from a machismo culture and saw first hand that it's narcissistic, coddled mothers (not fathers) who are keeping those patriarchal systems together. They infantalize their sons and benefit immensely from it. This realization shook my PC, liberal white girl world-view to the core. Women are actually the problem in some of these cultures. They are not "brainwashed by patriarchy". They are not repressed. They know _exactly_ what they are doing.

Feminism these days needs to be more interested in the upholding the Western concept of individual rights instead of indulging in cultural relativism and blaming every misfortune on "patriarchy". I definitely see it perishing in two decades if it continues down that path.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

WhateverLolaWants said:


> The blind spot of feminism is that it hasn't clearly recognized that throughout history, society dehumanized men and women. The majority of men through out history were traditionally cannon fodder yet we act like they had it made. Only those with physical prowess and high status survived wars by being commanders. And to this day we think it is acceptable to mutilate their genitalia while they are defenseless babies. I believe this is a symbol of our view towards the worth of mens bodies.


I keep seeing medical procedures - such as male infant circumcision - being touted as proof that society sees men's bodies as worthless. How is that connection being made? 



> Women like to say patriarchy caused this violence but the truth is women were huge in upholding patriarchal systems because they benefited from it. *Patriarchy is a myth.*


Most societies throughout (fairly) recent history have been patriarchal. That isn't really up for debate, it's just a fact. Western society is still patriarchal to some degree, although in a watered down state. However, the remnants of the patriarchy are extremely present. 

I don't see how patriarchy is a myth in any sense of the word.

PS - Also think you touched on an important point, that is the general misunderstanding of feminist theory. It isn't that women have it awful, men have it great, and men need to stop oppressing women. The idea is that the patriarchal system has some inherent flaws that are damaging to both sexes. The fact that most 'feminine' traits are undervalued is harmful. It doesn't matter if some women love the system because they can control men (albeit, usually only when they are young and attractive and deemed to have any worth) but that doesn't make the system any more beneficial to society as a whole. 

I think a very small percentage of the feminist population is actually _blaming_ men.


----------



## IvalyseMoon (Feb 25, 2014)

WhateverLolaWants said:


> The blind spot of feminism is that it hasn't clearly recognized that throughout history, society dehumanized men and women. The majority of men through out history were traditionally cannon fodder yet we act like they had it made. Only those with physical prowess and high status survived wars by being commanders. And to this day we think it is acceptable to mutilate their genitalia while they are defenseless babies. I believe this is a symbol of our view towards the worth of mens bodies.
> 
> Women like to say patriarchy caused this violence but the truth is women were huge in upholding patriarchal systems because they benefited from it. Patriarchy is a myth. It was Humanarchy - and humans, male or female, ain't nice, are mostly full of shit, and are fatally infatuated with power. I have personal experience of loving a man from a machismo culture and saw first hand that it's narcissistic, coddled mothers (not fathers) who are keeping those patriarchal systems together. They infantalize their sons and benefit immensely from it. This realization shook my PC, liberal white girl world-view to the core. Women are actually the problem in some of these cultures. They are not "brainwashed by patriarchy". They are not repressed. They know _exactly_ what they are doing.
> 
> Feminism these days needs to be more interested in the upholding the Western concept of individual rights instead of indulging in cultural relativism and blaming every misfortune on "patriarchy". I definitely see it perishing in two decades if it continues down that path.


Seems you have a somewhat warped understanding of both feminism and patriarchy. 

First of all, it sounds as though you think patriarchy is merely a society in which men are in control and have privilege. Though that's part of it, patriarchy is ultimately about dominant ideologies within a society. 

Patriarchy emerged around the time of the agricultural revolution due to many culminating factors which I don't feel like explaining. I can give you book recommendations if you're interested. 
Point is, it's a societal structure that hasn't always existed. 

It's far more complex than just individuals, than just men being in power and women being subjugated. All larger/hierarchical societies have ideologies than underlie the structures and systems within. In America, there's a big facade of freedom and individualism--it seems one of the prevailing American (and possibly western) ideologies is that we have no ideologies. 
Well, that's just hegemonic garbage. I think the most deeply rooted ideology in patriarchal societies is control. Control enables hierarchy, which fuels the power obsession it seems you chalked up to "human nature." (Personally, I don't like attempts to explain things away with "human nature" because we do not live in a vacuum and are very influenced by the surrounding culture). 

Anyway, there's a pretty clear dichotomy with "masculine" and "feminine" traits. If you're familiar with the Apollonian/Dionysian dichotomy, it's basically that. 
Masculine=control, competition, logic, rationality, order, power/status, unemotional, tough, the mind, culture, 
Feminine=emotion, cooperation, "irrationality" or non-linear ways of thinking (intuition), chaos/chthonic qualities, the body, nature, etc. 

Obviously men possess "feminine" qualities and vice versa. But the ideals for masculinity and femininity fit within that dichotomy. Ideals usually differ from reality. These qualities are really human qualities, and it's quite a problem that half the population isn't supposed to exhibit qualities that belong to others. 

In a patriarchal society, masculine characteristics or ideologies are valued and exalted, while feminine characteristics or ideologies are devalued or obscured. 

And at this point in our postmodern society, I don't think it's about individual men or women anymore but an ideological things. Women as people aren't necessarily oppressed, but feminine qualities are still devalued. 

And in addition, current ideals of femininity and masculinity are both pretty poisonous. Which I think makes men oppressed as well. 

I'm out of time, sorry. I'll try to finish up/reply later!


----------



## Sangmu (Feb 18, 2014)

BlackDog said:


> I keep seeing medical procedures - such as male infant circumcision - being touted as proof that society sees men's bodies as worthless. How is that connection being made?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I was raised in a leftist, feminist family (I'm actually related to Sonia Johnson).

I am WELL aware of the arguments you are making. In fact, I used to make them. I just believe you are very incorrect. And the fact that you believe circumcision is a medical procedure means your view are warped and perverted, not mine. Half the skin of a males penis is not a disease to be removed without his consent (it's about the equivalent of your entire outer labia, sweetie, and protects and sensitizes the penis). 70% of the world is going around happy to have to be intact. Greece, Germany, Asia. Most of my boyfriends haev been intact and none of them suffered any medical problems from it. No smell. No infections. And sex was more pleasurable for me. 

The fact that you believe in such a gross invasion of someones body is pretty sickening, honestly, but I know sometimes that sickness has to be rationalized in order for people to not feel duped.

I'm also not basing my opinion on a misunderstanding of feminism. I was once an earnest disciple.


----------



## Sangmu (Feb 18, 2014)

IvalyseMoon said:


> Seems you have a somewhat warped understanding of both feminism and patriarchy.
> 
> First of all, it sounds as though you think patriarchy is merely a society in which men are in control and have privilege. Though that's part of it, patriarchy is ultimately about dominant ideologies within a society.
> 
> ...


I read this top to bottom and truly considered each point. Regardless, IMO this is a whole load of incoherent semantics and unrealistic, "gender studies" bullshit, but thanks for sharing.

"If you're familiar with the Apollonian/dionysian dichotomy" 

I sure am! See my nietzsche quote!? He wrote about it lots. Anywhoo, in terms of relating to this dichotomy to gender, Daoism said this dichotomy is wrong and that men and women should be expected to have both masculine and feminine traits. Non dualism. 

So...what's your point? that feminism sometimes touches on this philosophy and is therefore the basis of feminism? (it isn't by, the way)

"In a patriarchal society, masculine characteristics or ideologies are valued and exalted, while feminine characteristics or ideologies are devalued or obscured."

That is not what I have actually found in machismo cultures or in honestly appraising human history. Which I didn't _really_ attempt to do until my early twenties, as I was quite gung-ho about what was being fed to me by armchair socialist and cultural marxist educators.

Which brings me to my point. Second wave feminism - feminism as you know it - was created by cultural marxists who were out of touch with reality. They did not believe in individual rights but collective labour. Gender in general interferred with their plan for a perfect, homogenous, and dispassionate society. They believed with naivety that culture is what caused humans to be power hungry and discriminatory. This is not true. Human beings are naturally sick and they only thing that has improved quality of life in thousands of years have been protection of individual rights (i.e. the opposite of socialism). Second wave feminism rode of the back of capitalism and liberty like a parasite. 

My opinion is that if feminism indulges in this line of thinking much longer (hating that which fed it)- it will perish.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

WhateverLolaWants said:


> I was raised in a leftist, feminist family (I'm actually related to Sonia Johnson).
> 
> I am WELL aware of the arguments you are making. In fact, I used to make them. I just believe you are very incorrect. And the fact that you believe circumcision is a medical procedure means your view are warped and perverted, not mine. Half the skin of a males penis is not a disease to be removed without his consent (it's about the equivalent of your entire outer labia, sweetie, and protects and sensitizes the penis). 70% of the world is going around happy to have to be intact. Greece, Germany, Asia. Most of my boyfriends haev been intact and none of them suffered any medical problems from it. No smell. No infections. And sex was more pleasurable for me.
> 
> ...


Never call me sweetie. 

I am actually anti (compulsory) circumcision - my personal views on the merits of the procedure are completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. Nobody circumcises their child because they have malicious intentions. Every single parent I know who circumcised their son did so with the purest of intentions. Not sure how that translates into men being worthless. 

It was mostly the fact that you called patriarchy a myth which made me so dubious of your understanding of feminism. I was not aware that it was even up for discussion whether patriarchy existed or not. Of course it does.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

WhateverLolaWants said:


> The majority of men through out history were traditionally cannon fodder yet we act like they had it made. Only those with physical prowess and high status survived wars by being commanders...I have personal experience of loving a man from a machismo culture and saw first hand that it's narcissistic, coddled mothers (not fathers) who are keeping those patriarchal systems together.


I would actually agree with this.


----------



## Sangmu (Feb 18, 2014)

BlackDog said:


> Never call me sweetie.
> 
> I am actually anti (compulsory) circumcision - my personal views on the merits of the procedure are completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. Nobody circumcises their child because they have malicious intentions. Every single parent I know who circumcised their son did so with the purest of intentions. Not sure how that translates into men being worthless.
> 
> It was mostly the fact that you called patriarchy a myth which made me so dubious of your understanding of feminism. I was not aware that it was even up for discussion whether patriarchy existed or not. Of course it does.


As feminism (and other isms) likes to say, it's not really about individuals. It's about systems. Circumcision is a historical remnant of human societies view towards the male body. Than it can be cut up at birth or sent to war. Their genitalia, their most private and delicate area, is not really theirs. It is societies. The fact that this "procedure" is still allowed to happen regularly to individuals and is chronically trivialized as anything less than evil says a lot about feminisms willingness to turn a blind eye to reality.

It is ingrained in women to turn a blind eye to these things because women benefit from having men devalued and considered front-line sacrifice. Remember Titanic? Hundreds of men said goodbye to their mothers, daughters and wives. This was standard. It is how prosperous human societies operated. Men dying and sacrificing their health to sheild the child-bearing sex.

My mom considered herself a feminist. She hyphenated my last name, had the standard diatribe down and witty quips. She never could hold a job or launch a career, though. Dad did that. Men were also supposed to pay for my dates or else, why would I go out with them? She circumcised her son, my half-brother, because she was part of a long and unquestioned tradition of devaluing men while feigning victim status. Most of feminism today is unfortunately just a continuation of this tradition packaged as something else. It doesn't have to be, but it is.

Patriarchy as a intellectual construct does exist. I agree. However, it's existence in reality is dubious in my opinion. As well, using this intellectual construct constantly as an explanation for human suffering (feminism) is also dubious.


----------



## Bugs (May 13, 2014)

BlackDog said:


> Never call me sweetie.
> 
> I am actually anti (compulsory) circumcision - my personal views on the merits of the procedure are completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. Nobody circumcises their child because they have malicious intentions. Every single parent I know who circumcised their son did so with the purest of intentions. Not sure how that translates into men being worthless.
> 
> It was mostly the fact that you called patriarchy a myth which made me so dubious of your understanding of feminism. I was not aware that it was even up for discussion whether patriarchy existed or not. Of course it does.


There are no health issues with uncircumcised men. I have a feeling if the same procedure was commonplace for women then feminists of all stripes would be raising a firestorm about it.


----------



## PiscesMoon (Jun 23, 2014)

Why else would they refer to themselves as misandrists?


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

LostFavor said:


> I'm curious what your supporting reasons are for this. It is a largely uncontested claim that most societies throughout history have been patriarchal in nature, including the ones we have now, but that doesn't make it immune to questioning, after all.


Patriarchal simply means controlling the moral values of society by paternity. Thus imposing virginity on to unmarried women, having double standards for sexual women, laws against abortion, women being punished for being rape victims, homosexual love called invalid because it doesn't produce children, sodomy called disgusting, masturbation immoral, old men marrying young girls.knowing they can only do so buy having lots of money, therefore the fiscal structure.must be slanted to benefit men, especially older men...god it's so gross, many injustices of society are based around a man wanting his sperm to be named after him.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

BlackDog said:


> It's fairly self evident. Matriarchies are very rare.
> 
> Modern Western society is not a true patriarchy anymore but it is far more patriarchal than matriarchal. Women usually take their husband's last name, children usually take their father's last name, men are often considered - especially in religious circles - to be the head of the family, for whatever reason there are more men in positions of political power than women (despite the fact that there are more women than men in the population). If we were a matriarchy ancestry would be passed down the female line, women would make up the bulk of political positions, women would be the 'head' of the traditional family.
> 
> ...


In Europe taking the fathers name was established only in the early Middle Ages by the Catholic church...witches were basically pagan European women not down with the new patriarchy, as far as I can tell.

Jesus is one thing, the human society he was born into is entirely another.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

fourtines said:


> many injustices of society are based around a man *wanting his sperm to be named after him*.


Is that so wrong? If I pop out a kid, obviously it's mine. He's not so sure. I mean, going to extremes for that assurance is oppressive, but throwing all hell to the wind isn't progressive...(it's arguably one of the most regressive things we could do for evolution and therefore society).

If I get married I'll take my husband's name. It's a way to track bloodlines and ancestry so that we aren't all unknowingly committing incest. Relinquishing that (or giving his name to my children) seems like less of a sacrifice than state mandated paternity tests or something (which I could see as a potential (albeit extreme) consequence to the chaos).


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Shahada said:


> I don't really understand the "historically men had it worse because they had to go to war and work" argument. Yes, historically men who weren't members of noble or aristocratic classes did not have it very good and lived short, shitty lives of squalor. But what about the women? It wasn't a paradise for them because they didn't have to go to war. The labor or work argument is just absurd because historically women have always labored at least as much as men, especially in pre-modern agricultural societies (i.e. the vast majority of the people in the world throughout history). In many places up until fairly recent times, even in Europe, women were little more than property in terms of legal rights. Many men who were not of noble birth did not have it much better from a legal or larger social perspective, no, but life doesn't stop at state policy. Cultural attitudes bleed over into private and family life, and even in modern times in places where women have legal rights that would have been thought impossible a century ago many women have to deal with patriarchal domination in every aspect of their lives. Nobody is saying that every man in history has had it great by oppressing women for their own benefit, nobody has ever made this argument. The historical fact is that women have been oppressed in specific and unique ways throughout history that are not the same as the more generalized mechanisms of oppression that the ruling class exercises over the entire society. Given this fact, and especially given the unfortunate historical reality that working towards social change can often be undermined by shutting out the perspectives of historically oppressed and unprivileged groups, it seems important that the unique and specific mechanisms of oppression that affect women should be discussed and fought against on their own terms, though effective thought and action will consider the wider social context as well. Basically, it doesn't make any sense that the fact that men throughout history have often had it bad as well should discredit feminism, because feminism is not predicated on the argument that all men throughout all history have been living high on the hog at the expense of women.


Seriously lower class women died in the streets as prostitutes during Victorian England because there were a surplus of women. There were child prostitutes having sex with men for as little as fifty cents at the world cup just last week. 

But oh yes, men are oppressed by war and work. Because women totally made men go to war with each other, amirite. Because they had so much power, wait no they had no political power, so it seems men were making men go to war. Like black on black crime.

I hate everybody.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Veggie said:


> Is that so wrong? If I pop out a kid, obviously it's mine. He's not so sure. I mean, going to extremes for that assurance is oppressive, but throwing all hell to the wind isn't progressive...(it's arguably one of the most regressive things we could do for evolution and therefore society).
> 
> If I get married I'll take my husband's name. It's a way to track bloodlines and ancestry so that we aren't all unknowingly committing incest. Relinquishing that (or giving his name to my children) seems like less of a sacrifice than state mandated paternity tests or something (which I could see as a potential (albeit extreme) consequence to the chaos).


Im not named after my father. My father was a worthless piece of shit. My mother actually still has her maiden name and my last name is my mother's and maternal grandfathers. I don't mind having his name because he was a good man. My grandfather was my father figure. But all fathers aren't good and they don't arbitrarily deserve ownership.

All systems were.new once. In Korea women don't take their husbands name. Are you saying Koreans are all committing incest?

You are obsessed with sexualizing the medieval power structure. We get it. I could frankly care less what you do.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Veggie said:


> You can't just declare these things as fact.


If not because it negatively affects women, then why is it silly? Anyway, I was talking specifically about being against granting women the right to vote. Wouldn't you agree that allowing women to vote was a step in the right direction? If so, wouldn't you consider the movement that tried to prevent that from happening as being harmful (regardless of their intentions)?



Veggie said:


> This is what I meant before somewhere else about how this is still a form of White Knighting. The man riding up and telling women what is and isn't good for them. It drives me nuts and I find it even more degrading than your typical "savior" (which, I don't care, I think can be kind of hot depending) because it's assuming that women can't (or didn't) decide (or contribute to) these things themselves (which I personally find worse than assuming that she can't take care of herself - we all go through those times where we have some difficulty standing on our own two feet because life is hard and stuff - actually, caretaking in this country, especially for the elderly, is an area that would probably get a big fat "F" on a report card for society - perhaps because there's such an emphasis on everyone being able to take care of themselves now as salvation (which obviously is an important goal since you can't ever truly count on anyone one hundred percent because of human nature and death and what not) that we've lost a sense of community and a lot of empathy).


This is why I created my "Should Men Identify As Feminists?" topic (though you used the term "white-knighting"). I don't want feminism to be co-opted by men and become exactly that: men "riding up and telling women what is and isn't good for them." I'm not sure how worried I should be. Feminism is still very much a space dominated by women, but there's a disturbing trend towards men's voices receiving a disproportionate amount of attention and I am worried about it. 

Anyway, I didn't mean for my posts to come across as personal... It's not my place to tell you how you think or what's best for you. It obviously sounded like that's what I was doing and I'm very embarrassed by this because I'm so strongly against it. If it means anything, I guarantee that it was miscommunication rather than me actually thinking that I actually have that kind of authority. Still my fault though. I need to be clear and obviously I haven't been. When I comment on women's issues, I don't expect my opinion to be seen as anything more than that of an outsider. 

Yeah, the US isn't alone in its lack of sympathy for the aged. Here in Australia, we're probably doing a little better than you, but still nowhere near good enough and our current prime minister certainly doesn't inspire any optimism. It's not just the aged either; it's, well, almost everyone, really. I agree with your theory behind it too - an emphasis on everyone being able to take care of themselves (and the perception of those who can't as "lesser"). Ugh. There's so much more to it than that, but basically, yeah, I agree. 



Veggie said:


> I agree. I admire a little resistance and playing of devil's advocate in times of change though, because it keeps the pendulum from swinging too far the other way...it's almost a form of negotiation. (My personal opinion - Fi is valued over Fe in our culture now, and stereotypically feminine traits such as irrationality are consistently undervalued in favor of the rational, logical, etc --- so we may be veering from a patriarchy in definition, but we're becoming more stereotypically masculine as a whole. Maybe your occasional anti-suffragist type stamping her stubborn feet is healthy).


