Jezebel article where it states that the majority of one sided violence between couples is by women (70%) and its editors laugh and boast about the abuse they perpetrated against their boyfriends, inc

[–]misinformed66145 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Roulette8888852 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]misinformed6643 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ChokinMrElmo28 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]misinformed6672 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Patience. I have loads of it. As for the stronger. Not at all. And the training. No. I was in a special operations unit and she used to use that against me. "You could kill me with your bare hands, who's going to believe that a woman could beat up a big bad special operations paratrooper"

I did want to hit her, a lot. There were times, in which I honestly thought. " If she comes through the door, I'm putting a controlled pair in her and were visiting the back corners of the impact area".

And I could never bring myself to strike a woman. No matter how hard she hit me.

And people just don't care. People see a man fleeing from a woman. And they just ignore it. Case in point. We had an argument. And I woke up on the floor. Can of hair spray next to me. And a growing pool of blood. She had bashed my head in.

I was woozy, barely able to think or move. I somehow managed to get a dressing on the wound. I crawled out of my house and started moving towards my truck. Blood flowing out from the dressing and me shirt less. Middle of the day. People out with their kids. Neighbors grilling. And she came tear assing out grabbing me telling me she was sorry and that they'd arrest her if I went to the hositpal. Than progressed to screaming about killing me if I didn't come back in. I gave in and went back in.

Had a friend come over and clean, dress and stitch it shut. No one did a god dammned thing. No one called the fucking cops. No one tried to help.

Wow, haven't talked about that incident to, well. Anyone. I'm going to have a beer now.

Later on. She had told me she was just going to let me lay there and die. She said she had watched the blood pool out and went back to charmed.

[–]ChokinMrElmo27 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]misinformed6623 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]KIM_DONG_EUN8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]misinformed6620 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]KIM_DONG_EUN9 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ReverendSalem2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]misinformed662 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ChokinMrElmo5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]14 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]misinformed662 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]9 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GADBabaganoosh3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]IndigoLamprey1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]waffebunny11 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]misinformed665 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Maschalismos4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ReverendSalem3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]misinformed661 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]waffebunny1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Blemish8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Cakesmite13 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]YouDislikeMyOpinion8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]starbuxed3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]misinformed663 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]starbuxed2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ReverendSalem2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Patrick55550 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]misinformed662 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Aavagadrro18 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Similar thing to misinformed, I am well trained by the military (but not Special Ops), even wrestled for my branch in Europe as well as wrestling in high school. Grew up severely abused and that lasted until I could defend myself. I am heavily muscled due to my military job, though few on reddit believe my max bench ten years ago. I havent lost a fight since I was 16, and I fear nothing and nobody after two wars. Yet my 140lb ex used to beat on 220lb me, verbally and emotionally abuse me as well. Manipulation by any means was her thing.

The cops would show and only ask if I hit her, they didnt give two fucks about me or if she had harmed me. I would be bleeding, clothing ripped, scratches, bruises, and cuts, and obvious marks from items she either threw at me or struck me. They didnt care.

If there was anyone who deserved to get the beating I gave to my abusive older brother, it was her. yet if I hit her just once, I would have gone to jail, lost everything I worked my ass off to get, and it would have ruined my second military enlistment before it started. If that had happened, right now I would be living in a box under a bridge.

I had no choice but to endure it. We had kids, and when she finally did leave she took them. Kidnapped them really, since she was abusing them and I was trying to protect them from her. The state rewarded her for her abuse, cheating, manipulation and abhorrent behaviors. They left me with $100 a month on which to survive. I was homeless while serving my country, so they sent me overseas so I could live on base instead of in my car. She claimed she was abused and was believed with zero evidence. Then they threw out my proof of abuse in court, and gave her everything. When she tried to kill herself the judge said her boyfriend could take care of my kids, there was no way I could get them.

Men in abusive relationships have little choice, and absolutely no support. If there are kids involved, she owns your ass. Being a big guy with lots of training works against you. You have to just take it, kiss her ass and try to protect the kids from her. My kids lives got much worse after she took them, both were molested by people she allowed into their lives.

