Had an argument with some older feminists this evening who had talked about how they felt girls today were too sensitive, taking everything to court and playing victim over "a little" ass smack or butt pinch or come on. It surprised me because while "Me Too" and female privilege are clearly milked to high heaven even when nothing was done, I think for all of feminism's faults, that modern US society does not tolerate smacking 15-16 year old waitresses (or any waitresses) on the ass is a definite step forward. But in this same breath, they had said if you had a man, he protected you from other men, and if he didn't, you got another man, and believed this was a very good state of affairs and relationships.

​

I had stated I think it's a good thing that women are expected to take care of themselves at least a little more (if not from what was actually the norm, then at least from what they felt was the norm at their time), even if that's just reporting/crying about it to make Daddy Government step in. The sad part, I said, is that they can cry about something that *didn't* happen and often be believed. Even in cases were a woman is victimized, Daddy Government protects her such that she can "retaliate" at whatever level she likes without fear of the counter-retaliation escalating. She may even strike first and claim it's retaliation when no initial attack occurred and receive the same protection from retaliation (and retaliation will even support her lie). Our disagreement was about whether women ever lied. They're of the opinion women basically never lie because women are always victims of sexual harassment, or at least were until the 80s, but that to a certain extent modern women just need to grow a thicker skin. I'm interested in the insights of the various generations of MRAs regarding this.

​

They also believe DV laws "still largely favor men" because a mutual female we know was told to leave the house during DV altercations when she had injuries. Citing police training models and court rules that, in actual systemic writing, favor women, in text, did not seem to convince them that overall, they are viewing a personal situation as the rule and ignoring statistics because of the emotional weight they feel it has.

​

(I was not crazy enough to point out that the mutual female in question is very much the type to take a verbal argument to the point of pecking for violence to erupt as a 'release' to the tension--even if I genuinely do not think this one is doing it for the social goodies of the victimhood label, that could be my own bias, and studies on DV have shown this to be a tactic of women in DV situations. This isn't to say "she was asking for it" but that self-preservation is not the priority of the women in many of these situations, emotional resolution is. Thus seeing them as helpless or in need of a third party to enforce her interests it not necessarily always accurate.)

​

They had described an incident in the 60s in which an abusive man had broken into a teenage girl's house and their mother had threatened to call the police, which lead him to leave. The police were never called and Daddy came home from work and "took care" of the ex-boyfriend so he never bothered her again. I remarked it was good that now many women would be prepared to not only call the police but use guns and such to be a more potent danger to such threats. They said in those days, a woman would not have a self defense claim even if the door was broken in and he was shot dead from atop a stairwell, and claiming that was a possibility I wish women had more at their disposal then was assuming the legal system was what it is now---which they still believe, without claim, that would ultimately be slanted against the woman. Citing studies that violence by women against men is consistently rated as less "violent" and that female offenders of violent crime suffer lesser sentences than men with similar charges (controlled for past histories, etc.) still show a tremendous bias towards women, one even greater than the black/white divide. (They also believe "well blacks are just more violent, so that's legit, haha." So not dealing with the typical leftist view here.)

​

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Data? Lived experiences? I dislike that I've walked away largely thinking: "Well, they don't care for data, they have a strong emotional defensive attachment to both their helplessness at the time and to their superiority for enduring it as if it were willing." That seems so dismissive out of hand to what may just be a poor ability to argue a point. I mean, I care about Men's Rights, I have this as a hobby. I have studies on hand. They are not the type of people citing news stories or whatever hyped study Reddit feeds them. These are Boomers who were also asking me what TikTok was and why the US was banning it. I feel like being able to communicate with real people like this (even if more emotional than logical) instead of brainwashed NPCs is a good way to express Men's Rights in a way that may get traction. We all did leave the venue on good terms. If they think about my arguments as much as I ponder their reported experience, it's a good thing.