Well, it's important that people's ideas are robust and I suppose devil's advocates can help with that. I wouldn't argue that they're always helpful though (and I doubt that's ever their intention). Yeah, I agree completely that stereotypically feminine traits are undervalued and I definitely agree that we're becoming more stereotypically masculine as a whole (i.e. the solution to women's oppression has so far been getting women to act like men - not exactly what I'd call progress). Actually, I'm surprised that we disagree so much having read that section. That observation has informed pretty much my whole ideology . 



Veggie said:


> Every opinion and perception is relevant. If ours aren't important, whose is?


Individually, very few people matter. The exceptions would be extremely privileged individuals with a ton of influence. The best examples that I can think of would be those in charge of the media. Anyway, I am certainly not among these privileged ranks and I assume you aren't either.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

fourtines said:


> Im not named after my father. My father was a worthless piece of shit. My mother actually still has her maiden name and my last name is my mother's and maternal grandfathers. I don't mind having his name because he was a good man. My grandfather was my father figure. But all fathers aren't good and they don't arbitrarily deserve ownership.


I didn't say anything about "good" (subjective) or "ownership". I mentioned bloodlines and ancestry. Someone is your biological father or they aren't. Science.



fourtines said:


> All systems were.new once. In Korea women don't take their husbands name. Are you saying Koreans are all committing incest?


I don't know, how are they determining that they're not? Genuine question. I'm not really familiar with the culture. Do the children take the father's name? 

Men wanting their sperm named after them isn't ridiculous was my point. 



fourtines said:


> You are obsessed with sexualizing the medieval power structure. We get it.


Obviously. Well, I'm glad you caught on.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Veggie said:


> I didn't say anything about "good" (subjective) or "ownership". I mentioned bloodlines and ancestry. Someone is your biological father or they aren't. Science.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Taking your father's name or your husbands name isn't science. It's culture. In Scotland, and I am partly, before English law of the 19th century husbands sometimes took the wifes name if her clan was more powerful.

My mother actually took my father's name, gave it to me, then promptly removed it from both of us. My parents were married, I know who he was, he relinquished all paternal rights, he was a very disturbed person. My mother was attracted to his peculiar musical talent, I inherited his ear for music. That's partly science, being unfairly saddled with his name when my grandfather raised me would just be weird, since.naming is power and culture.

Koreans divide their last names by region. Some Muslim women and Chinese women also don't name change. Culture can be carried matrilinerally. 

Men abusing women and homosexuals and trying to rig the fiscal system (see your lame arguments about women not voting, that's largely about men maintaining fiscal and social power) is ridiculous. Because that's the actual cause of the patriarchy. When you see it for what it is, it's horrifying and disturbing.

Men don't have to do these things, including forcing a wife to change her name, to be fathers. Fatherhood is more than sperm donation, ask any fertility clinic. Naming is about legal rights and property. It doesn't make sense in a world where women can own property.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

fourtines said:


> Taking your father's name or your husbands name isn't science.


Right. I meant that someone is your biological father or they're not. I was making a case purely for this fact and you brought the emotional into the conversation. Naming is not just for the sake of power, sentimentalism or property rights. Again, it is useful in tracking bloodlines and ancestry (even if your father was Henry VIII and ordered the murder of your mother) which can help to prevent incest.



fourtines said:


> Men abusing women and homosexuals and trying to rig the fiscal system (see your lame arguments about women not voting, that's largely about men maintaining fiscal and social power) is ridiculous. Because that's the actual cause of the patriarchy. When you see it for what it is, it's horrifying and disturbing.


I doubt that an entire system on this scale was centered around abuse. I have more faith in humanity than that. I'm also aware that power dynamics aren't often what they seem, that we slant history based on personal bias (since these differ vastly, I'm assuming it probably hasn't been so black and white in the past either), and that there's much to cause and effect.



fourtines said:


> Men don't have to do these things, including forcing a wife to change her name, to be fathers. Fatherhood is more than sperm donation, ask any fertility clinic. Naming is about legal rights and property. It doesn't make sense in a world where women can own property.


I said that I would willingly change my name because I see the sense of it (no "force" present - I'm sure I'm not the first woman in history to get on board of my own free will). If we divorced I would change it back. However, I'd have my children keep the name. 

Sadly, fatherhood is not necessarily more than sperm donation. Ideally so though, yes. Conversely, fatherhood doesn't have to be biological. However, I stand by that I see erasing the importance of that component as a regression to a sort of chaos.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Veggie said:


> Right. I meant that someone is your biological father or they're not. I was making a case purely for this fact and you brought the emotional into the conversation. Naming is not just for the sake of power, sentimentalism or property rights. Again, it is useful in tracking bloodlines and ancestry (even if your father was Henry VIII and ordered the murder of your mother) which can help to prevent incest.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You seem to be an intelligent person but I can tell your knowledge of history is very spotty. The naming thing is primarily about ownership. In places like Victorian England and Imperialist Russia men had carte blanche paternity rights over any child born under his name. There were no blood tests. You don't seem to get how little this really has to do with science. Yes, even forcing your wife and children to take your name, you could unknowingly be raising another man's child. In fact men had such oppressive paternity rights that they could actually divorce their wife and always take the children, even if some of the children weren't actually.biologically theirs. Naming proves NOTHING. I would rather a child be given the name of the father who loved and raised it than a mere sperm donor. By the same token, why should a child be given an absent fathers name when a step father or grandfather or adoptive second mother was the real "daddy."

No one is slanting history on a personal bias. Moral values have been based around a base narcissistic desire for paternal ownership to the point of discrimination of any sexuality or power structure that does not put a heterosexual mans penis at the center of the power structure. It may not have been intentionally abusive, but it is, and continues to be so today, and it is gross and primitive. It has very little to do with being a good father. It has more to do with ownership and property. It's not science.

You are actually very emotional in your arguments. You sexualize medieval power structure so none of your arguments are remotely objective. You have romanticized a version of the past and ostensibly refer to it as science. 

In fact the world you idealize is probably best personified by the useless ornamental middle class Victorian housewife, not human history as a whole. I say this because you preposterously making an argument that ancestry can only be carried by paternal lineage. As someone who knows five generations of my maternal ancestry and extended family, I find this really sad.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

I mean who is that stupid that without bearing their fathers biological name legally they can't hop on ancestry.com or avoid fucking their half brothers. Most civilized people know who their father is, and may even know paternal grandparents, without being given their father's name as their own. 

I never argued anyway that children should never be given their father's name, but it should be determined on a case by case basis, it shouldn't be mandatory and it hasn't been for many years.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Mee2 said:


> If not because it negatively affects women, then why is it silly? Anyway, I was talking specifically about being against granting women the right to vote. Wouldn't you agree that allowing women to vote was a step in the right direction? If so, wouldn't you consider the movement that tried to prevent that from happening as being harmful (regardless of their intentions)?


I didn't say it was silly, I said you can call it silly (you can call whatever you want silly, that's why silliness is fun ) but I don't think it's fair that you automatically assume that they hated women or themselves. Yes, I would agree that granting women the right to vote was a step in the right direction (having the ability to do so in hindsight), but I also understand where they were coming from. If they felt like "If it ain't broke don't fix it" well then, fine. There was a division of classes that was just widely accepted as well. Was there some cognitive dissonance present in that the privileged women were indirectly subjugating others to hardship (without the power of the vote and other steps towards independence) given that their excuse was a religion that should be against this? Sure. I'd bet that there were also types who saw religion more as useful from a Fe and cultural standpoint than something that they really took to heart, however, and just didn't give a damn. They were living in the here and now (then) and didn't feel the need to martyr for society. Not all women find solidarity in "women" - some are out for themselves (or specific women - it doesn't have to be "if you're not with us you're against us"). I don't love the phrase "right direction" either because it implies destination which implies utopia which usually becomes it's own dystopia (but then it's all perspective too). Sometimes I think you just have to settle in.



Mee2 said:


> Anyway, I didn't mean for my posts to come across as personal... It's not my place to tell you how you think or what's best for you. It obviously sounded like that's what I was doing and I'm very embarrassed by this because I'm so strongly against it. If it means anything, I guarantee that it was miscommunication rather than me actually thinking that I actually have that kind of authority. Still my fault though. I need to be clear and obviously I haven't been. When I comment on women's issues, I don't expect my opinion to be seen as anything more than that of an outsider.


Not personal, and you're entitled to your opinions. I just have an extreme knee jerk reaction to some feminist thought at this point in my life (especially since personal attacks often follow if you disagree). It's not only men who White Knight in this form either - women do it as well. I thought the whole point of feminism on a basic level was *choice* and when I hear opinions as gospel (which is honestly probably just semantics at times - harder to gauge online) it feels like the new evangelism (I sometimes see psychiatry this way as well).



Mee2 said:


> Well, it's important that people's ideas are robust and I suppose devil's advocates can help with that. I wouldn't argue that they're always helpful though (and I doubt that's ever their intention).


I think it's an intention more than it's credited. It helps to stave away black and white thinking. Provokes thought. Uncovers ego vs. solid argument in debate.



Mee2 said:


> That observation has informed pretty much my whole ideology .


Cool 



Mee2 said:


> Individually, very few people matter. The exceptions would be extremely privileged individuals with a ton of influence. The best examples that I can think of would be those in charge of the media. Anyway, I am certainly not among these privileged ranks and I assume you aren't either.


Maybe someone of significant influence in the future is reading this conversation and it's shaping their opinions of the world. That has to start somewhere right?


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

fourtines said:


> I never argued anyway that children should never be given their father's name, but it should be determined on a case by case basis, it shouldn't be mandatory and it hasn't been for many years.


Mandatory, no. It's useful though.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

fourtines said:


> There were no blood tests.


Blood and DNA tests are a relatively new development and they've done a lot to liberate society. 



fourtines said:


> Yes, even forcing your wife and children to take your name, you could unknowingly be raising another man's child.


Of course. It did provide some order in tracking whose was whose though.



fourtines said:


> I would rather a child be given the name of the father who loved and raised it than a mere sperm donor. By the same token, why should a child be given an absent fathers name when a step father or grandfather or adoptive second mother was the real "daddy."


Because I see the last name as more clinical and objective. If it were possible to throw the present father's name in as a first or middle name I'd probably do that. 



fourtines said:


> You are actually very emotional in your arguments. You sexualize medieval power structure so none of your arguments are remotely objective. You have romanticized a version of the past and ostensibly refer to it as science.


I don't believe I've been emotional in my arguments with you at all actually. For the like 65th time though (okay, now I'm exasperated, so that's an emotion), my argument has simply been that there's a logical biological component to man's compulsion to name his sperm.



fourtines said:


> In fact the world you idealize is probably best personified by the useless ornamental middle class Victorian housewife, not human history as a whole. I say this because you preposterously making an argument that ancestry can only be carried by paternal lineage.


I'm saying that paternal lineage is more difficult to track. They don't grow the babies and push them out of their hoo ha's. There's more room for doubt and suspicion. If naming practices help to alleviate some of that then cool why not.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

fourtines said:


> You seem to be an intelligent person but I can tell your knowledge of history is very spotty. The naming thing is primarily about ownership. In places like Victorian England and Imperialist Russia men had carte blanche paternity rights over any child born under his name. There were no blood tests. You don't seem to get how little this really has to do with science.


Not to mention the only thing close to a scientific rationale for this that was mentioned, preventing incest, was not exactly a top priority throughout much of history. In fact it was often a pretty good way of keeping your stuff in the family, as innumerable European noble houses can attest to.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Shahada said:


> Not to mention the only thing close to a scientific rationale for this that was mentioned, preventing incest, was not exactly a top priority throughout much of history. In fact it was often a pretty good way of keeping your stuff in the family, as innumerable European noble houses can attest to.


I used the word "unknowingly".


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

fourtines said:


> Patriarchal simply means controlling the moral values of society by paternity. Thus imposing virginity on to unmarried women, having double standards for sexual women, laws against abortion, women being punished for being rape victims, homosexual love called invalid because it doesn't produce children, sodomy called disgusting, masturbation immoral, old men marrying young girls.knowing they can only do so buy having lots of money, therefore the fiscal structure.must be slanted to benefit men, especially older men...god it's so gross, many injustices of society are based around a man wanting his sperm to be named after him.


You'll have to explain how these things directly stem from patriarchy and paternity, cause I'm not buying it as a list of items.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

I'll add this too, before I get roped into this discussion again or insulted on account of something I wasn't really saying.



fourtines said:


> Patriarchal simply means controlling the moral values of society by paternity. Thus imposing virginity on to unmarried women, having double standards for sexual women, laws against abortion, women being punished for being rape victims...god it's so gross, many injustices of society are based around a man wanting his sperm to be named after him.





Veggie said:


> Is that so wrong? If I pop out a kid, obviously it's mine. He's not so sure. I mean, going to extremes for that assurance is oppressive, but throwing all hell to the wind isn't progressive...(it's arguably one of the most regressive things we could do for evolution and therefore society).


So, here, what's happening, is that it seems as if the initial argument is that man wanting his sperm to be named after him is equivalent to him wanting to ensure that it is in fact his. I'm pointing out, well, valid concern, right? Obviously ("going to extremes for that assurance is oppressive") we shouldn't be doing crap like punishing rape victims, but that was the cause for such actions.

"Throwing all hell to the wind" =/= Not naming your child after you

I meant it's probably important that we continue to find ways to assure as best as we can that we know who our children's biological fathers are (and that they and others do too), and that they feel confident in that they are.



Veggie said:


> If I get married I'll take my husband's name. It's a way to track bloodlines and ancestry so that we aren't all unknowingly committing incest.


So I meant like present day. Not in medieval times (which was projected onto my argument. I doubt my husband will be a man from the 1300's, but I'm open to it). I also used the phrase "*a* way". It's like a label. A way to compartmentalize. So like, one of the reasons why we have names at all. A tracking system. Ancestry.com works as well. (Bringing it back to medieval times, I don't think they had that back then. Assuming that they did - and that they had Match.com as well - maybe they were linked in compatibility based on their paternal name. Fine. However, I use the term "unknowingly" because I'd prefer my incest intentional rather than accidental (if it were preventative). I think it's classier and more self-aware). 



Veggie said:


> Relinquishing that (or giving his name to my children) seems like less of a sacrifice than state mandated paternity tests or something (which I could see as a potential (albeit extreme) consequence to the chaos).


So, obviously this is an extreme assuming chaos (as I say. Naming systems aren't the only way to impose order, I'm simply saying that they are useful, can to a degree, and that they place importance on the (likely) biological father). 

I really could see society at times though entering a state where we all name our kids Rainbow Fart Child just because it makes us feel good irrespective of what anyone thinks or it's impact, and end up in arms over a man wanting reassurance of his paternity (or pride in it) because relationships without trust are mean (never mind that I've banged 75,000 dudes. I love you and you should trust me because I'm telling you so).


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

WhateverLolaWants said:


> The blind spot of feminism is that it hasn't clearly recognized that throughout history, society dehumanized men and women. The majority of men through out history were traditionally cannon fodder yet we act like they had it made. Only those with physical prowess and high status survived wars by being commanders. And to this day we think it is acceptable to mutilate their genitalia while they are defenseless babies. I believe this is a symbol of our view towards the worth of mens bodies.
> 
> Women like to say patriarchy caused this violence but the truth is women were huge in upholding patriarchal systems because they benefited from it. Patriarchy is a myth. It was Humanarchy - and humans, male or female, ain't nice, are mostly full of shit, and are fatally infatuated with power. I have personal experience of loving a man from a machismo culture and saw first hand that it's narcissistic, coddled mothers (not fathers) who are keeping those patriarchal systems together. They infantalize their sons and benefit immensely from it. This realization shook my PC, liberal white girl world-view to the core. Women are actually the problem in some of these cultures. They are not "brainwashed by patriarchy". They are not repressed. They know _exactly_ what they are doing.
> 
> Feminism these days needs to be more interested in the upholding the Western concept of individual rights instead of indulging in cultural relativism and blaming every misfortune on "patriarchy". I definitely see it perishing in two decades if it continues down that path.


Consider this post *STOLEN*.
Imma gonna think on this and refine it.
Consider yourself *highly commended* from an INTJ 5w4 mastermind/robot.


----------



## Sangmu (Feb 18, 2014)

g_w said:


> Consider this post *STOLEN*.
> Imma gonna think on this and refine it.
> Consider yourself *highly commended* from an INTJ 5w4 mastermind/robot.


Please don't highly recommend me or steal my ideas and _refine_ them.
Thnx.


----------



## stargazing grasshopper (Oct 25, 2013)

I'm kinda surprised at just how widespread that the MGTOW mentality has become & I'm kinda hoping that feminism hasn't severely crippled the American family.

This video is a very tame version of the direction men are being encouraged to live their lives.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

stargazing grasshopper said:


> I'm kinda surprised at just how widespread that the MGTOW mentality has become & I'm kinda hoping that feminism hasn't severely crippled the American family.
> 
> This video is a very tame version of the direction men are being encouraged to live their lives.





















What the fuck did I just listen to? 
What the actual fuck?










People believe what those articles and videos are saying?


----------



## Eos_Machai (Feb 3, 2013)

I know some feminists who say that they hate men, but I think it's mostly some identity thing, I haven't ever noticed them hating me or any other particular male person. 

I think they rather hate a certain concept of "maleness", that many men may have part in but no man can be reduced to.


----------



## orihara (Nov 23, 2014)

oh no... men, the poor oppressed side of society that isn't constantly getting benefits either passively or actively from misogyny and the gender role stereotypes esp if they're heterosexual and middle class+ might be offended because people don't like them... wow, the atrocities that happen out of misandry, the crimes committed each day reflected on statistics of how the male population is decreasing due to how bad they're treated... damn... what can we do


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

orihara said:


> oh no... men, the poor oppressed side of society that isn't constantly getting benefits either passively or actively from misogyny and the gender role stereotypes esp if they're heterosexual and middle class+ might be offended because people don't like them... wow, the atrocities that happen out of misandry, the crimes committed each day reflected on statistics of how the male population is decreasing due to how bad they're treated... damn... what can we do


Though I think misogyny is the the core problem, I would say men face sexism too as an offshoot from the sexism women face with the restriction of gendered expression and such.
I just wish to mention this because though women clearly face serious harm from the culture that assumes inferiority of associations to femininity and then also assumes that gendered associations are inherent to women's sex, I don't wish to make a larger divide because of the differences. Men are impacted in negative ways from the very same culture and I think it's more persuasive for change to be inclusive. 

It's a shame that many men don't see the link between the harm they face in respect to the very same culture that harms women. That there is a serious disconnect where some people seem to blame these cultural problems as somehow being a result of feminism, it's this strange occurrence of people who refuse to acknowledge misogyny but then subscribe the peripheral impact from it to feminism. 
It just happens though that there are lot of privileges that man get on the basis of being men which makes them often blind to the experiences of women and the discrimination they face on that basis. 
I think what you posted could be harmful to that inclusiveness for change because if I read correctly it had a tone of condescension, I think this is in part why some men turn away from feminism and trying to understand because they feel insulted and rejected by being belittled.

To best explain this I have a video if you're patient enough to look at that I think can sort of sum up what i'm getting at.