The hate I have for that woman is immense, but if anything happens to her I am the #1 suspect, so perversely I have to protect her somewhat whenever I come home to see my kids. Lucky for me I was able to keep her from being as bad as misinformed's ex.

[–]misinformed665 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Wow. Just wow. Its amazing how bad some people just really are. And just how often we military guys marry crazy women. My girlfriend once asked me if was just paratroopers and spec ops or the whole military did. Its the whole military. :/ Its almost as if they issue us crazy women.

Sounds like you had a really good command. Hopefully you got a room in the barracks after getting back. As for the "I fear nothing or no man" I know how you feel. My old lady tells me how I walk into every place like I own the place. Gang bangers and ner' do wells avoid me. But if my ex was to show up tommorow, I would shit my pants like a Joe getting shot at for the first time. I still have nightmares about that bitch.

I'm glad you escaped, I'm sorry she took your kids. But sooner or later they will realize how bad their mom is and come to you. Luckily I didn't have kids. So that wasn't something to worry about.

And as for cops not caring. When I was at my last duty station and I was arrested. It was because I had held her down so she wouldn't kill me at that point and so I could make it to the door. They even told me it was their policy to arrest the man in the situation.

I'm glad you made it out alive. Both from the two way range and from her.

[–]Aavagadrro3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

My kids are acutely aware of what she is and how she acts. The oldest is even more pissed at her than I am, because of what she allowed to happen to my kid. To add insult to injury, when she found out our daughters were molested she said "Well, that happens." Didnt even bother to get the police involved, probably because there is no monetary benefit to her, and she doesnt get attention from it.

I never was afraid of her, not in the least. I was well aware that the laws were heavily biased against me, so I endured it and just tried to prevent her from really hurting me or the kids. I am still not afraid of her, and at times it has been difficult to not get in the car and go change things, but an 850 mile trip gives you plenty of time to think it over and calm down.

When the younger kid was here, she had her mother on speaker and she accused me of being abusive. I flipped out. I told her in no uncertain terms that if she actually believes I was the abuser, that I would show her exactly what it feels like to be beaten like I was the next time I came back. I think she got the message.

Thankfully most of my time living with her was between my enlistments, and only a year of my service had her in it. I went to Korea, and when I got back we had worked shit out so I could survive despite the state wanting me to be homeless.

Once you are over E4 in the AF you cant live on base unless you are married. It still took me 6 months to find an apartment that would rent to me because my credit got severely fucked by the state. Prior to her getting all my money tax free, I had good credit. It is just now getting back to where a bank doesnt look at me like I am trying to rob them when they check my credit. Once I explain what happened, they are more than willing to help me rebuild.

If that bitch got hit by a bus tomorrow, I think I would feel quite good about it. I would want her to suffer and linger for a week or so to make up for what my daughters had to endure (and still live with) thanks to her.

[–]YouDislikeMyOpinion1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]9 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]misinformed6633 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RedAero13 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue16 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]misinformed666 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Roulette88888-3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]synnndstalker9 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Roulette888881 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Aavagadrro8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]misinformed664 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Aavagadrro2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rebuildingMyself1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]giegerwasright-5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]misinformed664 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]101 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DEATH_TO_REDDIT20 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]OMG_TRIGGER_WARNING35 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue18 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]OMG_TRIGGER_WARNING20 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue10 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ultraslob4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]EvilPundit3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]double-happiness8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

in a traditionalist world men aren't supposed to hit women, but women are supposed to act like ladies and not hit men

I'm not sure about that. At least from a Western perspective, a quick review of film and theatre would surely suggest that a slap in the face is almost expected in many situations, even if it's something no-one is supposed to do. http://youtu.be/f9p2R-2qKhg [Warning: (theatrical) violence]

I'd love to see proper research on the 'slap' in Hollywood, there's a really interesting PhD there for someone, if it hasn't been done already. I'm going to take a completely wild guess and predict the outcome off the top of my head: I think qualitative research might find a gender difference in terms of setting, i.e. films would tend to show men hitting women in private, and women hitting men in public.