----------



## orihara (Nov 23, 2014)

Wellsy said:


> I think what you posted could be harmful to that inclusiveness for change because if I read correctly it had a tone of condescension, I think this is in part why some men turn away from feminism and trying to understand because they feel insulted and rejected by being belittled.
> 
> To best explain this I have a video if you're patient enough to look at that I think can sort of sum up what i'm getting at.


not patient enough to watch a video when i'm sleep deprived, sad news

are you fi'ing at me please don't fi at me infpsan, that's my least developed function

idk a woman being told she was provoking her attacker because of the way she dressed, the wage gap, constant association with stereotypes of being "too emotional" for some kind of job, not physically strong enough hmmm sure the little, condescending opinion of a lesbian won't change too much about that now will it

o-oh no, i've insulted the manly pride. what am i gonna face huh some kind of punishment? being called out on a website about pseudo psychology for hurting a man's feels? that there's fault in it for men not getting interested in feminism if there was genuine interest at all in the first place? feeling belittled you say, how's that? you mean, what woman face each day due to gender roles, too? nice meme


----------



## Blazkovitz (Mar 16, 2014)

WhateverLolaWants said:


> The majority of men through out history were traditionally cannon fodder yet we act like they had it made.


Feminism ignoring social class and reducing everything to gender? Kings, emperors, caliphs and sultans (and later, presidents) started wars; working-class men were drafted to the army and had nothing to say.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

orihara said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree with much of the points of feminism, but from a practical stand point if one is interested in sharing that with others I don't think you do well to present it as you have, people for any subject aren't receptive when they aren't shown respect. It's hard enough to convince people even when they are shown respect, but they shut down any interest when they are shown none, if your goal is to encourage people to understand feminism then you do so in a way i'd say is detrimental to achieving it and goes the opposite direction and discourages people. 

My type has little to do with my points on this, just that what ever frustration you have for people not acknowledging the validity of feminism isn't best served venting in this manner.
If you wish to persist, by all means go ahead, I just thought to make a suggestion that even those one doesn't agree with and finds to have misguided beliefs should be afforded a basic standard of respect, if not out of standards of self then at least for a pragmatic stand point of persuasion.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

orihara said:


> not patient enough to watch a video when i'm sleep deprived, sad news
> 
> are you fi'ing at me please don't fi at me infpsan, that's my least developed function
> 
> ...


This is a pretty funny post considering Wellsy is a huge supporter of feminism and the vast majority of his posts (about feminism) are championing womens issues and arguing against people trying to put down feminism.


----------



## orihara (Nov 23, 2014)

Sporadic Aura said:


> This is a pretty funny post considering Wellsy is a huge supporter of feminism and the vast majority of his posts (about feminism) are championing womens issues and arguing against people trying to put down feminism.


sounded too new age egalitarian, if you ask me


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

orihara said:


> sounded too new age egalitarian, if you ask me


What's wrong with being an egalitarian? Isn't that something everyone should strive for whether they are a feminist or not?


----------



## orihara (Nov 23, 2014)

Sporadic Aura said:


> What's wrong with being an egalitarian? Isn't that something everyone should strive for whether they are a feminist or not?


OHOHOHO, EGALITARIANS. THAT EXPLAINS A LOT THANK YOU, what a fun last thought before going to bed :kitteh:


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

orihara said:


> OHOHOHO, EGALITARIANS. THAT EXPLAINS A LOT THANK YOU, what a fun last thought before going to bed :kitteh:


Egalitarian: Of, relating to, or believing in the principle that all people deserve equal rights and opportunities.

Call me crazy but this seems pretty alright to me.

Btw, I'm not part of some egalitarian movement, I wouldn't use that term to label myself. It just seems like a fairly straight forward idea. I think most people believe in equal rights and opportunities for everyone, so they are egalitarians by default regardless of what other labels they attach themselves to.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Eh, when someone's actually interested in discussing feminism, I'll be respectful. A lot of people aren't though and in that case I'll just make fun of them. No personal attacks, just bluntness and satire. If I think their arguments are ridiculous, I'm not going to hide it just so I don't bruise their egos. Besides, some people react really badly and end up getting infractions/banned, and that shit makes me laugh.


----------



## Ziggurat (Jun 12, 2010)

orihara said:


> not patient enough to watch a video when i'm sleep deprived, sad news
> 
> are you fi'ing at me please don't fi at me infpsan, that's my least developed function
> 
> ...


Wow, well you're apparently a thoroughly unpleasant person.

Your condescension and lack of empathy for the plights of men inclines me to disregard the issues that you bring up, whether or not they're valid concerns. Victim blaming & the wage gap are nonsense. And the idea that women usually aren't as "physically strong" as men isn't just a stereotype. It's a reality.



koalaroo said:


> People believe what those articles and videos are saying?


Yes, they do. The MGTOW movement is growing quickly as more and more men make objective assessments of how they're treated by women and society. The man who made the video -- "Sandman" -- is considered by the community to be quite tame and mostly useful as a starting point to learn about the philosophy. I'd be very amused if you watched videos of men at the forefront of our thinking such as http://tinyurl.com/barrbarr.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

Ziggurat said:


> Yes, they do. The MGTOW movement is growing quickly as more and more men make objective assessments of how they're treated by women and society. The man who made the video -- "Sandman" -- is considered by the community to be quite tame and mostly useful as a starting point to learn about the philosophy. I'd be very amused if you watched videos of men at the forefront of our thinking such as http://tinyurl.com/barrbarr.


Just a bunch of hetero bros hanging out, chilling, going our own way. No women allowed.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

The Gay Agenda using The Feminist Conspiracy as a feint to get misogynists to voluntarily convert to homosexuality was a real masterstroke.


----------



## Ziggurat (Jun 12, 2010)

Shahada said:


> Just a bunch of hetero bros hanging out, chilling, going our own way. No women allowed.


They're allowed as long as they don't expect any special treatment or sacrifice from us due to their gender. ^^


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

Ziggurat said:


> They're allowed as long as they don't expect any special treatment or sacrifice from us due to their gender. ^^


----------



## Ziggurat (Jun 12, 2010)

^ no matter what horrible tactics they attempt to employ. ;D


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Ziggurat said:


> Wow, well you're apparently a thoroughly unpleasant person.
> 
> Your condescension and lack of empathy for the plights of men inclines me to disregard the issues that you bring up, whether or not they're valid concerns. Victim blaming & the wage gap are nonsense. And the idea that women usually aren't as "physically strong" as men isn't just a stereotype. It's a reality.


Lol. She sounds cool. Might friend request. Don't mind people being dismissive of problems that don't exist. 



Ziggurat said:


> Yes, they do. The MGTOW movement is growing quickly as more and more men make objective assessments of how they're treated by women and society. The man who made the video -- "Sandman" -- is considered by the community to be quite tame and mostly useful as a starting point to learn about the philosophy. I'd be very amused if you watched videos of men at the forefront of our thinking such as The Post-feminism Man - YouTube.


Ah the MGTOW movement. Where men claim to want nothing to do with women then spend the rest of their lives obsessing over them. Sounds wonderful.


----------



## Eos_Machai (Feb 3, 2013)

What is this MGTOW thing I've heard about the last couple of days? Just some collage douchbags who thinks that women today are useless and blames feminism?










Ziggurat said:


> They're allowed as long as they don't expect any special treatment or sacrifice from us due to their gender. ^^


This I don't get. It seems quite specific for the anti-feminist discourse in the United States. 

We have anti-feminists in Scandinavia too but I've never heard the argument that feminism teaches women to be entitled to certain privileges, expecting chivalry etc. That would be quite absurd because all feminists here seem to agree that they don't want no such special treatment. 

Is it different in the United States or are just anti-feminists misinterpretaing and blaming feminism for things that doesn't really have anything to do with feminism?


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Eos_Machai said:


> What is this MGTOW thing I've heard about the last couple of days? Just some collage douchbags who thinks that women today are useless and blames feminism?


Stands for Men Going Their Own Way. It's men who see women as irredeemably awful that they think their lives will be better with out them. But, like I said before, these groups of men then spend a totally disproportionate amount of time moaning about how women are evil and sharing stories of how women in their lives have betrayed them. It's pretty amusing, to be honest. And somehow they think their movement is more credible than the lesbian separatists. 



Eos_Machai said:


> This I don't get. It seems quite specific for the anti-feminist discourse in the United States.
> 
> We have anti-feminists in Scandinavia too but I've never heard the argument that feminism teaches women to be entitled to certain privileges, expecting chivalry etc. That would be quite absurd because all feminists here seem to agree that they don't want no such special treatment.
> 
> Is it different in the United States or are just anti-feminists misinterpretaing and blaming feminism for things that doesn't really have anything to do with feminism?


Yeah, it makes no sense. All the feminists I've spoken to detest chivalry. Then again, I'm not American.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

koalaroo said:


> What the fuck did I just listen to?
> What the actual fuck?
> 
> 
> ...


The first video is beyond retarded. Basically, even when men lie about their sexual conquests to boost their self-esteem, it's still women to blame, because women believe it. (How this is possible is beyond me because most men brag about their sexual conquests _to other men, _and not women, because they know it would turn women off.)

The amount of mental gymnastics it takes in order to process such an impressive attempt to form a coherent argument has literally left me stupid.


----------



## Ziggurat (Jun 12, 2010)

Mee2 said:


> Ah the MGTOW movement. Where men claim to want nothing to do with women then spend the rest of their lives obsessing over them. Sounds wonderful.


Utterly inaccurate. 



Eos_Machai said:


> What is this MGTOW thing I've heard about the last couple of days? Just some collage douchbags who thinks that women today are useless and blames feminism?





Mee2 said:


> Stands for Men Going Their Own Way. It's men who see women as irredeemably awful that they think their lives will be better with out them. But, like I said before, these groups of men then spend a totally disproportionate amount of time moaning about how women are evil and sharing stories of how women in their lives have betrayed them. It's pretty amusing, to be honest. And somehow they think their movement is more credible than the lesbian separatists.


I think that the following definition is quite apt: "MGTOW is a way of life which refuses to defer to women in defining the worth of men. Instead, it focuses on positive male aspects, inviting men to go their own way in life." It's about self-interest and pursuing one's passions instead of doing what society wants you to do. It just so happens that feminism and gynocentrism are antithetical to these goals.



Eos_Machai said:


> This I don't get. It seems quite specific for the anti-feminist discourse in the United States.
> 
> We have anti-feminists in Scandinavia too but I've never heard the argument that feminism teaches women to be entitled to certain privileges, expecting chivalry etc. That would be quite absurd because all feminists here seem to agree that they don't want no such special treatment.
> 
> Is it different in the United States or are just anti-feminists misinterpretaing and blaming feminism for things that doesn't really have anything to do with feminism?


My goodness, your feminism must be completely different than ours then!


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Ziggurat said:


> Utterly inaccurate.


Not really The Manosphere | MGTOW



Ziggurat said:


> My goodness, your feminism must be completely different than ours then!


It's not.


----------



## Ziggurat (Jun 12, 2010)

Mee2 said:


> Not really The Manosphere | MGTOW


The manosphere is simply a realm of thought in which men's experiences are centered. MGTOW itself is a category within it.

Click on the "About" tab then on "MGTOW" to see what it is specifically: 

"M.G.T.O.W – Men Going Their Own Way is a statement of self-ownership, where the modern man preserves and protects his own sovereignty above all else. It is the manifestation of one word: “No”. Ejecting silly preconceptions and cultural definitions of what a “man” is. Looking to no one else for social cues. Refusing to bow, serve and kneel for the opportunity to be treated like a disposable utility. And, living according to his own best interests in a world which would rather he didn’t."


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Ziggurat said:


> The manosphere is simply a realm of thought in which men's experiences are centered. MGTOW itself is a category within it.
> 
> Click on the "About" tab then on "MGTOW" to see what it is specifically:
> 
> "M.G.T.O.W – Men Going Their Own Way is a statement of self-ownership, where the modern man preserves and protects his own sovereignty above all else. It is the manifestation of one word: “No”. Ejecting silly preconceptions and cultural definitions of what a “man” is. Looking to no one else for social cues. Refusing to bow, serve and kneel for the opportunity to be treated like a disposable utility. And, living according to his own best interests in a world which would rather he didn’t."


lol. They must think that means something.


----------



## Ziggurat (Jun 12, 2010)

Mee2 said:


> lol. They must think that means something.


Protecting one's sovereignty and living according to one's own best interests instead of those who would seek to control you using male gender roles doesn't mean anything!?


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Sporadic Aura said:


> What's wrong with being an egalitarian? Isn't that something everyone should strive for whether they are a feminist or not?


I think a Fascist would disagree, and in fact argue that there is a superior social group that has the purpose of subjugating the rest.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

The Manosphere.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Ziggurat said:


> Protecting one's sovereignty and living according to one's own best interests instead of those who would seek to control you using male gender roles doesn't mean anything!?


Yeah, it makes no sense. They're making a very clear statement about what they think a man should be while simultaneously claiming to reject gender roles. And their conception of masculinity is pretty standard anyway lol.


----------



## Ziggurat (Jun 12, 2010)

Mee2 said:


> Yeah, it makes no sense. They're making a very clear statement about what they think a man should be while simultaneously claiming to reject gender roles. And their conception of masculinity is pretty standard anyway lol.


Yes, they're making a very clear statement that *traditional* male gender roles should be discarded. In its place they suggest each man follows his *own* ideals. This is certainly not a 'standard' conception of masculinity! This is quite the opposite of it, in fact. By definition, rejecting traditional male gender roles is antithetical to adopting a standard masculinity.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

Shahada said:


> The Manosphere.












Once, the Manosphere contained great power. We had the right to rule. There was order to the universe.

But it was all taken away. In one fell swoop, a she-devil named Christine de Pizan started questioning the order. The manosphere was disturbed.

More of them came. Susan Anthony, Elizabeth Stanton, Germaine Greer, Gloria Steinem... Soon a whole generation of them was born. They were called the feminazis.

The feminazis grew larger everyday. They, with their struggles for equal rights, equal respect, and equality between the genders. Their batallion was growing every day. They sought to taint the power of the Manosphere. Little by little, they learned how to disturb the patriarchal essence. 

Now, a few brave warriors, with their Mountain Dew, Cool Ranch Doritos, and keyboards, are restoring justice to the manosphere. The greatest battle is upon these warriors. Gamergate. Under the guise of journalism ethics, they have started restoring balance to the manosphere by targeting Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian and sending rape threats. The battle rages on, as these warriors set their campgrounds in the land of 4chan.


----------



## orihara (Nov 23, 2014)

Sporadic Aura said:


> Egalitarian: Of, relating to, or believing in the principle that all people deserve equal rights and opportunities.
> 
> Call me crazy but this seems pretty alright to me.
> 
> Btw, I'm not part of some egalitarian movement, I wouldn't use that term to label myself. It just seems like a fairly straight forward idea. I think most people believe in equal rights and opportunities for everyone, so they are egalitarians by default regardless of what other labels they attach themselves to.


ah yes... i forgot the basic definition of something always fits reality and its practical terms... not like there's egalitarians who turn racism issues like what happened in ferguson not about black people getting murdered but about EVERYONE MUST BE EQUAL, INCLUDING WHITE PEOPLE, DON'T DISCRIMINATE THEM feels, or ~feminism isn't only about women~, no... that certainly doesn't happen at all. not in debate forums... or a daily conversation with them..... damn, foiled again (*egalitarian voice* okay but not ALL egalitarians are that way)


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)




----------



## orihara (Nov 23, 2014)

Ziggurat said:


> Wow, well you're apparently a thoroughly unpleasant person.
> 
> Your condescension and lack of empathy for the plights of men inclines me to disregard the issues that you bring up, whether or not they're valid concerns. Victim blaming & the wage gap are nonsense. And the idea that women usually aren't as "physically strong" as men isn't just a stereotype. It's a reality.


ADDING THE FIRST LINE TO MY ABOUT BECAUSE IT'S GREAT, DANKE

oh man, you're such an unfun zone and have to take everything to the heart. HEHEHEHE the plights of men, yeah, how could i forget about that TOO. the countable data of the oppression they go through each day is so comparable to literally anyone else who lives on this earth, the stereotypes are so harmful to them too. society must really hate men huh my gomen nyas

MY BAD i forgot the wage gap didn't exist either. not like a male with 9th to 12th grade and no diploma makes 10 dollars more than a female in the same conditions, or that men with "some" college+no degree makes nearly 20 more than, again, a female in the same conditions, and even when a woman gets the associate degree she's still makes less money than no degree male bud. i also probably misread that professional and doctorate degree for male makes about twice the money a woman makes (100-120$ vs 63-65$) with the same degrees. i can't believe the us department of commerce lied to me on these neopets 

but that's something you disregarded because i am an unpleasant person so who cares


----------



## orihara (Nov 23, 2014)

Mee2 said:


> Lol. She sounds cool. Might friend request. Don't mind people being dismissive of problems that don't exist.


(offers you an orange) i am p avarage but i appreciate the thought :wink:


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

orihara said:


> ADDING THE FIRST LINE TO MY ABOUT BECAUSE IT'S GREAT, DANKE
> 
> oh man, you're such an unfun zone and have to take everything to the heart. HEHEHEHE the plights of men, yeah, how could i forget about that TOO. the countable data of the oppression they go through each day is so comparable to literally anyone else who lives on this earth, the stereotypes are so harmful to them too. society must really hate men huh my gomen nyas
> 
> ...


I don't really care about this issue. But look up the sentencing disparity between men and women, for similar crimes. 

I don't want to work either. I don't want to be a provider. 

 After controlling for the arrest offense, criminal history, and other prior characteristics, "men receive 63% longer sentences on average than women do," and "[w]omen are…twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted." This gender gap is about six times as large as the racial disparity that Prof. Starr found in another recent paper.


----------



## orihara (Nov 23, 2014)

FearAndTrembling said:


> I don't really care about this issue. But look up the sentencing disparity between men and women, for similar crimes.
> 
> I don't want to work either. I don't want to be a provider.
> 
> After controlling for the arrest offense, criminal history, and other prior characteristics, "men receive 63% longer sentences on average than women do," and "[w]omen are…twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted." This gender gap is about six times as large as the racial disparity that Prof. Starr found in another recent paper.


gonna read about that during the week, this is interesting information although i'm not entirely sure if it's THAT relevant to what i meant to say, but it still is data to add i suppose. naisu


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

koalaroo said:


> What's interesting to note is that women receive harsher punishments for killing their intimate partners than men do for killing their intimate partners. Women receive roughly 15 year sentences, whereas men receive 2-6 year sentences.


Why aren't they all getting life sentences for murder? Unless I'm being woefully ignorant of something here?


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Sporadic Aura said:


> Why aren't they all getting life sentences for murder? Unless I'm being woefully ignorant of something here?


You don't always get a life sentence for murder.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

Mee2 said:


> So you're kinda pestering me to support a point that I wasn't making.


lol, oh come ooonnnnnnn... 

what's it called when you quote someone then? 

:wink:


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

Shahada said:


> Yeah, women murder by being deceitful, cowardly and manipulatives witches, men murder with honor.



i think he's saying that it's more common for a woman to show signs that there was a foundation of planning that preceded the murder, which automatically gets a higher sentence... 

i don't know if that's actually true, but it is something worth looking into (in other words: is it because of actual "oppression"/being treated unfairly that woman get a higher sentence, or are there actual reasons for it that line up with the current laws? i'd be willing to bet there is a stigma in societies mind that might cause someone to a view the situation like this from the very beginning, even before hearing evidence--since it's kind of an archetype, found in literature throughout history, and has now become a stereotype...
but it's not a completely unfair point. again, just something to look into)


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Donovan said:


> lol, oh come ooonnnnnnn...
> 
> what's it called when you quote someone then?
> 
> :wink:


I don't even know what you're talking about.


----------



## pigeonbeard (Dec 8, 2014)

Sporadic Aura said:


> You don't think there is anyone in the world that hates men?


Consider consider this: men aren't oppressed. Those who hate men most times do so rightfully.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

pigeonbeard said:


> Consider consider this: men aren't oppressed. Those who hate men most times do so rightfully.


Its ok to hate someone based only on the fact that they are not oppressed? Actually what you're saying is, its ok to hate a whole group of people, half of humanity, based on the fact that they are not oppressed?

Is this what you believe?

But let me get this clear. You are now backtracking from your original position 'misandry doesn't exist' to a new position 'misandry exists, but people who are misandrists are justified'?


----------



## pigeonbeard (Dec 8, 2014)

Snow Leopard said:


> I swear threads like this seem to appear out of nowhere, like mushrooms after a rain storm.
> 
> 
> 
> Reverse racism, hmm. That would be where you treat everyone with equal status and respect, regardless of their race? That sounds like something worth believing in! :wink:


Do you not even know what reverse racism is?


----------



## pigeonbeard (Dec 8, 2014)

Sporadic Aura said:


> Its ok to hate someone based only on the fact that they are not oppressed?


You DO realize what that entails, right? You DO realize what not being oppressed versus being oppressed does, right?


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

pigeonbeard said:


> You DO realize what that entails, right? You DO realize what not being oppressed versus being oppressed does, right?


Do you think a homeless man is an oppressor? What about a black man who was brutally murdered by police for really no reason at all? Or a man that lives in a trailer park and is on welfare? 

Misandry implies a hatred of _all_ men.

But again, you are backtracking from your original position that 'misandry doesn't exist' and adopting a new position 'its ok to be a misandrist'?


----------



## pigeonbeard (Dec 8, 2014)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> willfully ignorant comments like this are precisely why this topic needs to be discussed in the first place. I know it's convenient to think that because you are part of a "victim" group, that it is impossible for you to actually commit any crime of hatred of discrimination, but this just isn't the reality. when you have (female) judges claiming they see case after case of women who get away scot-free after continually and violently abusing their husband, misandry exists on some level, period.


But... that doesn't happen though?

Do you know how many countless times men got off free for brutally assaulting and/or raping their mothers, sisters, daughters, etc?

How many crimes of hatred and discrimination were carried out by men - and even other women - upon women due to internalized misogyny?

Men aren't oppressed. They aren't, and never were. We are not a "victim" group, we are a victim group, plain and simple.


----------



## pigeonbeard (Dec 8, 2014)

Sporadic Aura said:


> Do you think a homeless man is an oppressor? What about a black man who was brutally murdered by police for really no reason at all? Or a man that lives in a trailer park and is on welfare?
> 
> Misandry implies a hatred of all men.
> 
> But again, you are backtracking from your original position that 'misandry doesn't exist' and adopting a new position 'its ok to be a misandrist'?


Black men are affected by racism, not misandry.
Homeless men are affected by classicism, not misandry.

Those are entirely separate subjects. Good job.

I'm... not backtracking at all?? 

Misandry - as an oppressive tool against men - doesn't exist, period.

You can't oppress oppressors. That's not how it works.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

pigeonbeard said:


> Consider this: misandry doesn't exist.





pigeonbeard said:


> Those who hate men most times do so rightfully.





pigeonbeard said:


> I'm... not backtracking at all??


Hmm. The hatred of men is classified as misandry. You said misandry doesn't exist and then you change your stance and said 'people who hate men do so rightfully'.

Misandry actually just implies a hatred of men. We're talking about two separate things. Wide scale oppression against men doesn't happen. Individual women who hate men, do. You seem to think they are justified in doing so. I'd have to disagree.


----------



## pigeonbeard (Dec 8, 2014)

Sporadic Aura said:


> Hmm. The hatred of men is classified as misandry. You said misandry doesn't exist and then you change your stance and said 'people who hate men do so rightfully'.
> 
> Misandry actually just implies a hatred of men. We're talking about two separate things. Wide scale oppression against men doesn't happen. Individual women who hate men, do. And they aren't justified in doing so.


Of course they are.

I don't know about you, but when I notice the things men do as oppressors, say - gang up on the women speaking their minds in a forum negatively targeting and stereotyping them - I think we have all the right to be a tad pissed off.

Cry harder, perhaps?


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

pigeonbeard said:


> Of course they are.
> 
> I don't know about you, but when I notice the things men do as oppressors, say - gang up on the women speaking their minds in a forum negatively targeting and stereotyping them - I think we have all the right to be a tad pissed off.
> 
> Cry harder, perhaps?


You're being ganged up on?

I'm crying?

Debating on a forum is now a form of oppression?

As an aside, in discussions like this I'd guess that feminists have more of a majority on this forum than any other group. I mean there are lots of people with varying opinions, but there is a decently big group of feminists and people who support feminism on this forum.


----------



## pigeonbeard (Dec 8, 2014)

Sporadic Aura said:


> You're being ganged up on?
> 
> I'm crying?
> 
> As an aside, in discussions like this I'd guess that feminists have more of a majority on this forum than any other group. I mean there are lots of people with varying opinions, but there is a decently big group of feminists and people who support feminism on this forum.


What is that supposed to prove? I made one post and had three separate people - exclusively male and including yourself - respond to me trying to speak over me and tell me that my say was/is invalid. I've seen few women as opposed to men in the past several pages.

So, if there's so many feminist supporters in this forum... Why aren't you one of them?


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

pigeonbeard said:


> What is that supposed to prove? I made one post and had three separate people - exclusively male and including yourself - respond to me trying to speak over me and tell me that my say was/is invalid. I've seen few women as opposed to men in the past several pages.
> 
> So, if there's so many feminist supporters in this forum... Why aren't you one of them?


How do you define 'speaking over me'? Do you think just because I disagreed with you that means I was trying to speak over you or shut you up? I asked you questions, mostly. You expanded on your opinion. I agreed with part of it, but disagree with the 'people who hate men have a good reason to do so' part. 

You tried to compare a disagreement on a forum to 'oppressive behavior'. I mean I'd totally understand why you'd be a little pissed if there was actually a large group of guys here rudely and aggressively trying to shut you up. That really just isn't the case though.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

pigeonbeard said:


> Of course they are.
> 
> I don't know about you, but when I notice the things men do as oppressors, say - gang up on the women speaking their minds in a forum negatively targeting and stereotyping them - I think we have all the right to be a tad pissed off.
> 
> Cry harder, perhaps?


disagreeing with your opinion on reality isn't "ganging up on" anyone. the fact that you believe this only proves the point of the people you argue against. 

when you see a situation in which all parties are acting very similar, and yet attribute a characteristic to one while failing to do so for the other party, means that you've entered into this activity with the notion that not everyone has to play by the same rules. when they do attempt to "play by the same rules", they are labeled negatively. 

that _is_ pretty symptomatic of a "victim mentality", as well as what could be called ingrained misandry (differing ideas on "appropriate behavior" across the sexes). what has happened that makes you think people are "ganging up" on anyone?


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

I'm going to quote part of our conversation to clear up what I meant.



Sporadic Aura said:


> Its ok to hate someone based only on the fact that they are not oppressed?





pigeonbeard said:


> You DO realize what that entails, right? You DO realize what not being oppressed versus being oppressed does, right?


To me you were implying here that its ok to hate men because they are oppressors.



pigeonbeard said:


> Black men are affected by racism, not misandry.
> Homeless men are affected by classicism, not misandry.
> 
> Those are entirely separate subjects. Good job.


I was not saying that they are affected by misandry, I was saying that they aren't oppressors. And that even if you take the stance 'women who hate men are justified because men are oppressors', it doesn't work because clearly not all men are oppressors or in positions of power over women.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

Shahada said:


> Why do you think it's too extreme? What do you consider "actually oppressed?"


At least where I live, which is the northeastern US, the average life of men and average life of women are about on par with each other. In terms of success, wealth, happiness, personal freedoms. Oppression to me implies a significant decline in quality of life and personal freedoms for the group being oppressed.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Sporadic Aura said:


> Yeah, whatever. I agree its not a super important discussion. But then again pigeonbeard recently said in this thread 'if a woman hates men she has good reason for it because women are oppressed'. So I don't think thats a real healthy attitude. And probably wouldn't exist if she didn't view herself as being oppressed.


Misogyny and misandry can't exist simultaneously for the same reason that all races can't be oppressed simultaneously, for the same reason that the upper and lower classes can't be oppressed simultaneously. It's about comparison; if everyone's oppressed then none one is (life just sucks in general lol). To be oppressed implies an oppressor. Lower class is oppressed by the upper class, black people are oppressed by white people, women are oppressed by men. Doesn't mean that men are malicious, doesn't mean that white people are malicious and it doesn't mean that rich people are malicious, it's just how the system works. 

If we're talking about individuals, then sure, some of them probably hate men (never met any though... maybe one). But start with that argument and you'll be talking about two different things.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

Mee2 said:


> Misogyny and misandry can't exist simultaneously for the same reason that all races can't be oppressed simultaneously, for the same reason that the upper and lower classes can't be oppressed simultaneously. It's about comparison; if everyone's oppressed then none one is (life just sucks in general lol). To be oppressed implies an oppressor. Lower class is oppressed by the upper class, black people are oppressed by white people, women are oppressed by men. Doesn't mean that men are malicious, doesn't mean that white people are malicious and it doesn't mean that rich people are malicious, it's just how the system works.


Well I guess we just had different definitions of oppression. I viewed it as a malicious, aggressive or powerful oppressive group/government/system oppressing a downtrodden and disempowered group.

And yeah we were talking about two different things. I was talking about misandry on an individual level not on a widescale level.

But yeah, I don't really care about getting into squabbles over who's more oppressed, or like Shahada put it 'an oppression olympics'. This discussion isn't super important to me. Just from what I think of as oppression I didn't think women in the western world really fit into that.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

Shahada said:


> Well you can take that up with her but its pretty stupid to use a single person as a stand in for a worldview or ideology like that.


She's just an example, she's not the only person I've seen expressing that type of mindset, unfortunately.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

Sporadic Aura said:


> She's just an example, she's not the only person I've seen expressing that type of mindset, unfortunately.


Okay and there are a lot of men on this forum and elsewhere who are out and out rape apologist MRA psychos, the reason for this is probably that there's something inherent to holding the view "first world women aren't oppressed" that makes men more inclined to be rape apologist MRA psychos. Fair statement?


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Sporadic Aura said:


> Well I guess we just had different definitions of oppression. I viewed it as a malicious, aggressive or powerful oppressive group/government/system oppressing a downtrodden and disempowered group.
> 
> And yeah we were talking about two different things. I was talking about misandry on an individual level not on a widescale level.
> 
> But yeah, I don't really care about getting into squabbles over who's more oppressed, or like Shahada put it 'an oppression olympics'. This discussion isn't super important to me. Just from what I think of as oppression I didn't think women in the western world really fit into that.


The issue itself might not be super important to you, but I think you should at least know what the issue actually is before deciding that. So yeah, now you understand what feminists mean when they use the word .


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

And anyway I don't think her view is being characterized fairly or is that unjustifiable. Maybe I'm wrong and if/when she expands on it she has another rationale, but to me it seemed she was making a point that women who "hate men" often do it out of a justifiable sense that the deck is stacked against women and in favor of men in society, so a woman having a hatred of men is more understandable and excusable than the opposite even if it isn't the best way to deal with the issue. Similar to the way that black Americans holding resentment towards whites is generally considered more excusable and understandable by many people than the opposite, since the cited grievances are generally legitimate and not made up like when men or white people try to turn the tables and say that actually they're the ones who are oppressed. I don't really disagree with this or find it very objectionable. The only real counter argument that I've seen to it is "well it's bad to hate _anyone!_" which is really trivially obvious and doesn't address the point being made at all.


----------



## pigeonbeard (Dec 8, 2014)

Sporadic Aura said:


> @pigeonbeard
> 
> Do you actually think that if a woman hate men that its justified? Or did you just say that in the heat of the moment?


This mention/quote reeks of "I still relevant?".

Can I ask why you are suddenly asking me this?


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

Shahada said:


> And anyway I don't think her view is being characterized fairly or is that unjustifiable. Maybe I'm wrong and if/when she expands on it she has another rationale, but to me it seemed she was making a point that women who "hate men" often do it out of a justifiable sense that the deck is stacked against women and in favor of men in society, so a woman having a hatred of men is more understandable and excusable than the opposite even if it isn't the best way to deal with the issue. Similar to the way that black Americans holding resentment towards whites is generally considered more excusable and understandable by many people than the opposite, since the cited grievances are generally legitimate and not made up like when men or white people try to turn the tables and say that actually they're the ones who are oppressed. I don't really disagree with this or find it very objectionable. The only real counter argument that I've seen to it is* "well it's bad to hate anyone!"* which is really trivially obvious and doesn't address the point being made at all.


I think you're giving her too much credit, but I could be very much proven wrong.

But.. yeah, its obvious. But how does it not address the point. The point is that there are more productive ways of handling a feeling that the deck is stacked against you than hatred.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

pigeonbeard said:


> This mention/quote reeks of "I still relevant?".
> 
> Can I ask why you are suddenly asking me this?


It's the biggest thing I disagree with you on, so I want you to clear up what you meant, basically.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

Mee2 said:


> The issue itself might not be super important to you, but I think you should at least know what the issue actually is before deciding that. So yeah, now you understand what feminists mean when they use the word .


You have a point. But I also think I have a point here too. If feminists are going to use words in a way that doesn't fit what their regular definition is, or in a different way than their normal definition its kinda on them to explain that to avoid people misinterpreting them.


----------



## pigeonbeard (Dec 8, 2014)

Sporadic Aura said:


> I think you're giving her too much credit, but I could be very much proven wrong.
> 
> But.. yeah, its obvious. But how does it not address the point. The point is that there are more productive ways of handling a feeling that the deck is stacked against you than hatred.


No, they got it right.

There are more productive ways, certainly. But that doesn't make their hate not justified. 
There are plenty of women doing more "productive" things (your definition of "productive" being a stretch in the dark here), but hatred of men itself is separate from that. 

You can say that about any minority ever, even. And as a minority group, there's only so much productivity you can do.
After years of so much productivity resulting in only so much progress - hatred is inevitable - regardless.

On the other hand: Don't even try to act like you're above hatred. Just don't.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

Sporadic Aura said:


> But.. yeah, its obvious. But how does it not address the point. The point is that there are more productive ways of handling a feeling that the deck is stacked against you than hatred.


That's an irrelevant point because no one, that I have seen, has argued that hatred is an ideal or optimal reaction or strategy to deal with structural oppression.


----------



## 66393 (Oct 17, 2013)

Misandry is not real! Duh... Only misogyny exists!


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Both misandry and misogyny are too vaguely interpreted.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny*

"_Misogyny (/mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is the hatred or dislike of women or girls. Misogyny* can be manifested* in numerous ways, including sexual discrimination, denigration of women, violence against women, and *sexual objectification of women.*_"

Apparently, sexual objectification is included in misogyny, and by that definition, I would be a misogynist. At least, some people seem to imply that sexual objectification is inherently misogynistic.

Although, I don't actually have a hatred/dislike of women.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

coy said:


> Misandry is not real! Duh... Only misogyny exists!


See? This guy gets it.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

pigeonbeard said:


> No, they got it right.
> 
> There are more productive ways, certainly. But that doesn't make their hate not justified.
> There are plenty of women doing more "productive" things (your definition of "productive" being a stretch in the dark here), but hatred of men itself is separate from that.
> ...


Eh, I'm sorry but I wouldn't say I'm 'above' hatred. But there is sincerely nobody or no group of people in the world I hate.

I'll respond to more of this later, maybe..


----------



## 66393 (Oct 17, 2013)

Sporadic Aura said:


> Eh, I'm sorry but I wouldn't say I'm 'above' hatred. But there is sincerely nobody or no group of people in the world I hate.
> 
> I'll *maybe leave sporadic *responses later, maybe..


What he meant to say*


----------



## 66393 (Oct 17, 2013)

Shahada said:


> See? This guy gets it.


Yesss. No one has said this to me since my prison days!


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

coy said:


> What he meant to say*


Yeah man, I guess I can't really organize my thoughts about this very clearly. But there is definitely a main point I'm trying to get across with all my sporadicness. *shrug*


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Sporadic Aura said:


> You have a point. But I also think I have a point here too. If feminists are going to use words in a way that doesn't fit what their regular definition is, or in a different way than their normal definition its kinda on them to explain that to avoid people misinterpreting them.


That's what I'm doing.


----------



## TheProphetLaLa (Aug 18, 2014)

Eska said:


> Both misandry and misogyny are too vaguely interpreted.
> 
> *Misogyny - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*
> 
> ...


Nothing we didn't already know Eskimo…nothing we didn't already know.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

TheProphetLaLa said:


> Nothing we didn't already know Eskimo…nothing we didn't already know.


Really? Do I come off as someone who has a hatred of women, or are you referring to the sexual objectification?

Would you qualify "sexual objectification" as being inherently misogynistic?


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

i think whenever you make the expectation that person "A" should do "B action" because of "X, Y, and Z reasons" that have nothing do with the results of his/her/other's actual actions, then you are most likely some form of "ist, ism, etc." (if we're being fair to the rationale of others)

but then of course there's _"logic"_ to dispel the above, so...


:frustrating:


----------



## TheProphetLaLa (Aug 18, 2014)

Eska said:


> Really? Do I come off as someone who has a hatred of women, or are you referring to the sexual objectification?
> 
> Would you qualify "sexual objectification" as being inherently misogynistic?


Yes, to all of the above.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

pigeonbeard said:


> No, they got it right.
> 
> There are more productive ways, certainly. But that doesn't make their hate not justified.
> There are plenty of women doing more "productive" things (your definition of "productive" being a stretch in the dark here), but hatred of men itself is separate from that.
> ...


How does this relate to women in 1rst world countries? I think they are closer to equality than ever before and have been making big leaps of progress. You don't agree with this?

Anyways. Hating a whole group of people is always irrational and not justified. If you're fighting oppression you're fighting society and a 'system' you aren't fighting individual people. When you say that hatred is 'inevitable', are you talking about having a permanent hatred for everyone of a specific group? If so, I completely disagree with you.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

Sexual objectification isn't inherently misogynistic.

If I like a girl only because she's hot how does this imply a hatred of women? 

Before this gets twisted.. if the only thing you value in ALL women is hotness, then yeah. But liking specific girls cause they're hot isn't misogynistic.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

Mee2 said:


> Misogyny and misandry can't exist simultaneously for the same reason that all races can't be oppressed simultaneously, for the same reason that the upper and lower classes can't be oppressed simultaneously. It's about comparison; if everyone's oppressed then none one is (life just sucks in general lol). To be oppressed implies an oppressor. Lower class is oppressed by the upper class, black people are oppressed by white people, women are oppressed by men. Doesn't mean that men are malicious, doesn't mean that white people are malicious and it doesn't mean that rich people are malicious, it's just how the system works.
> 
> If we're talking about individuals, then sure, some of them probably hate men (never met any though... maybe one). But start with that argument and you'll be talking about two different things.


So you have a black, gay, rich male. Black: oppressed. Gay: oppressed. Rich: oppressor. Male: oppressor. So basically every single person in society in some soupy mashup of part oppressed, part oppressor? 

This is another reason I'd definitely not use the word 'oppressed' to describe these kinds of situations.

In my experience, and from what my intuition tells me... the thing that *really* matters is wealth. Wealth determines how easy your life is, way beyond any other factors.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

TheProphetLaLa said:


> Yes, to all of the above.


I see.



Sporadic Aura said:


> Sexual objectification isn't inherently misogynistic.
> 
> If I like a girl only because she's hot how does this imply a hatred of women?
> 
> Before this gets twisted.. if the only thing you value in ALL women is hotness, then yeah. But liking specific girls cause they're hot isn't misogynistic.