[–]DEATH_TO_REDDIT7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CyberToyger5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TitzMcG3320 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]16 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]binarypillbug-10 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CyberToyger5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]binarypillbug0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Moustachiod_T-Rex4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]radrler52 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]r_rships_account5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics37 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]boss1000-20 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]27 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]boss1000-4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So I can only comment every 10 minutes for some reason, so I'll reply to everyone here.

Protege1027, what do you mean? Is there some piece of news I haven't seen? Anyway, I also have friends that were quite turned off from feminism by first being exposed to the movement through misandrists, which is unfortunate. But those that introduced me to feminism that I discuss these issues with are nothing like this article's commenters or probably what you're referencing.

Blemish, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that, but I guess I should explain that my meaning behind saying that it's old is that it's not some new article in which women are currently talking about beating their SOs. I don't visit Jezebel that often, and I hear mixed opinions of it, but if something that egregious has also been posted more recently, then I'll abstain from going there.

NCender27, I keep posting here because I want to face the challenges against feminism to either solidify my position or learn that it's mistaken. But I hope a side-effect of this is that people might view feminism in less of the sinister light is currently holds here.

[–][deleted]10 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]boss1000-9 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So blocking the entrance was not allowed, and I disagree with that. I also disagree with the red-haired woman in the other video (which I watched the first few minutes of) in her constant usage of "fuck". But public protests often get heated like this on just about any topic.

She's frustrated, just like I am, that people in this subreddit and elsewhere on the Internet view feminism as an enemy, when it fact we should be allies. But it's the denial of the patriarchy and the lower status of women in many areas by some MRAs that creates a huge gap. Feminists I know and respect don't deny areas of men's inequality, they simply address them proportionally and within the context of the current state of privilege.

I shouldn't even have to address your second response. But it does bring up a point that's worth mentioning. Women especially, as the underprivileged and often marginalized sex, do have an aversion to discussing some of the touchier issues I talk about here. I've had times where friends told me they truly didn't feel comfortable continuing a conversation. When you're talking to someone who is directly affected by what you're saying, who has experienced sexism or trauma related to these issues or knows those who have, you're going to get a person who has less tolerance for dissent of the nature of /r/MensRights. Like I've said before, what is discussed here isn't usually couched in the proper context and comes off as outright denial of people's experiences.

Bodertz, yeah, as she was speaking, I was reminded of that popular Jezebel article recently. I did agree with what I read of it, yeah. I feel from others I know who have been involved in understanding and supporting feminism for longer than I have that Jezebel is a complex subject. Sometimes it's great, sometimes it's awful. Just like Cosmo can have actual good stuff in it on occasion, amidst the bad.

[–]logrusmage11 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]StandsInRefuse9 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]boss1000-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So I'm rolling along on this video, and I'm already struck by a claim she's making. To be clear, I don't agree with all of the feminists of the past. But she's basically going down this road about how men had to physically fight for their rights and that women were more easily and peacefully given them.

I feel like I could make an interesting race parallel, too. But the more prevalent point to shed light on this idea is to consider a female born today. Or 20 years ago. Why in the world do the details of relative struggles of either sex have anything to do with what or how that female should expect her rights to be?

Her long description of what feminist theory is, making blanket statements (supposedly on feminists' behalf) about how society unilaterally favored men and so on... That's not what I believe. Reality is littered with caveats. Wait, she's going to withhold calling herself a feminist because she thinks feminism's assumptions imply women are pathetic for not liberating themselves earlier?

This really feels like a massive mischaracterization of what feminism is about. It's not women whining and lamenting their pathetic ancestor's inability to make them free today. Do you ever hear that from feminists? I sure don't.

History from a feminist perspective is about privilege and how it's self-perpetuating. We shouldn't be bowing down to males because they're behind the majority of history's inventions and technology. It had nothing to do with their sex except at some early point where men set up their societies to be patriarchal with physical force, and that continued to today.

Okay, I've got tons of other people objecting to me elsewhere. Does she go on to hit points drastically different from what I've addressed here from the first 12 minutes?