Agreed with the first 2 sentences, although, I disagree with your last one.

When you mean "the only thing you value in ALL women is hotness, then yeah.", are you using "only thing you value" as an absolute, or are you being vague?

If, hypothetically, we could use a system of points for value,

Which of these sets would you consider as being misogynistic? (On a scale from 0-70)

1.


> Emotional involvement: 50
> Sexual involvement: 50


2.


> Emotional involvement: 10
> Sexual involvement: 70


3.


> Emotional involvement: 1
> Sexual involvement: 10


4.


> Emotional involvement: 70
> Sexual involvement: 0


5.


> Emotional involvement: 0
> Sexual involvement: 70


I think that actual misogyny from sexual objectification is an almost unrealistic concept.

There is a difference between "only valuing" and "prioritizing".


----------



## Mr. Demiurge (Jun 18, 2014)

Mee2 said:


> Misogyny and misandry can't exist simultaneously for the same reason that all races can't be oppressed simultaneously, for the same reason that the upper and lower classes can't be oppressed simultaneously. It's about comparison; if everyone's oppressed then none one is (life just sucks in general lol). To be oppressed implies an oppressor. Lower class is oppressed by the upper class, black people are oppressed by white people, women are oppressed by men. Doesn't mean that men are malicious, doesn't mean that white people are malicious and it doesn't mean that rich people are malicious, it's just how the system works.


Is there a benefit to making this distinction that outweighs giving _carte blanche_ to someone suitably 'oppressed' to act like a contemptible piece of shit without being appropriately socially judged for it?


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

Mee2 said:


> Misogyny and misandry can't exist simultaneously for the same reason that all races can't be oppressed simultaneously, for the same reason that the upper and lower classes can't be oppressed simultaneously. It's about comparison; if everyone's oppressed then none one is (life just sucks in general lol). To be oppressed implies an oppressor. Lower class is oppressed by the upper class, black people are oppressed by white people, women are oppressed by men. Doesn't mean that men are malicious, doesn't mean that white people are malicious and it doesn't mean that rich people are malicious, it's just how the system works.
> 
> If we're talking about individuals, then sure, some of them probably hate men (never met any though... maybe one). But start with that argument and you'll be talking about two different things.


Except they can because you can be a misandrist without living in a society that oppresses men. Also, when it comes to gender roles in the first world, I think saying "men oppress women" is a bit blunt to describe the dynamic..

Edit: and before you say that's what it means, it's not. I've said my bit about opportunistic redefining of language, so I won't repeat it, but why not just be a little more descriptive..?


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Lord Shang said:


> Is there a benefit to making this distinction that outweighs giving _carte blanche_ to someone suitably 'oppressed' to act like a contemptible piece of shit without being appropriately socially judged for it?


Wat? I'm not saying that at all.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Sporadic Aura said:


> So you have a black, gay, rich male. Black: oppressed. Gay: oppressed. Rich: oppressor. Male: oppressor. So basically every single person in society in some soupy mashup of part oppressed, part oppressor?
> 
> This is another reason I'd definitely not use the word 'oppressed' to describe these kinds of situations.
> 
> In my experience, and from what my intuition tells me... the thing that *really* matters is wealth. Wealth determines how easy your life is, way beyond any other factors.


I agree, that's ridiculously oversimplified. Who cares if wealth matters more?


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Yomiel said:


> Except they can because you can be a misandrist without living in a society that oppresses men. Also, when it comes to gender roles in the first world, I think saying "men oppress women" is a bit blunt to describe the dynamic..
> 
> Edit: and before you say that's what it means, it's not. I've said my bit about opportunistic redefining of language, so I won't repeat it, but why not just be a little more descriptive..?


Because I'm too lazy to make arguments myself, here's some stuff from the Wikipedia page (emphasis mine): 



> In his 1997 book The Gender Knot: Unraveling Our Patriarchal Legacy, sociologist Allan G. Johnson stated that accusations of man-hating have been used to put down feminists and shift attention onto men in a way that reinforces male-centered culture. Johnson said that *comparisons between misogyny and misandry are misguided because mainstream culture offers no comparable anti-male ideology*. He says in his book that accusations of misandry work to discredit feminism because "people often confuse men as individuals with men as a dominant and privileged category of people." He wrote that given the "reality of women's oppression, male privilege, and men's enforcement of both, it's hardly surprising that every woman should have moments where she resents or even hates 'men'."
> 
> In the 2007 book International Encyclopedia of Men and Masculinities, Marc A. Ouellette contrasted misandry with misogyny, arguing that "misandry lacks the systemic, transhistoric, institutionalized, and legislated antipathy of misogyny" though acknowledging the possibility of specific "racialized" misandries and the existence of a "misandric impulse" in popular culture and literature. Anthropologist David D. Gilmore argues that *while misogyny is a "near-universal phenomenon" there is no male equivalent to misogyny. Gilmore also states that misandry refers "not to the hatred of men as men, but to the hatred of men's traditional male role" and a "culture of machismo"*. Therefore, he argues, misandry is "different from the intensely ad feminam aspect of misogyny that targets women no matter what they believe or do".


And again, I've never actually met someone who hates men.


----------



## Mr. Demiurge (Jun 18, 2014)

Mee2 said:


> Wat? I'm not saying that at all.


But your argument leads to that idea. The implication of misandry not being able to co-exist with misogyny is that a man can be guilty of the latter and a woman can't be guilty of the former due to power imbalances. As such, even if a woman engages in extreme negative judgements of men based on their sex, we can't judge her for it because patriarchy. I'm not sure what we gain in return. 

It seems much more sensible to me to just say 'yes, misandry is a thing and it can co-exist with misogyny, but in the society we live in the latter is a more pressing problem than the former.'


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

Mee2 said:


> Because I'm too lazy to make arguments myself, here's some stuff from the Wikipedia page (emphasis mine):
> 
> 
> 
> And again, I've never actually met someone who hates men.


No offense, but I really don't care what some gender studies major has to say about the historical implications of the word. It has a specific meaning and if people want to contrast it with, say, systematic misandry/misogyny, they're more than welcome to. Just like you can (and should) distinguish between racism and institutionalized racism when debating with it, but shouldn't just say all racism must be the latter and that "black people can't be racist!!1." 

And I've never met anyone who hates women either, though I'm sure such a person exists. Either way, misogyny seems like such a misnomer for what it's being used to describe.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Lord Shang said:


> But your argument leads to that idea. The implication of misandry not being able to co-exist with misogyny is that a man can be guilty of the latter and a woman can't be guilty of the former due to power imbalances. As such, even if a woman engages in extreme negative judgements of men based on their sex, we can't judge her for it because patriarchy. I'm not sure what we gain in return.
> 
> It seems much more sensible to me to just say 'yes, misandry is a thing and it can co-exist with misogyny, but in the society we live in the latter is a more pressing problem than the former.'


I'd just call her a jerk. Why is it a woman, by the way? I've been accused of hating of men lol. 

Anyway, calling the situation you describe "misandry," you're implying an equivalence to misogyny that simply isn't there. To quote the Wiki page again, 'Ouellette contrasted misandry with misogyny, arguing that "misandry lacks the systemic, transhistoric, institutionalized, and legislated antipathy of misogyny".' Feel free to use it that way if you really want to, but do it knowing that you're using a different definition and understand that failing to specify that you're using a different definition _undermines, trivialises and obscures misogyny_ (what feminists mean when they talk about it).


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Yomiel said:


> No offense, but *I really don't care what some gender studies major has to say* about the historical implications of the word. It has a specific meaning and if people want to contrast it with, say, systematic misandry/misogyny, they're more than welcome to. Just like you can (and should) distinguish between racism and institutionalized racism when debating with it, but shouldn't just say all racism must be the latter and that "black people can't be racist!!1."


Yeah, blanket dismissal of the experts. Real smart. 



Yomiel said:


> *And I've never met anyone who hates women* either, though I'm sure such a person exists. Either way, misogyny seems like such a misnomer for what it's being used to describe.


lol


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

Mee2 said:


> Yeah, blanket dismissal of the experts. Real smart.
> 
> 
> 
> lol


Not sure why that's funny (unless you meant to imply that I do), but I'm rather grateful for that.

I guess I should also revise the statement to say I've never met anyone who overtly hates women. It's possible someone I've met does, but his behavior didn't reflect it.

And experts? Riiiight. I'm talking strictly about definition, so I think the dictionary is my go to for this.


----------



## Mr. Demiurge (Jun 18, 2014)

Mee2 said:


> Anyway, calling the situation you describe "misandry," you're implying an equivalence to misogyny that simply isn't there. To quote the Wiki page again, 'Ouellette contrasted misandry with misogyny, arguing that "misandry lacks the systemic, transhistoric, institutionalized, and legislated antipathy of misogyny".' Feel free to use it that way if you really want to, but do it knowing that you're using a different definition and understand that failing to specify that you're using a different definition _undermines, trivialises and obscures misogyny_ (what feminists mean when they talk about it).


And by _not_ calling it 'misandry', you give ammunition to the arguments of those who say you're indulging in reverse discrimination and aren't interested in equality so much as making the playing field uneven in favor of those who have been historically oppressed. You provide cover for unacceptable behavior by making the actions of one jerkass guy who makes crass generalizations about women the outgrowth of an entire industrialized machine dedicated to grinding down women's rights while making the actions of a woman (or man, whatever) who does the reverse simply his/her own actions without further context, with the strong implication that the latter is somehow less contemptible than the former.

You alienate people who might otherwise be sympathetic and you legitimatize behavior you didn't intend to legitimize. And for what? What is gained by this approach?


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Lord Shang said:


> And by _not_ calling it 'misandry', you give ammunition to the arguments of those who say you're indulging in reverse discrimination and aren't interested in equality so much as making the playing field uneven in favor of those who have been historically oppressed.


When someone "hates men," I'll totally agree that their actions are deplorable. What I won't do is treat it as evidence of (or something that reinforces) a systemic problem. I don't see how that means I'm not interested in equality. 



Lord Shang said:


> You provide cover for unacceptable behavior by making the actions of one jerkass guy who makes crass generalizations about women the outgrowth of an entire industrialized machine dedicated to grinding down women's rights while making the actions of a woman (or man, whatever) who does the reverse simply his/her own actions without further context, with the strong implication that the latter is somehow less contemptible than the former.


They're both equally contemptible. All I'm saying is that only one is systemic/institutionalised. 



Lord Shang said:


> You alienate people who might otherwise be sympathetic and you legitimatize behavior you didn't intend to legitimize. And for what? What is gained by this approach?


I'm don't see why I should feel inclined to water down my views to make them more palatable for people who I don't think have a genuine interest in understanding them anyway. If someone wants to have a real conversation about it, then I'm willing, but if they just want to cry about how misandry is real and women discriminate against them all the time, then I just don't care. Sure, their life sucks, but an institutionalised hatred of men is not responsible for it.


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

Mee2 said:


> No, that's not what the terms mean. Their meanings are both contextual and never clearly defined. I'm sorry that you're uncomfortable with that. You seem to understand my point though, which is good: yes, "a woman can't hate men in the same way a man can hate women without having an enormous framework of social machinery and history driving her into it." But I don't see how that's any more or less arbitrary than the definitions you propose. And my argument is that "misogyny" relating to something structural by default makes it a _more_ useful word. I've never used it any other way, nor can I imagine a situation where I'd want to.


No it's not... It's clearly defined and any actions that can be described using said definition pass. I don't see why this is hard. If you want to contrast your idea of it and the general definition, find an extra qualifier that can express the difference.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Lord Shang said:


> @Mee2,
> 
> I think I need to understand your views a little more clearly before I can really address them properly. I feel I may have been unfair in how I phrased things above.
> 
> ...


It depends. In a society where black people are discriminated against, one might only hire black people in an attempt to compensate for lost opportunities elsewhere, they might want to encourage participation from a community that has become disillusioned or it might even be an attempt to prove to the world that black people are competent in whatever industry. 



Lord Shang said:


> 2) Male on female domestic violence is a much greater issue than female on male domestic violence, I'm sure you would agree. There is also a great deal more institutional support for the former through history, particularly in religion. Does this mean that female on male domestic violence doesn't count and should be labelled as something else? What about rape?


I think you could definitely make a case for there being two separate terms, if that's what you're saying. You wouldn't be the first to advocate such a thing. Without being too passionate about it, I've (mostly subconsciously) started using "men's violence against women" instead of domestic violence for the sake of clarity. So yeah, I guess there probably should be two terms, though I've never heard one proposed for the opposite. Not surprising, since less people talk about it. But it definitely counts when a woman abuses a man. I can't see why she should get special treatment. 



Lord Shang said:


> 3) If you read some Korea blogs, you'll find that there has been a trend to depict foreigners who come to the country to teach English as drug fiends, pedophiles, and other low-life sorts. As well, the South Korean justice system is often seen as heavily slanted in favor of ethnic Koreans. At least one blogger I know was told outright that the testimony of one of his witnesses wouldn't be worth much because she wasn't Korean. Since the discrimination there is systemic, does it count as racism, or does the prevalence of white privilege mean that anything but whites discriminating against other doesn't count even in primarily non-white areas of the world?


I don't know enough about this to comment. It could be either.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Yomiel said:


> No it's not... It's clearly defined and any actions that can be described using said definition pass. I don't see why this is hard. If you want to contrast your idea of it and the general definition, find an extra qualifier that can express the difference.


The dictionary definition sucks, sorry.


----------



## Du Toit (Mar 2, 2014)

This is interesting.

To dismiss misandry as nonexistent because it isn't necessarily institutionally grounded, is like saying racism towards Whites isn't real, because they are not prejudiced against in the work force. Also, @Shahada made a somewhat intriguing (though ''lazy'') point. How can you be so sure that misandry is a backfiring of misogyny ?


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

Mee2 said:


> The dictionary definition sucks, sorry.


"dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against men (i.e., the male sex)." It seems like an useful enough word to me.

Edit: would you prefer we attach a parenthetical making sure the reader knows it's not _actually_ a thing? Lol.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Mee2 said:


> The dictionary definition *isn't ideologically biased and doesn't attempt to deny an easily observable phenomenon*


sorry to burst your bubble :tongue:


----------



## Stelmaria (Sep 30, 2011)

With regards to the idea that white women can't be oppressed, it is like the concept of intersectionality had never been discovered. 
Intersectionality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then again I'm just glad that no one started the race equivalent versions of these threads. Though a thread on how able bodied people hate those with disabilities and chronic illnesses may have been illuminating. 
(To clarify, we feel comfortable discussing misogyny/misandry because these concepts are out in the open, but the idea that abled bodied people hate those with disabilities is not.)



Sporadic Aura said:


> If I like a girl only because she's hot how does this imply a hatred of women?


It might not seem as strong, but it is on the spectrum of hate. Objectification means you are denying the idea that the person has their own feelings and needs. The question is why are you disconnecting like this? It might not be that you hate all women, but this kind of disconnect demonstrates some hate towards that woman.



Shahada said:


> The only real counter argument that I've seen to it is "well it's bad to hate _anyone!_" which is really trivially obvious and doesn't address the point being made at all.


It is actually the deepest point of all, if you start examining the reasons why people hate and how we are taught to hate.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

@Shahada
@Mee2
@pigeonbeard
here is an article from a _feminism_ page which talks about how domestic abuse and rape of men are two of the most glossed over problems facing society
7 Types of Serious Abuse We Don't Take Seriously â€” Everyday Feminism


> In the media, marriages in which men are henpecked by emotionally manipulative women are played for laughs. This YouTube video featuring abused black men cuddling stuffed animals in the arms of white women demonstrates our tendency to portray abuse against men in an exaggerated, humorous way.
> *According to the CDC’s 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, about 1 in 4 men surveyed had experienced “rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner at some point in their lifetime”* compared to about 1 in 3 women surveyed. Among gay men, 15% of gay men who participated in the National Violence Against Women Survey had been abused by a live-in partner.
> *So why aren’t we hearing more about this? The pressure placed on men to be stoic, strong, and in control of their intimate relationships makes male victims of domestic violence less likely to report the incident.*
> And given society’s dismissive attitude toward the seriousness of this type of abuse, men fear being shamed, ignored, and ridiculed by the very people they seek help from.


....so can we please just admit a problem which is right in front of us, stop the simplistic, divisive bullshit and talk about something we can do to fix this problem?


----------



## Du Toit (Mar 2, 2014)

Snow Leopard said:


> It might not seem as strong, but it is on the spectrum of hate. Objectification means you are denying the idea that the person has their own feelings and needs. The question is why are you disconnecting like this? It might not be that you hate all women, but this kind of disconnect demonstrates some hate towards that woman.


Not even. It simply means that the person in question just doesn't see more in women than sexual gratification. Could be linked with hate towards women, but it shouldn't be assumed or even considered, because it's one of the many reasons that exist.


----------



## Kyusaku (Mar 18, 2014)

It's funny to read someone justify hate for one side and not the other, completely oblivious to the fact that hate is always rationalized from the person feeling it. 

Trying to be objective on that matter would mean to focus solely on the causes and consequences and not so much on the validity of the former.

Said otherwise, I don't care about people hating my guts for being a man or whatever they come up with, they are dicks and I'll avoid them at all cost, end of story. On the other hand if they become numerous enough and take up the forefront regularly in publics spaces (T.V. etc...), then I feel threatened, because not only does that resentment get its hands on actual power, but I'll spread like wildfire.

Hate doesn't need an object to exist, but does need an object to be expressed. People fuel their frustration through hate, all their plea is caused by x, so they don't have to deal with something abstract anymore. So when some resentment get more traction in the public space, people borrow it to fuel their daily life dissatisfactions, and it becomes commonly accepted as something valid to complain about.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Yomiel said:


> "dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against men (i.e., the male sex)." It seems like an useful enough word to me.
> 
> Edit: would you prefer we attach a parenthetical making sure the reader knows it's not _actually_ a thing? Lol.


"Misogyny" refers to institutionalised/systemic prejudices. Why should "misandry" refer to just any prejudice? You don't think that's kinda misleading? You don't think it trivialises misogyny to suggest that there is a male equivalent? 



Swordsman of Mana said:


> sorry to burst your bubble :tongue:


So the ultra-simplified dictionary definition trumps all the pages of information on Wikipedia? Why? Because it's convenient for you? I find it very curious that you dismiss the opinions of those who are in the best position to talk about how such words should be used, and then accuse me of bias.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Mee2 said:


> "Misogyny" refers to institutionalised/systemic prejudices. Why should "misandry" refer to just any prejudice? You don't think that's kinda misleading? You don't think it trivialises misogyny to suggest that there is a male equivalent?


no, I don't. no more than I think it trivializes the deaths of American soldiers to talk about the deaths of those in the middle east resulting from the war on terror. 




> So the ultra-simplified dictionary definition trumps all the pages of information on Wikipedia? Why? Because it's convenient for you? I find it very curious that you dismiss the opinions of those who are in the best position to talk about how such words should be used, and then accuse me of bias.


because they're _not_ in the best position to decide what such words mean. the one in the best position to decide the meaning of words is a _neutral_ authority. 


also, "all the pages of information on Wikipedia"...please


> Misandry /mɪˈsændri/, from the Greek misos (μῖσος, "hatred") and anēr, andros (ἀνήρ, gen. ἀνδρός; "man"), is the hatred or dislike of men or boys.[1][2] Misandry can be manifested in numerous ways, including sexual discrimination, denigration of men, violence against men, and sexual objectification of men. The form "misandrist" was first used in 1871.


this is the _first_ paragraph on the misandry page.

enough hiding behind definitions though. is the aforementioned 1 in 4 men being the victim of domestic abuse in their lifetime a problem to you or not?


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> @Shahada
> @Mee2
> @pigeonbeard
> here is an article from a _feminism_ page which talks about how domestic abuse and rape of men are two of the most glossed over problems facing society
> ...


You know, I don't just agree with feminists by default. And I'm going to be lazy again and quote someone.



> There is no doubt that some victims of domestic violence are men. No one disagrees that this abuse is unacceptable and unforgiveable, and that these men are equally deserving of resources and support. But to suggest that domestic violence is a gender-equal crime is plainly incorrect, and dangerous.
> 
> These groups cherry pick studies with dubious methodology. The studies they cite have been repeatedly refuted for an approach that does not differentiate between the type and context of violent acts (for example, between a push in self-defence and a push down the stairs, or between a single act of retaliation and years of ongoing abuse). The research has also been criticised for interviewing only one partner in the relationship, and for ignoring post-separation abuse, which accounts for a very large percentage of intimate partner violence.
> 
> ...


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Mee2 said:


> You know, I don't just agree with feminists by default.


forgive me if I have trouble believing that. 



> And I'm going to be lazy again and quote someone.


I'm not even arguing for _equal_ support, I'm arguing for support proportional the the rate of occurrence. in this case, it's 33.3% of women vs 25% of men. in other words, we should see about 75% as much support for men who are the victims of domestic abuse and rape as we do for women (because 25 is a little over 75% of 33). this is not the case 



> The United Kingdom equal rights group Parity asserts that men are unfairly treated in the provision of refuge places, stating that in England and Wales there are provisions for *7,500 refugee women but only 60 for men*


More than 40% of domestic violence victims are male, report reveals | Society | The Guardian
...doesn't sound proportional to me

look at the responses to female on male abuse in public. maybe you personally have a stronger disdain for it, but look at how everyone either ignores it or acts like it's somehow "empowering" for a woman to hit a man. ignoring this type of abuse makes about as much sense as ignoring the racism of the Ferguson case.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> no, I don't. no more than I think it trivializes the deaths of American soldiers to talk about the deaths of those in the middle east resulting from the war on terror.


Your analogy is ridiculous. Both of those things actually happen. Only one gender is systematically oppressed. 



Swordsman of Mana said:


> because they're _not_ in the best position to decide what such words mean. the one in the best position to decide the meaning of words is a _neutral_ authority.


Neutrality is a myth. 



Swordsman of Mana said:


> also, "all the pages of information on Wikipedia"...please
> 
> this is the _first_ paragraph on the misandry page.


Yes, I've read it. There's also a "criticism" section. I quoted it in this topic before. Why are you dismissing it? Also, if you read the page on misogyny, you'll notice parts where the structural nature of it is discussed. 



Swordsman of Mana said:


> enough hiding behind definitions though. is the aforementioned 1 in 4 men being the victim of domestic abuse in their lifetime a problem to you or not?


I'm familiar with the study. The methodology is dubious. I don't think those results are accurate or meaningful.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Mee2 said:


> Your analogy is ridiculous. Both of those things actually happen.


more dismissing...why am I not surprised?



> Only one gender is systematically oppressed.


you continue you bring up this completely off topic argument, but yes, both genders _can_ be systematically oppressed, because most societies do not have a deliberate agenda to oppress one gender or the other. 




> Neutrality is a myth.


bullshit. that's just an excuse to ignore your own biases




> Yes, I've read it. There's also a "criticism" section. I quoted it in this topic before. Why are you dismissing it? Also, if you read the page on misogyny, you'll notice parts where the structural nature of it is discussed.
> I'm familiar with the study. The methodology is dubious. I don't think those results are accurate or meaningful.


what qualms do you have with the study? given the predominant dismissal of men's abuse issues in feminist circles, I have difficulty believing a feminist page would use shaky evidence in advocacy of stopping violence against men.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> forgive me if I have trouble believing that.


I couldn't possibly agree with them all. They disagree with each other all the time. 



Swordsman of Mana said:


> I'm not even arguing for _equal_ support, I'm arguing for support proportional the the rate of occurrence. in this case, it's 33.3% of women vs 25% of men. in other words, we should see about 75% as much support for men who are the victims of domestic abuse and rape as we do for women (because 25 is a little over 75% of 33). this is not the case
> 
> More than 40% of domestic violence victims are male, report reveals | Society | The Guardian
> ...doesn't sound proportional to me
> ...


Like I said, the methodology of that study is dubious. Only one partner was interviewed and, as the article I quoted before says, men are more likely to exaggerate their partner's abuse while women are more likely to excuse it. People who were abused repeatedly (in the same way) are only counted once. Also:



> Most perpetrators of all forms of sexual violence against women were male. For female rape victims, 98.1% reported only male perpetrators. Additionally, 92.5% of female victims of sexual violence other than rape reported only male perpetrators. For male victims, the sex of the perpetrator varied by the type of sexual violence experienced. The majority of male rape victims (93.3%) reported only male perpetrators. For three of the other forms of sexual violence, a majority of male victims reported only female perpetrators: being made to penetrate (79.2%), sexual coercion (83.6%), and unwanted sexual contact (53.1%). For non-contact unwanted sexual experiences, approximately half of male victims (49.0%) reported only male perpetrators and more than one-third (37.7%) reported only female perpetrators (data not shown).


Why do you want proportional to the rate of occurrence when the wage gap would suggest that the situation often isn't as dire for men. With money, they'd be more able to escape it.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> more dismissing...why am I not surprised?


Yes, that was predictable. But I've gave reasons for it, which I see you've ignored. 



Swordsman of Mana said:


> you continue you bring up this completely off topic argument, but yes, both genders _can_ be systematically oppressed, because most societies do not have a deliberate agenda to oppress one gender or the other.


No, because it's about comparison. 



Swordsman of Mana said:


> bullshit. that's just an excuse to ignore your own biases


How could I say that neutrality is a myth without admitting that I'm biased? That doesn't make any sense. 



Swordsman of Mana said:


> what qualms do you have with the study? given the predominant dismissal of men's abuse issues in feminist circles, I have difficulty believing a feminist page would use shaky evidence in advocacy of stopping violence against men.


Addressed above.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Mee2 said:


> I couldn't possibly agree with them all. They disagree with each other all the time.


ok then, how many opinions do you have which are not in line with any of the predominant schools of feminism?




> Like I said, the methodology of that study is dubious. Only one partner was interviewed and, as the article I quoted before says, men are more likely to exaggerate their partner's abuse while women are more likely to excuse it. People who were abused repeatedly (in the same way) are only counted once. Also:


wait _what_? men are likely to _under_ emphasize abuse, not over emphasize it. men who are abused get made fun of, told to "man up" and told that it's not alright to hit a woman, even in self defense. 




> Why do you want proportional to the rate of occurrence when the wage gap would suggest that the situation often isn't as dire for men. With money, they'd be more able to escape it.


I want proportional support because everyone who is abused deserves support, period.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Mee2 said:


> Yes, that was predictable. But I've gave reasons for it, which I see you've ignored.


your reasonings were off topic, so I ignored them




> No, because it's about comparison.


it is _not_ about comparison. you want to make it about comparison so you can dismiss it. it's about
1) quantity. lots of men are abused
2) the fact that abuse of men is ignored and even laughed at




> How could I say that neutrality is a myth without admitting that I'm biased? That doesn't make any sense


. 
because there are parties involved in defining words which do not have vested interests (ie, the dictionary)


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

Mee2 said:


> "Misogyny" refers to institutionalised/systemic prejudices. Why should "misandry" refer to just any prejudice? You don't think that's kinda misleading? You don't think it trivialises misogyny to suggest that there is a male equivalent?
> 
> 
> 
> So the ultra-simplified dictionary definition trumps all the pages of information on Wikipedia? Why? Because it's convenient for you? I find it very curious that you dismiss the opinions of those who are in the best position to talk about how such words should be used, and then accuse me of bias.


Except it doesn't. Misogyny: "dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women." So call your misogyny institutionalized misogyny and the debate can end there.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Mee2 said:


> A lot of the situations that favour women actually have a clearly misogynistic ideology behind them. But I'm not aware of a word to describe such situations.


schools of feminism which slut shame women who "degrade themselves" fall into that category nicely.


----------



## Mr. Demiurge (Jun 18, 2014)

Mee2 said:


> Never encountered. Doubt I ever will. Don't know what I'd do, don't care what anyone else would do.


So if I dislike women, it's always because I'm a product of an evil misogynistic system of oppression rather than because I don't enjoy the company of the women I've encountered in my life?



> That prejudice has to come from somewhere.


Yes, and it can come from simply not enjoying being around men. Some people don't like dogs. Does that mean they're a product of a virulent dog-hating system and they couldn't have developed that dislike for dogs outside of that system? 



> I don't think one can grow up in this society and develop said prejudice. The dominant culture just doesn't support it. If someone managed to develop some kind of anti-male ideology anyway, then call them what you will. It's so rare that I'm not concerned about it.


Your entire argument is that the system is biased against women. Being on the losing end of a system which favors men seems like a good basis for hatred to me, if it's true. 



> A lot of the situations that favour women actually have a clearly misogynistic ideology behind them. But I'm not aware of a word to describe such situations.


How about 'sexism'? Why must every word have an enormous ideological agenda artificially welded to it?


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Yomiel said:


> Except it doesn't. Misogyny: "dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women." So call your misogyny institutionalized misogyny and the debate can end there.


Dictionary definition sucks and does not represent how the word is most often used. Most don't use your suggested prefix and it's understood that they're talking about something institutionalised.


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

Mee2 said:


> Dictionary definition sucks and does not represent how the word is most often used. Most don't use your suggested prefix and it's understood that they're talking about something institutionalised.


Well, if that's how you want to use it, fine, but it's not how it's defined and you can't then say "well, misandry isn't real because it's no longer perfectly analogous to this term I just redefined."


----------



## Mr. Demiurge (Jun 18, 2014)

Mee2 said:


> Dictionary definition sucks and does not represent how the word is most often used. Most don't use your suggested prefix and it's understood that they're talking about something institutionalised.


The dictionary definition makes the word more flexible, allowing it to cover dislike of women that simply results from personal taste rather than social brainwashing. The best alternative word you've been able to provide for the former is 'don't know, don't care.'


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Lord Shang said:


> So if I dislike women, it's always because I'm a product of an evil misogynistic system of oppression rather than because I don't enjoy the company of the women I've encountered in my life?


I don't think they're so easily separated. 



Lord Shang said:


> Yes, and it can come from simply not enjoying being around men. Some people don't like dogs. Does that mean they're a product of a virulent dog-hating system and they couldn't have developed that dislike for dogs outside of that system?


Not enjoying being around men doesn't mean you hate them. I don't enjoy being around footballers. Don't hate them, just don't have anything in common with them. I can't identify any anti-dog/pro-dog ideology being fed to the general public. 



Lord Shang said:


> Your entire argument is that the system is biased against women. Being on the losing end of a system which favors men seems like a good basis for hatred to me, if it's true.


Right, so they hate men's privileged position. They don't hate men for being men. 



Lord Shang said:


> How about 'sexism'? Why must every word have an enormous ideological agenda artificially welded to it?


It sucks, doesn't it.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Yomiel said:


> Well, if that's how you want to use it, fine, but it's not how it's defined and you can't then say "well, misandry isn't real because it's no longer perfectly analogous to this term I just redefined."


I'm not redefining it, I'm telling you what it most often means. I don't know why I have to keep repeating this.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Lord Shang said:


> The dictionary definition makes the word more flexible, allowing it to cover dislike of women that simply results from personal taste rather than social brainwashing. The best alternative word you've been able to provide for the former is 'don't know, don't care.'


Flexible words tend to cause problems. I contest that it's a good thing. 

Right, I'm sorry for not providing a suitable word for you to use in a situation that you'll never encounter.


----------



## Mr. Demiurge (Jun 18, 2014)

Mee2 said:


> Depends on how you define "rights." I support quotas in a lot of cases. By your definition you might seem them as having more rights than white people, but I'd still say that they're less privileged (unless you went crazy with quotas, I guess).


And when do you expect the quotas to end? When can we safely say that society has been rebalanced into social harmony through your approach, and no race need have an artificial advantage due to historical lack of privilege ever again? What is the end game here that drops us into true equality, basically? 



> The intention would be to communicate that one has structural roots and the other doesn't. As a result, one is far more prevalent. I think it's an important distinction. When advocating new terms, one would obviously have to be clear about about the message that they were trying to communicate. Yes, there are risks. I'm willing to take them.


I'm not, because I think your approach might minimize someone's suffering based purely on their gender. Again, that sounds like it hurts the cause of equality rather than furthering it.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

@Shahada



> It's inevitable that when a large group of people are systematically oppressed by another group of people that some people in the oppressed group are going to react with hatred towards the group they see as their oppressors.


Agreed. Its not inevitable for every single person to feel hatred, but its inevitable that some people will.



> This hatred, however, should be viewed with more understanding and empathy than the hatred of the powerful for the oppressed.


Agreed.

So basically if we call women in 1rst world countries oppressed we are saying that we should feel understanding and empathy towards women in 1rst world countries that hate men. Oppression is too strong of a word. You're opposed to not calling it oppression because you think people just say 'oh its not _really_ oppression' as a way to dismiss things that are actually a problem. I get that. There are definitely people who do that. I'm not one of them. I'm looking at it from a completely objective stand point. It might seem like a silly thing to squabble over, but I think just throwing around the term oppression like that isn't a good idea. Because it also perpetuates mindsets like I said above where people think its reasonable to have empathy and understanding towards 1rst world women who hate men. Which is a mindset I definitely think pigeonbeard holds, and I've seen other people express too outside of this forum.




> Yes? The real world is complicated and not everyone fits into a neat little box.


The point I was trying to make was is it really possible for someone to be both oppressed and an oppressor at the same time? Yeah, its complicated. I'd apply the 'not fitting into a neat little box thing' to oppression itself, not to individual people. Its not as neat and simple as 'all men oppress women', 'all white people oppress black people'. Which is what Mee2 was saying. I don't even think I'd view individual people as being 'oppressors'. Its systems and society as a whole that is what is mainly oppressive.



> Yes, and class is often mediated by things like race and gender. See things like wage gaps, different rates of home ownership, etc.


Yeah, that's a good point. I don't know if the wage gap will really move someone up or down a class though. A woman who is a doctor, although making less than male doctors, will still be making a good amount of money. A man who is a janitor, although making more than female janitors, will still probably not be making very much.


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

Mee2 said:


> I'm not redefining it, I'm telling you what it most often means. I don't know why I have to keep repeating this.


You are. It's been clearly defined and you're saying that it means something else.


----------



## Mr. Demiurge (Jun 18, 2014)

Mee2 said:


> I don't think they're so easily separated.


Why not? People hate plenty of things without 'the system' having much to do with it.



> Not enjoying being around men doesn't mean you hate them.


Neither does it mean that you don't hate them. You can dislike being around men so much that the correction description for your feelings for them is 'hate.' It's not hard.



> I can't identify any anti-dog/pro-dog ideology being fed to the general public.


And yet some people still hate dogs. Funny how not everything is the product of systematic indoctrination. 



> Right, so they hate men's privileged position. They don't hate men for being men.


So basically you're certain that everyone who harbors anger against men's position in society 'hates the sin, but loves the sinner'?



> It sucks, doesn't it.


Nah, it's fine. You can go on using sexism in whatever rarefied ideological way you like and the rest of society will go on using it as 'discrimination based on gender.'


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Lord Shang said:


> And when do you expect the quotas to end? When can we safely say that society has been rebalanced into social harmony through your approach, and no race need have an artificial advantage due to historical lack of privilege ever again? What is the end game here that drops us into true equality, basically?


If you're implying that quotas will always be necessary, you're wrong. There's plenty of evidence that quotas being in place for a short time have long-lasting effects. Look at women in government in India, for one example. 



Lord Shang said:


> I'm not, because I think your approach might minimize someone's suffering based purely on their gender. Again, that sounds like it hurts the cause of equality rather than furthering it.


Your approach could hurt the cause of gender equality as well by obscuring the fact that the underlying cause is different. It's quite common for people to think that there's no structural prejudices behind men's violence against women.


----------



## Mr. Demiurge (Jun 18, 2014)

Mee2 said:


> Flexible words tend to cause problems. I contest that it's a good thing.


Which is why you qualify those words with appropriate adjectives.



> Right, I'm sorry for not providing a suitable word for you to use in a situation that you'll never encounter.


If you genuinely think no one can dislike or hate something out of personal taste rather than social indoctrination, you need to get away from gender studies and go out in the real world for awhile.


----------



## Mr. Demiurge (Jun 18, 2014)

Mee2 said:


> If you're implying that quotas will always be necessary, you're wrong. There's plenty of evidence that quotas being in place for a short time have long-lasting effects. Look at women in government in India, for one example.


Under what circumstances do we end them, then, since they won't be necessary forever? When people stop being prejudiced against black people or women? How do we determine that?



> Your approach could hurt the cause of gender equality as well by obscuring the fact that the underlying cause is different. It's quite common for people to think that there's no structural prejudices behind men's violence against women.


And it's quite common for people to think that women using violence or raping men isn't a real thing, but rather the punchline to a joke. Why is that less of an issue?


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

Snow Leopard said:


> It might not seem as strong, but it is on the spectrum of hate. Objectification means you are denying the idea that the person has their own feelings and needs. The question is why are you disconnecting like this? It might not be that you hate all women, but this kind of disconnect demonstrates some hate towards that woman.


What does liking some because they are hot have to do with recognizing whether that person has their own feelings and needs?


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Lord Shang said:


> Why not? People hate plenty of things without 'the system' having much to do with it.


When the system is relatively neutral, sure. 



Lord Shang said:


> Neither does it mean that you don't hate them. You can dislike being around men so much that the correction description for your feelings for them is 'hate.' It's not hard.


I don't think this is possible, sorry. I misunderstood you before. When I said that one can not enjoy being around men without hating them, I was speaking about a correlation rather than causation. So, men and women are socialised differently, have less in common and therefore might generally prefer members of the same sex. There's no dislike of "maleness" here, just a preference for being around those who they have things in common with. What I argue is impossible is a dislike/hatred of "maleness" - a hatred of men for no reason other than the fact that they're men. 



Lord Shang said:


> And yet some people still hate dogs. Funny how not everything is the product of systematic indoctrination.


Because the system is fairly neutral. 



Lord Shang said:


> So basically you're certain that everyone who harbors anger against men's position in society 'hates the sin, but loves the sinner'?


No, privilege isn't a sin. I'd say they hate the system and take it out on individuals. 



Lord Shang said:


> Nah, it's fine. You can go on using sexism in whatever rarefied ideological way you like and the rest of society will go on using it as 'discrimination based on gender.'


Ah, so my heightened awareness of context is some kind of character flaw, while your refusal to acknowledge context is "neutrality". Gotcha!


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Lord Shang said:


> Under what circumstances do we end them, then, since they won't be necessary forever? When people stop being prejudiced against black people or women? How do we determine that?


Representation in certain powerful positions, wage gaps, women's/black people's perspectives on the issue... I don't think one could ever do it perfectly, but those things are probably a good starting point. 



Lord Shang said:


> And it's quite common for people to think that women using violence or raping men isn't a real thing, but rather the punchline to a joke. Why is that less of an issue?