[–]StandsInRefuse6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Why in the world do the details of relative struggles of either sex have anything to do with what or how that female should expect her rights to be?

She's not reflecting on relative struggles to inform how females should expect their level of rights today. She's making the point that feminists often claim that historically men had authority over their household, but fails to acknowledge the cost to men to have this 'privilege'.

Her long description of what feminist theory is, making blanket statements (supposedly on feminists' behalf) about how society unilaterally favored men and so on... That's not what I believe.

OK. It might not be what YOU believe, but you identify as a feminist and this is what the vast majority of (at least mainstream) feminists believe. And if you don't believe basic feminist theory then you're not really a feminist, in the same way a vegetarian who eats meat is not a vegetarian.

Wait, she's going to withhold calling herself a feminist because she thinks feminism's assumptions imply women are pathetic for not liberating themselves earlier?

No. She's making the point that feminists only started popping up when it suited them. When they no longer needed a man to slave away for his family.

It's not women whining and lamenting their pathetic ancestor's inability to make them free today. Do you ever hear that from feminists? I sure don't.

Do you think a century ago, women would be saying things like, A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle to their men who worked at jobs that women simply would not be able to do? No, they wouldn't. Women needed men to survive and this is something that feminists often deny, by implying that women were oppressed by men. You can't just ignore history because it doesn't suit your argument!

[–]boss1000-5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

All someone needs to be a feminist is to want equality of the sexes, and probably be cognizant of the ways in which women are underprivileged, and the fewer places men are. That is the mainstream feminism I see around me on the Internet, among my peers, and in what I read. There are other extremes that I do not follow, but don't find them nearly as prevalent.

This honestly reminds me of a section in Bioshock Infinite in which a factory owner reassures the black men working for him that they should be happy with their simplistic lives and labor and not having to worry about complicated matters that he and other white people do. But instead of gagging at that idea, you're supporting those difficulties of the privileged class.

I suppose the simplest explanation I can give is that blacks and women were never given the option to take on these responsibilities. Furthermore they were culturally influenced to not want to by society. And the rewards of responsibility generally outweighed the challenges, or they wouldn't have been taken on.

Women "needed" men to survive primarily within the constraints of the patriarchal society. The sexes have different strengths, of course, but they are less pronounced or important as history would lead us to believe. Ability should take precedent over sex when it comes to fittedness for a task.

[–]StandsInRefuse3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

All someone needs to be a feminist is to want equality of the sexes, and probably be cognizant of the ways in which women are underprivileged, and the fewer places men are.

See, you wonder why MRAs are not allies of feminists yet you go and say something as silly and ignorant as that. and the fewer places men are. This is why we can't have an intellectual debate because feminists always make it about Women VS Men. Where there are many different 'brands' of feminism and a different consensus for each, MRAs have only one: If you're active in support for Men's rights, you are a MRA.

This honestly reminds me of a section in Bioshock Infinite in which a factory owner reassures the black men working for him that they should be happy with their simplistic lives and labor and not having to worry about complicated matters that he and other white people do. But instead of gagging at that idea, you're supporting those difficulties of the privileged class.

It pains me to have to point this out but that is a computer game and not real life. In real life we had to do what we needed in order to survive. This meant men having to break their backs day in day out in order to ensure the survival of their family, and thanks to these men you have all the comforts you enjoy today. As a small reward, men would have the authority of their household, just like you have the authority whenever you invite your friends round for dinner. I have to wonder what would you like to have happened differently that would still also ensure the survival of our ancestors?

I suppose the simplest explanation I can give is that blacks and women were never given the option to take on these responsibilities.

Option to take on responsibility? The same could be said for men who didn't have the option to NOT take on responsibility. You could argue in that sense, that men were oppressed even more so than women of that time.

Women "needed" men to survive primarily within the constraints of the patriarchal society. The sexes have different strengths, of course, but they are less pronounced or important as history would lead us to believe.

I'd like to know what sort of work the women would have done, given that at the time when men were required to work for women, we didn't have cushy 9-5 office work back then.