Right, so both approaches carry risks and we don't agree regarding which one is the most significant. It's a highly subjective thing and I don't think we're capable of having a productive conversation about it.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> yup, my initial assumption was right: playing to the crowd. and btw, "using my own words" does not absolve you. people do that all the time, it's called hasty deduction, attribution bias and cherry picking,


You said "some people deserve to be raped." There's no cherry picking there. At the same time, you said "no one is encouraging rape" as an argument for why "rape culture" is a bullshit concept. If the person saying "no one is encouraging rape" to make the point that rape culture doesn't exist _actually does encourage rape,_ it calls their objectivity and credibility into question and also shows that they are wrong, because they themselves are encouraging rape, so it stands to reason that others would as well. If you actually care about the issues you're discussing you'd probably do them a big favor by letting someone argue for them who doesn't enthusiastically celebrate and fantasize about inflicting rape and sexual assault on "deserving" parties.


Swordsman of Mana said:


> 1) most of society does not encourage the rape of women in general and does not believe that "she asked for it" is an excuse. self included


A very significant portion of society does this I believe, and I offered many examples just from the limited space of this forum, which you did not address. I do not think you yourself are included in this group by the way, based on various statements you have made about rape.


Swordsman of Mana said:


> 2) most of society does not think that sadistic murderers, child molesters and domestic abusers deserve to be raped. self _not_ included.


I question the accuracy of this since joking about and celebrating prison rape as a legitimate punishment for crimes is a very common attitude in the US. I'm not sure everyone who thinks it is a good thing or a laughable thing actively fantasizes about it in detail as you seem to, with the talk of "objects" and such, but it is a pretty common attitude, indicative of rape culture.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

*sigh* this thread has lost any vestige of fruitful discussion. we're not even talking about the issue anymore. I'm out


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

Lord Shang said:


> The implication of labeling somehow an 'oppressor' is that they're...well, oppressing someone. If someone is an oppressor by virtue of birth, then they're guilty of the crime of oppression just for being born. You can acknowledge imbalances of privilege and work to correct them while not claiming that someone is a undermining everyone else because they came out of the wrong womb with the wrong genitalia.


Do you think white people benefit from racism against black people? If so, how are they not oppressors or at the very least complicit in that oppression? If not, please explain.


Lord Shang said:


> Again, there's nothing stopping us from acknowledging imbalances in society while also acknowledging that someone being judged guilty for slavery or Jim Crow decades after the fact because of their skin color is fucking stupid.


Who the fuck are you arguing with? I've lost count of the number of times you've ascribed false positions to me in this thread alone. Where did I say white people living in the year of our lord 2014 are guilty of slavery and Jim Crow, and should be judged accordingly?


Lord Shang said:


> When I see you and @Mee2 arguing that racism isn't racism unless it's white people hating non-white people, and sexism isn't sexism unless it's men hating women, the message I get is that it's impossible to wrong me on the base of my ethnicity or gender because of my 'privilege', whereas if I wrong others I must be held accountable. The implication of that argument is that, by virtue of my 'privilege', I'm one of the enemy until I've proven otherwise. How does that have anything to do with social justice?


You're not going to get a good answer if you build up a strawman position and then ask me to defend that strawman position. I didn't make that argument, so I feel no need to defend it. Obviously it is possible to wrong you for those reasons, the contention here is that the actual chances of you being wronged for those reasons is so infintisemal in reality so as to make it a virtual non-issue, and when you push aside real, oppressive racism to say "BUT WHITE PEOPLE CAN HAVE BAD THINGS DONE TO THEM TOO!" you diminish the reality of racism and white supremacy.


Lord Shang said:


> Are you interested in equality and justice or just a bloody revolution where all the bad white people get killed?


The former.


Lord Shang said:


> If the former, that means convincing white people that they have a stake in the society you're arguing for, which means (again) making it clear that such a society benefits everyone.


There's lots of white people I have no problem doing this with with this line of argumentation. I am white myself. Sounds like a "you" problem.


----------



## MisterD (Feb 24, 2010)

Cause they can't get any & not considered potential sexual partners.

The core being low self esteem & a need to put down men so they can feel better about themselves when in actuality they are trash.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> a) I would feel justified raping people


You said some people deserve to be raped, so yes? Maybe you personally wouldn't like to do the raping, but I don't see why you wouldn't be justified to do it if you thought the person deserved it.


Swordsman of Mana said:


> b) I would enjoy it (which would be false. my sadistic pleasures are not sexual...)


You described how much you desired these people to be revenge raped with considerable relish.


Swordsman of Mana said:


> c) that I believe its is justified to rape people outside of murderers, domestic abusers, etc


I said its not a huge leap think you could see rape justified in other circumstances as well, I stand by that.


Swordsman of Mana said:


> it's a very big leap. there is a big difference between a sociopathic criminal (like, the kind which are rare even in prison) and almost everyone else. a clean death is too good for the former


To the point that they deserve to be raped? No, not really, this is a sick position, and I stand by the fact that it makes me queasy thinking about your general attitude towards rape outside of being applied to Naughty Bad People.


Swordsman of Mana said:


> *sigh* this thread has lost any vestige of fruitful discussion. we're not even talking about the issue anymore. I'm out


Bye.


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

Shahada said:


> I actually do not and did not remember if it was you that made that argument or not. Whoever I was arguing with, they compared getting raped while drunk to killing someone while drunk. This implies the rape victim is the party responsible for the crime, moreso than the rapist. This is definitely making excuses for rape and promoting attitudes that diminish the seriousness of rape. I recall the language used being a woman who is raped while drunk, not a woman who "consents to sex" while drunk and later regrets it. If I am misremembering then I apologize and will own up to my error, but this is what I remember.And there's also the other examples I noted which you did not address. Except that capital punishment, rightly or wrongly, is generally defended for its social utility, i.e. it removes extremely dangerous people from society permanently and deters other extremely dangerous people from committing crimes. What social utility does raping someone as punishment serve? Additionally, the person who made that statement elaborated on it in this thread, and they admitted that their motivation was simply revenge and sadistic pleasure, and that they had even actively fantasized about doing these things to people they deemed deserving, to the point of having specific "objects" in mind to perform the raping with. So I don't think your defense applies to this example.


Must have been someone else then, because I definitely didn't say that, but your person sounds eerily similar. Raping someone for punishment serves the same purpose as fining or beating them; it's a deterrent. When someone really dislikes someone, they tend to say he or she deserves the worst thing they can think of, which would be something like rape, murder, torture. So in some sense, it kind of goes to show how detestable society finds rape. As for the points I didn't address, yeah, they're unfortunate. I didn't say victim blaming wasn't an issue among some, but I'm not sure I see it as such a widespread problem here (it seems like it's a handful of people who usually are making a case for these things).



MisterD said:


> Cause they can't get any & not considered potential sexual partners.
> 
> The core being low self esteem & a need to put down men so they can feel better about themselves when in actuality they are trash.


I think it's usually a bit deeper than this for both misogynists and misandrists. Sure, there are probably plenty of people like that in both camps, but the people I see who generally dislike women are the ones who had some crummy experience like getting screwed in a divorce case, and the women usually were raped or had some traumatic experience.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Shahada said:


> Do you think white people benefit from racism against black people? If so, how are they not oppressors or *at the very least complicit in that oppression*?.


Is that like saying that not helping someone who's being violently attacked in front of you, labels you as complicit of the attack, despite having no affiliation to the attacker/attack/attacked, simply being a bystander?


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

Eska said:


> Is that like saying that not helping someone who's being violently attacked in front of you, labels you as complicit of the attack, despite having no affiliation to the attacker/attack/attacked, simply being a bystander?


No.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

Yomiel said:


> Raping someone for punishment serves the same purpose as fining or beating them; it's a deterrent. When someone really dislikes someone, they tend to say he or she deserves the worst thing they can think of, which would be something like rape, murder, torture.


Rape as a deterrant to crime is something one can't say serves any real purpose that isn't served by something else. Obviously I don't support corporal or capital punishment either, but at least those don't throw on an added layer of sexual humiliation for kicks, and again, at least with capital punishment, while I am totally opposed to it, there is a logical case to be made for why it serves a unique purpose as the "ultimate punishment," being irrevocable and permanently nullifying. Rape is simply harming someone for its own sake, and in the case of someone who talks about it with such zeal, well, lets just say its a little creepy. "You deserve to die" is a little more general and non-specific compared to "you deserve to be raped."



Yomiel said:


> As for the points I didn't address, yeah, they're unfortunate. I didn't say victim blaming wasn't an issue among some, but I'm not sure I see it as such a widespread problem here (it seems like it's a handful of people who usually are making a case for these things).


There's only a handful of the absolute worst offenders, yes, but there's lots of people playing in the same ballpark as them and willing to listen to what they have to say and take it seriously.


----------



## 66393 (Oct 17, 2013)

*@Shahada** @**Swordsman of Mana*

date already. the tension is too strong


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Shahada said:


> No.


Then what does your point imply or refer to?


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

Shahada said:


> Rape as a deterrant to crime is something one can't say serves any real purpose that isn't served by something else. Obviously I don't support corporal or capital punishment either, but at least those don't throw on an added layer of sexual humiliation for kicks, and again, at least with capital punishment, while I am totally opposed to it, there is a logical case to be made for why it serves a unique purpose as the "ultimate punishment," being irrevocable and permanently nullifying. Rape is simply harming someone for its own sake, and in the case of someone who talks about it with such zeal, well, lets just say its a little creepy. "You deserve to die" is a little more general and non-specific compared to "you deserve to be raped."


Right, but that's why certain people are going to say it since it's the worst thing they can think of. That doesn't mean society as a whole endorses it. In fact, it implies the opposite.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

Eska said:


> Then what does your point imply or refer to?


Rather than outright ignoring you I will be polite and point out I would rather not have this discussion (or any discussion at all) with you right now (or any time), thanks.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

Yomiel said:


> Right, but that's why certain people are going to say it since it's the worst thing they can think of. That doesn't mean society as a whole endorses it. In fact, it implies the opposite.


It wasn't something that was said out of rage or anger though, it was a considered position. That's pretty gross.

As far as society endorsing such things, I don't think anyone would argue that prison rape being funny/not a serious matter/a criminal's just desserts is a fairly common attitude in American society, maybe in other places too. So I don't think its accurate to say society is clearly overwhelmingly against these attitudes.


----------



## MisterD (Feb 24, 2010)




----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Shahada said:


> Rather than outright ignoring you I will be polite and point out I would rather not have this discussion (or any discussion at all) with you right now (or any time), thanks.


I see.


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

Shahada said:


> It wasn't something that was said out of rage or anger though, it was a considered position. That's pretty gross.
> 
> As far as society endorsing such things, I don't think anyone would argue that prison rape being funny/not a serious matter/a criminal's just desserts is a fairly common attitude in American society, maybe in other places too. So I don't think its accurate to say society is clearly overwhelmingly against these attitudes.


Sure, if it's a rapist or murder then we generally don't care, but that says more about how we view justice in general. I think plenty of people would, if they gave it some thought, decide that certain people deserve to be beaten or killed. I'm not sure why thinking they deserve to be raped is so much worse.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

Yomiel said:


> Sure, if it's a rapist or murder then we generally don't care, but that says more about how we view justice in general.


The two aren't separate.



Yomiel said:


> I think plenty of people would, if they gave it some thought, decide that certain people deserve to be beaten or killed.


That's fucked up, I'm not surprised people who would think things like this could easily make a jump to thinking rape was justified as well.


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

Shahada said:


> The two aren't separate.
> 
> 
> 
> That's fucked up, I'm not surprised people who would think things like this could easily make a jump to thinking rape was justified as well.


They're separate if we're talking about people's views on rape of innocent people though (which I thought was the point). And sure it's messed up in a sense, but I'm guessing you've been angry enough at some point in your life to wish you could kill someone, even if just for a second. It's human nature. Either way, I guess my point really was just that I don't think the fact that some people hold the view that rape could be justified in some cases really is relevant to the general attitude of the population towards rapists and rape in general because we're dealing with different sorts of victims. Very very few Americans would say rape is justified towards someone who hasn't committed a crime.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

Yomiel said:


> Either way, I guess my point really was just that I don't think the fact that some people hold the view that rape could be justified in some cases really is relevant to the general attitude of the population towards rapists and rape in general because we're dealing with different sorts of victims. Very very few Americans would say rape is justified towards someone who hasn't committed a crime.


I don't agree with this though, they feed into each other. If you are inclined to see rape as justified in certain instances, it seems more likely that you are going to be more flexible in determining when it is justified than someone who takes the position that rape is always absolutely morally wrong and unjustified (which it is). Same thing with what you said about how Americans view violence and justice. People who are more likely to think someone who "deserves it" should be beaten up by the police for example are also more likely to think people who don't actually deserve it deserve to be beat up by police, because they're more likely to look at a victim of a police beating as someone who brought it on themselves regardless of the facts of the situation.


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

Shahada said:


> I don't agree with this though, they feed into each other. If you are inclined to see rape as justified in certain instances, it seems more likely that you are going to be more flexible in determining when it is justified than someone who takes the position that rape is always absolutely morally wrong and unjustified (which it is). Same thing with what you said about how Americans view violence and justice. People who are more likely to think someone who "deserves it" should be beaten up by the police for example are also more likely to think people who don't actually deserve it deserve to be beat up by police, because they're more likely to look at a victim of a police beating as someone who brought it on themselves regardless of the facts of the situation.


Actually, I don't think it is absolutely morally wrong because I don't see anything as absolutely morally wrong, so there's one difference of opinion, but either way, I don't really buy the slippery slope mindset. People wish physical harm and death upon others all the time, yet society doesn't condone assault or murder. In extreme cases, it's easy for emotions to make people wish crazy things on others, but I don't see that influencing our thoughts on certain crimes when talking about the general public. Like I said before, people just look for whatever is considered the worst possible act as a punishment, and nothing is really off limits.


----------



## Mr. Demiurge (Jun 18, 2014)

Mee2 said:


> Not the historically oppressed, to the currently oppressed.


The historically oppressed are the currently oppressed, just somewhat less so. 



> It depends on how you define "objective," but it's likely that I have no interest in measuring discrimination objectively. I'd probably argue that it's impossible, actually.


Then again, what is your exit plan? When do you know things are equal enough that no one deserves special treatment anymore? If never, how is it egalitarian to give preferential treatment to some people based on their race or gender when such a thing is no longer needed? At that point, it really _would_ be reverse discrimination.



> I disagree.


Then you're going to have to cite for me the viciously misogynist laws that we still have on the books, as well as the positions in our society which are currently officially closed to women. Setting aside things like NFL quarterback and what-not, of course. 



> I don't do that.


Then prove it. Show me how we filter out racial/gender discrimination from other factors cleanly enough to know when the former no longer plays a significant role and we can move on to a society in which everyone is being judged by their merit and not their race/gender. If you have no answer, then why shouldn't we assume that your position is that such double standards are going to last forever?



> Is that what you think? If so, why? How is that any more rational than thinking the opposite?


What I think is that most things have complex causes rather than just being all about one thing. Racial prejudice almost certainly plays a role in the number of African Americans who go to prison, for example, but things like poverty and social environment also play their roles. And not only is there more than one cause, but all the causes are all tangled up together in an absolute mess: poverty can create a social environment in which crime seems like the only way out, while racial prejudice can lead to poverty through lack of job opportunities, and so on and so forth.

If racial prejudice were removed from the equation but poverty and the wrong social environment were left in place, I'd still expect higher than normal rates of incarceration from the group suffering under those conditions. Not as high, but still higher than average.

And it's not the opposite of, it's in addition to. 



> I'm not closed to the possibility of there being inherent differences but the more I read about this stuff, the more I think that such differences, if they exist, are completely obscured by cultural forces.


You think that, minus cultural forces, every job would be equally appealing to men and women alike, and thus we would see a roughly 50/50 breakdown in the people doing every job if it weren't for those cultural forces?



> I accept that it can't be done objectively. This doesn't bother me.


It should, if you're interested in an egalitarian society. 



> Call that absurd if you like, but from another perspective it'd be absurd to get rid of them because doing so would be a waste of time and money. Besides, they'd be preventative.


If your aim is actually egalitarianism rather than a permanent state of patronizing the historically oppressed, it's actually very important. The latter may be necessary for a time, but double standards lasting forever would be demeaning to those given preferential treatment and unfair to those who aren't, assuming your approach achieves your desired results and prejudice goes into the decline.


----------



## Mr. Demiurge (Jun 18, 2014)

Mee2 said:


> Even if "misogyny" refers to a hatred of women in general, certain types of prejudices that are far more common than others and so in practice one can observe a pattern where the term is only being used to describe a specific set of prejudices - not surprisingly, those that are institutionalised and widespread. It's not hard to give examples if you need them: the idea that women don't make good leaders, victim blaming, widespread sexual objectification of women, the idea that women are less rational etc. So, as I said before, I'd find it very weird if someone were to label the belief that women make poor childcare workers and nurses as misogyny. I'm well aware of the dictionary definition, but I'm also well aware of the pattern that I described before and the more specific connotations that the word has acquired from being used repeatedly in that same context (and not others). Does that mean that it's wrong to use "misogyny" in this hypothetical situation that would never happen? I don't know, but I don't think it's wise to blindly adhere to a dictionary definition with no regard for how a word's meaning might have evolved.


The reason I find the definition of 'racism' and 'sexism' that you prefer extremely irritating is that the usage is so nakedly political. If it were about simply finding the right word, then using the terms 'institutional racism' or 'institutional sexism' wouldn't be problematic and would suffice to mark the difference between that and individual prejudice against a race or gender.

It isn't about that, though. Racism and sexism being nearly universally accepted as bad things people shouldn't do in modern society, its purpose is to make it _categorically impossible_ for certain kinds of people to be racist or sexist. It is language twisted into a political weapon, plain and simple. 

In a way, it reminds me of the Holocaust uniqueness debate. Some scholars of the Holocaust push for the Holocaust to be considered a unique event in human history, not truly comparable to other acts of mass murder. There are arguments for and against, but at bottom one has to ask, 'Why is it important to some people that the Holocaust be judged as unique in human history? How does declaring it such contribute to our understanding of it?'

And the answer to that has everything to do with politics and very little with historical understanding, as 'unique' in this circumstance is code for 'more terrible' and 'more worthy of study and remembrance', and since the memory of the Holocaust can be used as a rallying cry for those sympathetic to Israel, keeping it front and center in the historical memory compared to other acts of genocide serves a political purpose beyond historiography.

In both cases, you find people disguising political motives beneath a simple attempt to broaden understanding...and the disguise becomes increasingly thin the more you probe their definitions.

If racism/sexism is prejudice plus power, does that mean the American Nazi party and the Ku Klux Klan aren't racist, since they have prejudice but no power? Presumably they're still racist because they're white and prejudiced and white males are inherently more powerful than women and PoC in our system. 

What about when they're not? Do you really think a homeless white guy has more power than Barack Obama or Oprah Winfrey or Hillary Clinton? Well, no, but we're speaking of the _broader system_ of privilege, the underlying system that favors whites and males. 

What about if you are white and your boss is black? Doesn't he have power over you, and therefore if he also has prejudice against you then his firing you counts as racism? Well, no, because individual instances don't count. It's the broader system of gender/race discrimination that defines sexism and racism.

What about discrimination in countries where the majority isn't white? Well, no, white privilege permeates the entire planet, and there's nowhere you can go where it doesn't override the privilege of the locals.

And so forth. Presumably, no matter how many PoC or women get into positions of power, the goalposts are going to keep being shifted because the goal isn't to clarify understanding, it's to prevent people deemed as oppressed from ever having to defend themselves against charges of racism or sexism.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Lord Shang said:


> The historically oppressed are the currently oppressed, just somewhat less so.


Right, I agree, I just mean that it's the current oppression that's relevant. 



Lord Shang said:


> Then again, what is your exit plan? When do you know things are equal enough that no one deserves special treatment anymore? If never, how is it egalitarian to give preferential treatment to some people based on their race or gender when such a thing is no longer needed? At that point, it really _would_ be reverse discrimination.


When do I "know"? Objectively, I don't and no one never will. I mentioned some things that one could look at for clues, but none of them are conclusive. 



Lord Shang said:


> Then you're going to have to cite for me the viciously misogynist laws that we still have on the books, as well as the positions in our society which are currently officially closed to women. Setting aside things like NFL quarterback and what-not, of course.


We define "surface" differently. Though, I could probably make a case for anti-abortion laws being misogynistic anyway. 



Lord Shang said:


> Then prove it. Show me how we filter out racial/gender discrimination from other factors cleanly enough to know when the former no longer plays a significant role and we can move on to a society in which everyone is being judged by their merit and not their race/gender. If you have no answer, then why shouldn't we assume that your position is that such double standards are going to last forever?


Objectively, I can't. All I'm saying is that my opinions are informed by more than just statistics. 



Lord Shang said:


> What I think is that most things have complex causes rather than just being all about one thing. Racial prejudice almost certainly plays a role in the number of African Americans who go to prison, for example, but things like poverty and social environment also play their roles. And not only is there more than one cause, but all the causes are all tangled up together in an absolute mess: poverty can create a social environment in which crime seems like the only way out, while racial prejudice can lead to poverty through lack of job opportunities, and so on and so forth.
> 
> If racial prejudice were removed from the equation but poverty and the wrong social environment were left in place, I'd still expect higher than normal rates of incarceration from the group suffering under those conditions. Not as high, but still higher than average.
> 
> And it's not the opposite of, it's in addition to.


I can't imagine anyone really disagreeing with you here. It most certainly is a tangled mess. My question was directed at this part: "Perhaps even if we were somehow able to eliminate racial discrimination entirely, black people would still be going to prison disproportionately because their going to prison has less to do with skin color and more to do with class or social environment or whatever else. Perhaps even if we were able to eliminate gender discrimination entirely, women would still be massively underrepresented in fields that for whatever reason don't appeal to a lot of women." Do you think that's the case (or, to what extent do you think that's the case, if you'd rather answer that question)? 



Lord Shang said:


> You think that, minus cultural forces, every job would be equally appealing to men and women alike, and thus we would see a roughly 50/50 breakdown in the people doing every job if it weren't for those cultural forces?


I wouldn't say "minus cultural forces," because I don't really think that's possible. Maybe "levelling cultural forces" is a better way to express it... Regardless, I'm pretty sure we're talking about the same thing. Anyway, I'm not sure if men and women would find all jobs equally appealing, and I don't think that a 50/50 gender ratio is either necessary or desirable in many cases. My concerns about sexism are broader than that. I'd argue that it's a problem if an industry were ever seen to be masculine/feminine because as soon as that happens the cultural forces aren't "level", but I'm not sure how much flexibility that lends to the ratios. And, as long as uneven gender ratios don't place women at a economic, social or political disadvantage, I don't see why I'd care. 



Lord Shang said:


> It should, if you're interested in an egalitarian society.


I don't think you really understand what objectivity is. Either that or you need to explain what you mean by it. The reason it doesn't concern me is because it's impossible. 



Lord Shang said:


> If your aim is actually egalitarianism rather than a permanent state of patronizing the historically oppressed, it's actually very important. The latter may be necessary for a time, but double standards lasting forever would be demeaning to those given preferential treatment and unfair to those who aren't, assuming your approach achieves your desired results and prejudice goes into the decline.


The quotas that I'm talking about wouldn't require any preferential treatment. Sure, some might find it demeaning but one could interpret it in other ways as well - as a way of acknowledging and validating past discrimination. It's not that I'm a passionate supporter of largely pointless quotas, I just find it curious that you're so staunchly opposed to them.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Lord Shang said:


> The reason I find the definition of 'racism' and 'sexism' that you prefer extremely irritating is that the usage is so nakedly political. If it were about simply finding the right word, then using the terms 'institutional racism' or 'institutional sexism' wouldn't be problematic and would suffice to mark the difference between that and individual prejudice against a race or gender.


I'm not making them political, I'm just observing that they are. I'm not sure why I have to keep saying this. That aside, do you really think it's possible, in today's society, for words like "racism" and "sexism" to be free of any political baggage? Whether you like it or not, there are highly sensitive, political topics. And, apart from being unnecessary, and apart from the fact that I have no interest in doing it anyway, how would I add "institutional" to "misogynist" or "misogynistic"? It works for "misogyny" but not the other two. 



Lord Shang said:


> It isn't about that, though. Racism and sexism being nearly universally accepted as bad things people shouldn't do in modern society, its purpose is to make it _categorically impossible_ for certain kinds of people to be racist or sexist. It is language twisted into a political weapon, plain and simple.


"Bad things" can be done to white people/men, they just have different origins. Because I thing those origins are significant, I don't think the same word should be used to describe actions influenced by them. Yes, that's political, but so is any definition. You pretend that your definition isn't, but it's a fantasy. 



Lord Shang said:


> In a way, it reminds me of the Holocaust uniqueness debate. Some scholars of the Holocaust push for the Holocaust to be considered a unique event in human history, not truly comparable to other acts of mass murder. There are arguments for and against, but at bottom one has to ask, 'Why is it important to some people that the Holocaust be judged as unique in human history? How does declaring it such contribute to our understanding of it?'
> 
> And the answer to that has everything to do with politics and very little with historical understanding, as 'unique' in this circumstance is code for 'more terrible' and 'more worthy of study and remembrance', and since the memory of the Holocaust can be used as a rallying cry for those sympathetic to Israel, keeping it front and center in the historical memory compared to other acts of genocide serves a political purpose beyond historiography.
> 
> In both cases, you find people disguising political motives beneath a simple attempt to broaden understanding...and the disguise becomes increasingly thin the more you probe their definitions.


That sounds like a stupid debate and I don't see how it relates to the current discussion. 



Lord Shang said:


> If racism/sexism is prejudice plus power, does that mean the American Nazi party and the Ku Klux Klan aren't racist, since they have prejudice but no power? Presumably they're still racist because they're white and prejudiced and white males are inherently more powerful than women and PoC in our system.


Any definition of racism that excludes the KKK is probably a little faulty. 



Lord Shang said:


> What about when they're not? Do you really think a homeless white guy has more power than Barack Obama or Oprah Winfrey or Hillary Clinton? Well, no, but we're speaking of the _broader system_ of privilege, the underlying system that favors whites and males.
> 
> What about if you are white and your boss is black? Doesn't he have power over you, and therefore if he also has prejudice against you then his firing you counts as racism? Well, no, because individual instances don't count. It's the broader system of gender/race discrimination that defines sexism and racism.
> 
> ...


If some black guy goes on a murderous rampage, killing a whole bunch of white guys while calling them the inferior race, I'm still going to call him a murderer. What I'm not going to do is pretend that his motives were comparable to the KKK's.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

Lord Shang said:


> Ascribing guilt to anyone who benefits from an unequal social situation would quickly make guilt pretty much ubiquitous for damn near everyone not an actual slave, be they black or white, homosexual or heterosexual, male or female. That's kinda pointless.
> 
> As such, I prefer to take the approach that if you actively work to undermine efforts at social equality, you qualify as an oppressor. Benefiting from a situation passively without really understanding it, or better yet actively working to change it, means you aren't an oppressor, no matter what privileged status you have.
> 
> In my view, the best approach is to focus on countering people who are actually hostile in their attitudes and choices while educating people who aren't hostile without alienating them. Most people, when accused of being oppressors by virtue of what they were born as rather than based on what they've actually done, would probably consider that accusation unfair and unjust. Can you blame them?


But the "oppression" is not something that happened before you were born, that's the point. I'm not saying all white people are complicit in oppression against black people because white people used to own slaves. I'm saying they are complicit because they benefit from the white supremacist system in place in the present.

I don't disagree that people who are actively working to help your cause, regardless of race, shouldn't be alienated, and in general we should try not to alienate people. However taken too far this becomes a commandment to be a wishy-washy middle ground liberal who never takes a firm stance on these issues. Again, I haven't really had too much trouble discussing these kinds of things with lots of different people I know who are white, and I am white myself, so I don't think there is something inherent to my position that would alienate white people or men or whoever. Obviously I could be ineffective in getting that message across and be alienating, I am not perfect, but I don't think the message itself is necessarily alienating.

And if it is alienating to some, maybe some people should be kind of alienated, or at least call themselves and their actions into question. While on the subject of race I can tell you that in the past few weeks with the protests going on against police violence in the country a common complaint among many black activists, particularly more radical and militant ones, is the way some (not all, some) white activists involved in these protests have a tendency to usurp the conversation and movement and turn what is primarily an issue that affects black and brown people and turn it into petit-bourgeois activist adventurism. Stuff like white people trying to drown out "black lives matter" chants with "all lives matter," ignoring the agendas and strategies of the black activist groups that have organized much of these protests, abandoning the lines when the cops start getting nasty when really that's about the most useful thing a white person can do in a protest like this (because a cop is less likely to beat you than a black person). So these are the sorts of dangers you invite when you throw social and historical context out the window and say everyone has an equal stake in "equality."



Lord Shang said:


> The implication of your position, as I'm reading it, is that because white people benefited from slavery and Jim Crow and continue to benefit from the environment of white privilege those things helped foster, a portion of the guilt for those things has passed on to them. Correct me with what you're actually saying if I'm misinterpreting you.


Again, my issue is more with the current state of things rather than how things were in the past. Obviously the past affects the present and one can't deal with the present without dealing with the history that formed it but I am not so concerned about someone having grandparents who lived under Jim Crow and benefited from it than I am the current state of things.



Lord Shang said:


> There are even more white people who aren't where you on the political scale, even those on the left wing. I think a big part of that has to do with an instinctive negative reaction people tend to have when they see an argument that is unjust, such as double standards about judging behavior depending on skin color.


Maybe, but the goal of my politics is not necessarily to get all white people on my side so this doesn't particularly bother me.


----------



## Stelmaria (Sep 30, 2011)

Mee2 said:


> Obviously it's advisable to modify your language depending on who you're talking to but that's not really what I'm talking about and it makes less sense on a public forum anyway..


It makes more sense on the internet (forums, blogs etc) where you cannot observe how people react to what you are saying and adjust accordingly.

Much of the language that is used by various activists tends to be provocative and potentially violent. 

You know it is perceived as such when, instead of constructive discussion, you see two types of responses: defensive (eg 'not all men', or 'society cannot function without fossil fuels' or whatever), or responses that attack in response. (You've all seen it, so...)

None of us can or should control the space and control what others say. But it is up to us, those of us who want to see change and are genuine in our beliefs, to communicate in a way that is positive and inclusive, that brings people on board, rather than attacking and alienating those who are not already on board.


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> if you'd like to offer more objective criticism which actually makes sense, you're more than welcome to do so. in the mean time, I suggest you organize your thoughts more clearly


You have worn out your welcome with me by creating this post, so no I do not want your "welcome."


----------



## stargazing grasshopper (Oct 25, 2013)

I found this article interesting & it's kinda tangentially related to this thread topic. Might make for decent discussion were the Swordsman to create a parallel thread.


Misandry in psychology: Ignoring abused boys









*Misandry in psychology: Ignoring abused boys*

June 25, 2013 By Tom Golden 50 Comments
*This is the second part of a four-part series of articles about the bias against men and boys in psychological research. There is a video companion to this series that summarizes the contents of these articles. A link to this video will appear at the end of the article. 

The first project we will examine is a study on teen relationship violence from Great Britain. The study consisted of both a written survey and subjective interviews of selected teens. The survey portion of the study was fairly conclusive in finding that teen relationship violence was experienced by both boys and girls. An “ad campaign” was created as a result of this work. Surprisingly, the ad campaign is designed to help only girls who were victims of teen relationship violence while focusing on boys only as perpetrators. This stunning neglect of male victims and female perpetrators is in stark contrast to the numbers of the research survey of this study which showed males to be victims of teen relationship violence and girls to be perpetrators. Let’s start at the beginning of the story when this issue first caught my attention.
A friend emailed me a link to an article from Great Britain about teen violence. The friend was worried that the article was biased against boys. Here’s how it started:

...*There were plenty of other headlines that could have been drawn from the data of the full report that showed the boys to have been victims and the girls perpetrators but they were nowhere to be seen in any of the news articles. Here are a couple of examples of headlines that could be written from the data of the full report:


* 25% of those reporting physically forcing their partners into having sexual intercourse were girls. - Table 15 page 82 full report*
* Nearly three times as many girls reported using SEVERE violence in relationships. – Table 11 page 75 full report*
* Over three times as many girls reported using partner violence in their relationships. – Table 10 page 74 full report*
* Over 1/3 of those reporting being pressured into kissing, touching or something else were boys. – Table 6 page 66 full report*
* Nearly half (42%) of the victims of teen relationship violence were boys. – Table 3 page 44 full report*
* Nearly one third of the victims of severe violence were boys. – Table 4 page 45 full report*
* Twice as many girls reported physically forcing their partners into “kissing, touching, or something else” more than a few times. – Table 13 page 82 full report*


----------



## Mooninite (Dec 17, 2014)

Yes, misandrist women do exist in society... often because they endured some type of emotional, physical or sexual abuse from a man, at some point in their lives. Compare this to worldwide misogyny... China and India missing millions of females, because they selectively abort them, girl's schools being bombed, women having acid thrown in their faces for rejecting marriage proposals, girls not being allowed to be educated, child marriage, and hundreds of other issues. Where does that misogyny and hatred of females/women come from? It is institutionalized. 

Make a new thread when you can find me a society where there is institutionalized misandry on the same level as institutionalized misogyny. Your personal struggles in life due to being bad with women and being a social reject, don't count as examples of radical injustice to human rights.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Mooninite said:


> Yes, misandrist women do exist in society... often because they endured some type of emotional, physical or sexual abuse from a man, at some point in their lives. Compare this to worldwide misogyny... China and India missing millions of females, because they selectively abort them, girl's schools being bombed, women having acid thrown in their faces for rejecting marriage proposals, girls not being allowed to be educated, child marriage, and hundreds of other issues. Where does that misogyny and hatred of females/women come from? It is institutionalized.
> Make a new thread when you can find me a society where there is institutionalized misandry on the same level as institutionalized misogyny. Your personal struggles in life due to being bad with women and being a social reject, don't count as examples of radical injustice to human rights.


your argument is basically implying "less people die from AIDS than cancer. therefore AIDS is irrelevant and we should pool all our resources into solving the bigger problem"

well, that and a bunch of projection :tongue:


----------



## Modal Soul (Jun 16, 2013)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> *your argument is basically implying "less people die from AIDS than cancer. therefore AIDS is irrelevant and we should pool all our resources into solving the bigger problem"*
> 
> well, that and a bunch of projection :tongue:


but we should... and we do? it doesn't make sense for us _not_ to do that. if you are a teacher in a classroom, would you rather (or would you think it's a better idea to) deal with the kid about to shoot up the school, or the one who occasionally bullies his classmates? it only make sense to tackle the bigger problem first. i mean the second kid in this scenario isn't great either but when you compare him to the first one, you realise suddenly that being given a hard time once in a while isn't nearly as bad as potentially being killed..


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Modal Soul said:


> but we should... and we do? it doesn't make sense for us _not_ to do that. if you are a teacher in a classroom, would you rather (or would you think it's a better idea to) deal with the kid about to shoot up the school, or the one who occasionally bullies his classmates? it only make sense to tackle the bigger problem first. i mean the second kid in this scenario isn't great either but when you compare him to the first one, you realise suddenly that being given a hard time once in a while isn't nearly as bad as potentially being killed..


...no.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

this absurd false dichotomy between "we either help women or we help men" is the main reason I made this thread. it is possible to help _both_ men and women when they are the victims of coercive discrimination.


----------



## Modal Soul (Jun 16, 2013)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> ...no.
> https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white
> 
> this absurd false dichotomy between "we either help women or we help men" is the main reason I made this thread. it is possible to help _both_ men and women when they are the victims of coercive discrimination.


...no.
Reading comprehension - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

nowhere in there did i say we should help one and completely discard the other. both matter but one does take precedent over the other on the grounds of it being more severe

"_your argument is basically implying "less people die from AIDS than cancer. therefore AIDS is irrelevant and we should pool all our resources into solving the bigger problem_"

and after reading the post of the person you replied to, this doesn't really make sense because it wasn't what they were saying either.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Modal Soul said:


> ...no.
> Reading comprehension - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> nowhere in there did i say we should help one and completely discard the other. both matter but one does take precedent over the other on the grounds of it being more severe
> ...


I said


> your argument is basically implying "less people die from AIDS than cancer. therefore AIDS is irrelevant and we should pool all our resources into solving the bigger problem"


and you said


> but we should...and we do?


ie, you agreed with what I said that post was implying, which is that it's ok to ignore problem A because problem B is bigger.


----------



## Modal Soul (Jun 16, 2013)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> I said
> 
> 
> and you said
> ...


oh okay i see

do you think they're of the same caliber? be honest

it seems like you do, and some of the earlier posts on this thread give off the impression you're a little bit of a misogynist. correct me if i'm wrong


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Modal Soul said:


> oh okay i see
> do you think they're of the same caliber? be honest


I can't say really. too much conflicting evidence
my guess is that they are roughly equal, but this is mostly from personal observation. either way, it is a significant problem which gets ignored, and I am not okay with that.



> it seems like you do, and some of the earlier posts on this thread give off the impression you're a little bit of a misogynist. correct me if i'm wrong


you are wrong. I dislike most younger American women (especially middle class white women) because they typically act extremely obnoxious, whiny and pushy, but these are cultural issues rather than gender issues. I get along with most older American women and women from other countries just fine.
Edit: and contrary to what you might think, the women I get along with best are anything but docile. I would much rather share the company of more straight forward, ambitious woman who does not pretend to be feminine (there are few things in this world I distrust more than contrived femininity).


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

Mooninite said:


> Yes, misandrist women do exist in society... often because they endured some type of emotional, physical or sexual abuse from a man, at some point in their lives. Compare this to worldwide misogyny... China and India missing millions of females, because they selectively abort them, girl's schools being bombed, women having acid thrown in their faces for rejecting marriage proposals, girls not being allowed to be educated, child marriage, and hundreds of other issues. Where does that misogyny and hatred of females/women come from? It is institutionalized.
> 
> Make a new thread when you can find me a society where there is institutionalized misandry on the same level as institutionalized misogyny. Your personal struggles in life due to *being bad with women *and being a social reject, don't count as examples of radical injustice to human rights.


This thread is about misandrist women, not a comparison of misandry to misogyny. 

The person who posted this thread is gay.


----------



## Stendhal (May 31, 2014)

Sporadic Aura said:


> This thread is about misandrist women, not a comparison of misandry to misogyny.
> 
> The person who posted this thread is gay.


And the person who posted this threat is a bigot


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

Stendhal said:


> And the person who posted this threat is a bigot


You'll have to take that up with SoM. I'm not going to argue whether someone else is a bigot or not.

I personally disagree with you though from what I've seen.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

Stendhal said:


> And the person who posted this threat is a bigot


you know, you miiiiiiiiiiggggggghhhhhttttttttt.... be right. 


but why don't you explain what you're talking about. i mean, you _might_ be a dinosaur, and my saying so _might_ make it true (in make believe land), but without further reasoning on my part, would you really take it seriously? or would you just chalk it up to "someone heard something that they didn't agree, so they got their feelings hurt, and instead devolved to name calling since they--and what they stand for--have no actual backing in reality"?


----------