And this brings me to my point why feminism is stupid: You want to be respected like men, but don't want to do the shit that men have to do. When has feminism campaigned to get more women in to garbage disposal or on oil rigs? When has feminism campaigned to get women to sign up for selective service or go to front line?

I was disappointed that you referred to 'patriarchy theory' to try to support your claims. But I have to admire the fact you've openly came to Men's rights to discuss, without name calling, for that thank you.

[–]boss1000-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Stating something as simple as that men have more privilege than women does not make this about men versus women. I suppose now is as good a time as any to point out that I'm male myself.

The scenario I referenced from Bioshock Infinite is entirely based on reality! That was one of many psychological tactics used to keep underprivileged races and sexes where they were! This isn't even a question, this is historical fact.

You portray white males as some sort of victim throughout history, forced to do hard work for little reward. You are partially right. The White Man's Burden can be analyzed in many, many ways. To be brief, white masculine males prospered greatly throughout history, and they propagated this privilege because it benefited them. (Otherwise they wouldn't have.) White males that did not want this lifestyle, those you characterize as performing hard labor and being head of a household despite not wanting to, that is a problem! And its source is patriarchy, a societal structure that pressures men to take these positions and women to be subservient. By eliminating it, people will be more free to choose what they want in life regardless of their sex, men included!

You could argue in that sense, that men were oppressed even more so than women of that time.

Not quite. I'll happily recognize that societal pressures for either sex put anyone not aligned with them at odds. But being pressured to be subservient versus dominant yields one group to be worse off than the other over time.

Every feminist I know wishes selective service to disregard sex or be eliminated altogether. They wish for people to be able to perform the jobs they want to without regard for pressures because of their sex. I don't know if I've already covered it with you, but of course there will be correlations with certain professions for those with the stronger physique, for example. Not every field of employment requires a 50/50 split. Feminists wish that we had a society that didn't push people into particular areas, and instead allowed people to try and be rewarded for their skills and ability alone, not their sex.

[–]AManAlone1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You portray white males as some sort of victim throughout history, forced to do hard work for little reward. You are partially right. The White Man's Burden can be analyzed in many, many ways. To be brief, white masculine males prospered greatly throughout history, and they propagated this privilege because it benefited them.

Noooooooooo. Fuck a bunch of that. MEN. Men went out at 14 to kill or be killed. Men who did not fit the paradigm of what was 'manly' died, and quickly.

'They' did not propagate this 'privilege' because it benefited them, those in power did, who happened to be men. The key factor here is their wealth and power, not their sexual equipment.

Also, I think you need to look at some of the links here.

Changes the levels of evidence necessary to ruin a man, specifically's, life to 'Meh it could have happened. Nobody saw him for 10 minutes.'

Changes a law that has been in practice for years to APPLY to men, at the behest of a feminist lobby; the National Organization for Women.

Laws in place in CA that establish the definition of domestic violence as something MEN do to WOMEN.

and those are just SOME of the harm that feminists have done to men in general. So excuse me if I don't just bend over and allow 'Patriarchy Theory' to be rammed into my colon while I shutup(I mean check my privilege) and listen to a bunch of women tell me how I oppress them by existing.

[–]boss10001 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AManAlone2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That's exactly what I meant.

No, 'Patriarchy Theory' is fairly adamant that the primary prerequisites is your sexual equipment for your 'privilege level', not your wealth or power. Because if you are rich, that's fine, but if you are a MAN, you are oppressing women.

At a certain point in history, yes. But go back far enough and its origins are physical ability, biology, force.

Yes. Because men were better able to handle(and still are) defending the homestead. When the Other People were a 2 day ride and they were known for murdering your kind and taking your women, they got protected.

So you dumped a week's worth of reading on me with no guidance. But I can ask this about the last link: I don't know the intimate practices of our government, but is defining domestic violence in that bill supposed to reflect its definition anywhere outside of it? Like, I find it much more plausible that this bill was designed for benefits and services to be granted to female victims of domestic violence, so they limited the definition for the purposes of clarity.

No, I gave you several links that are straight off of the bar to your right

/points

Read them if you'd like. But I TL;DR'd them for you in the description. As far as the part about VAWA; let's take a look at that.

The governing body of a country pushed through a bill at the behest of feminist lobbying that SPECIFICALLY makes it illegal to help men in the cases of abuse, so that years later they have to alter the bill to allow men to receive help from the government.

That would be like saying 'Hey, men get raped at an astounding rate when compared to women in prison, so we're going to put specific laws in place to protect men.'

Laws are, or should be, gender neutral. They are the law.

Also, it's the law as recognized by the governing body of the land. It matters what the 'definition of a law' is if it excludes half of the population.

[–]boss10001 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, 'Patriarchy Theory' is fairly adamant that the primary prerequisites is your sexual equipment for your 'privilege level', not your wealth or power.

The idea is that males were given more advantages more easily because society was set up to encourage masculinity in males, which included leadership roles and positions of power. Whether or not men wanted that place, they were put in it, benefited overall, and perpetuated the cycle. The same applies to whites; growing up white offered many advantages in the past, and still does today. Do you deny the privilege of whites as well as that of males?

I'm not going to go into the motivations of the original drafting the of VAWA versus its change today (as I understand is what occurred). But if I find no good reason for ignoring male victims in the bill, then I'll also object to its language before being changed. Potential good reasons could be that by focusing on women, efforts could be channeled to their specific needs or awareness could be drawn to the more prevalent victims. But it could be that I end up disagreeing with the bill's advocates, too.

[–]AManAlone1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The idea is that males were given more advantages more easily because society was set up to encourage masculinity in males, which included leadership roles and positions of power. Whether or not men wanted that place, they were put in it, benefited overall, and perpetuated the cycle. The same applies to whites; growing up white offered many advantages in the past, and still does today. Do you deny the privilege of whites as well as that of males?

No. Society perpetuated this 'cycle', not men. Women had power, and most of it was based on their relative wealth level, rather than their gender. If a noblewoman in mediveal Europe was accosted by a common man, HE would be the one punished, not her. That is a 'privilege'(power) given to women by those in power. Hell, in the Viking culture a man who committed the crime of rape against a common woman could be murdered by her relatives with no punitive measures taken against her brother. In was employed by society because it. Worked.

It doesn't 'work' anymore? Fine. Stop pointing to it and claiming that because of it women or minorities people are 'entitled' to certain benefits; because at that point you are attempting to bring these people up to have 'equality of outcome', rather than equality of opportunity.

I'm not going to go into the motivations of the original drafting the of VAWA versus its change today (as I understand is what occurred). But if I find no good reason for ignoring male victims in the bill, then I'll also object to its language before being changed.

You not going into the 'motivations' is EXACTLY why people in the MRM claim that feminism does exactly fuckall for men. Look at your next assertion;

Potential good reasons could be that by focusing on women, efforts could be channeled to their specific needs or awareness could be drawn to the more prevalent victims. But it could be that I end up disagreeing with the bill's advocates, too.

Potential good reasons? Let's change the wording.

Potential good reasons could be that by focusing on asian peoples, efforts could be channeled to their specific needs or awareness could be drawn to the more prevalent victims. But it could be that I end up disagreeing with the bill's advocates, too.

Does that seem racist? It does? That's because it is. You don't cut out HALF of the people the law may apply to for any fucking reason.

Not even going into the CDC's NISVS study which shows that men and women are abused in equal measures and rates, yet there isn't 1% of the funding for men's centres to aid them. By the by, if you respond to this and say 'but that's patriarchy!' I'm going to put a hole in my fucking monitor. Feminist lobbies pushing for gendered agendas against men is NOT patriarchy. Unless feminists are agency-less victims that have to perpetuate the patriarchy while vociferously protesting against it.

[–]boss10001 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You not going into the 'motivations'

I'm just exhausted from arguing with 3-5 different people at once. I have no interest in ignoring facts. If you know that bill was drafted with a sexist, exclusionary mentality, and you have a justification besides that it focuses on women, let me know. Because that, in and of itself, is not sexist. It could have turned out to be myopic, but not sexist.

Do you believe the NAACP is a racist organization? Or any organization that focuses on a specific group of people is classist, sexist, ageist?

CDC's NISVS

It's not that simple. Men's rates of rape victimization, when including "made to penetrate" and compared to women's, were roughly equal in the 12-month category, but quite different in lifetime. With intimate partners it became more distant. Stalking and psychological abuse look systematically worse for women. Did I read something wrong? (For reference)

And I don't know much about funding, but I can at least imagine, even if victimization rates were equal among the sexes, that women would require more care. Pregnancy issues is an obvious reason, but also the greater probability of physical harm. Rates of IPV might not always reflect actual lasting harm, though this is just a thought I had.

[–]AManAlone1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm just exhausted from arguing with 3-5 different people at once. I have no interest in ignoring facts. If you know that bill was drafted with a sexist, exclusionary mentality, and you have a justification besides that it focuses on women, let me know. Because that, in and of itself, is not sexist. It could have turned out to be myopic, but not sexist.

I'm sorry, drafting laws that EXCLUDE one half of the population from receiving aid from the government is sexist. Not myopic. Myopic would be 'oh we forgot about these people over here, our bad' not 'The language precisely explained in our new LAW states that men do not receive any benefits like women do even if they suffer the same crime, and IF a place applies for grant money from under this law it, by law, cannot cater to anything having to do with men or it's funding will be cut'.

That's sexist.

I believe that the NAACP is focusing on it's own goals, which can exclude whomever they want. That is their right, they do not have to include everyone.

But the NAACP is not the government, nor are they forcing policy into law that is exclusionary to half the population. That is not myopic, it is not a 'secondary concern group' it is not focused, it is sexist. By definition.

It's not that simple. Men's rates of rape victimization, when including "made to penetrate" and compared to women's, were roughly equal in the 12-month category, but quite different in lifetime. With intimate partners it became more distant. Stalking and psychological abuse look systematically worse for women. Did I read something wrong?

Quite different yes, because of the societal view that a man cannot be raped. Can you imagine a 50 year old male victim coming forward? A man was raped by 4 women a week ago and look how society is acting. The best way to accurately gauge how society has progressed, or regressed as it were, is to look at the past 12 months.

Stalking and psychological abuse look systematically worse for women.

It looks systematically worse? 1 out of 4 victims of that particular crime are men, and when you look at the violent portion of the study, it shows that men are 7% less likely than women to be victims.

And I don't know much about funding, but I can at least imagine, even if victimization rates were equal among the sexes, that women would require more care. Pregnancy issues is an obvious reason, but also the greater probability of physical harm. Rates of IPV might not always reflect actual lasting harm, though this is just a thought I had.

Women do not require more care. They are just as human as men are. A lead pipe cracking a few ribs requires the same level of care for a woman as it does a man. Pregnancy issues? Really?

Greater probability for physical harm? Other than the issue that the facts don't support you; let's assume this is the truth. Women simply need more, or extended medical care when compared to a man. What percent of the budget should be considered to be put forth on men's behalf? I mean, you said so yourself, men being raped in the past 12 months was on par with women's, so what percentage goes towards men? 45%? 40%? Let's say 33%. Let's take 17% of the actual budget and place it on hold for 'complications on a woman's case'. So men receive 33% of the total budget for cases. Oh wait. They receive 0%. There are almost no men's centers in the entirety of the country, and a specific caveat to obtaining VAWA funding was not allowing men to stay in your shelter/home/safe space. To clarify, if men were allowed into your space, to stay as an abused person they took away your funding.

Has it sunk in? We're not saying women don't suffer, we're not saying women aren't raped. We're saying that men deal with all the same things women do, and receive no help for it. So it gets very tiresome when people come in and tell us about how women need it more, or they get hurt more. Men have been hearing that for thousands of years.

[–][deleted]9 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

She's frustrated, just like I am, that people in this subreddit and elsewhere on the Internet view feminism as an enemy, when it fact we should be allies.

Um, excuse me. The reason people in this subreddit and elsewhere view feminism as the enemy is because of women like the one in that video. The reason MRA's view feminism as the enemy is because, for over a decade now, we have been called racists, bigots, sexists, misogynists, "rape apologists", etc etc by hordes of loud, obnoxious, angry women just like in that video who sit there and scream at as "SHUT. THE. FUCK. UP. We're working on your issues so be quiet little boys!" - meanwhile not actually working on any of our issues.

Feminists are threatened by the existence of the MRM because it blows huge gaping holes in their ideology.

But it's the denial of the patriarchy and the lower status of women in many areas by some MRAs that creates a huge gap.

Excuse me... "denial" of the patriarchy? In order for it to be "denial", the patriarchy must first be a real thing that factually exists. "The patriarchy" is not a proven, real thing; it's a theory constructed by feminists. Writers in the MRM have come up with very compelling arguments against the existence of the patriarchy... but rather than being open to these arguments and having productive discourse on the issue, feminists, such as yourself, want to come in here and blame us for "denying" patriarchy. You want us to be open minded to your views, yet refuse to listen to our's. That is why we tell you to fuck off.

Women especially, as the underprivileged and often marginalized sex, do have an aversion to discussing some of the touchier issues I talk about here.

That's funny because women dominate the topic of gender issues. They don't want to talk about it because their marginalized? Really? Did the woman in that video seem marginalized and oppressed to you? She doesn't to me. Instead she just seems like a fucking bitch who wants to shut down discussion on a real issues and dismiss them with "we're working on it" - even though you guys really aren't.

[–]boss1000-3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Guess what? I'm not someone who will hurl insults at you. And I don't associate with or patronize individuals and places that do so without reason. However, I also don't see those insults thrown from the feminist community, and if they are, they are qualified with a justification as to why. Tackle the justification, not the logical, if incendiary conclusion. Finally, I refuse to believe that all the abuse you feel your side has received measures up to that which feminists, especially women, receive.

And you really must take public protest transcripts with a grain of salt. People say stupid shit all the time in the heat of the moment, even from a side you agree with.

fuck off

I find it more productive to provide your justification for a claim before (A) asserting your opponent will ignore it; and (B) telling them to leave.

They don't want to talk about it because their marginalized? Did the woman in that video seem marginalized and oppressed to you?

Not exactly. And no, obviously that woman was more than capable of yelling about just about any subject, followed by "fuck".

But many women want gender equality who cannot always participate in discussions about certain issues. I'm talking about those who physically feel ill or emotionally unstable when approaching certain subjects that they care deeply about but yet cannot converse casually. Men can obviously have the same problems, I should mention. I brought this up before and clarified here in order to partially explain this:

Probably because you agree with them, so they're nice to you.

Which is insulting, and I'm reluctant to repeat it. But the perception behind this statement is evident, that you feel feminists are mean to those who disagree with them. I'm trying to say that there's a reason for the defensive nature of their side, if you take some time to consider what they might have gone through. And honestly compare what you feel the volume of relative hate is towards MRAs and feminists, respectively.

[–][deleted]3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MRB20125 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thedarkerside3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

She's frustrated, just like I am, that people in this subreddit and elsewhere on the Internet view feminism as an enemy, when it fact we should be allies.

Gee, why would people see Feminism as "the enemy" when all that seems to come out of mainstream Feminism is the talk about patriarchy, men oppressing women, not enough women in high positions, inequality (due to men trying to keep women down) and screeching "frustrated" women like the one in the video, just to name a few?

If you want to negotiate / make changes you need to work with those who you oppose, not try to ram your ideology through no matter what. That's how extremists take over your ideology and run with it.

You want Feminism to be taken serious? Then act like you're grown adults, not some spoiled kids who think they deserve whatever they want. Don't dismiss arguments against your position, engage. Don't hurl around "Misogynist" etc. every chance you get. It's really not rocket science.

If you're frustrated, take a break, don't dig in your heels and use your frustration as an excuse to act like a total asshole.

[–]boss1000-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Where do you see what's coming out of "mainstream" feminism? Is it what's posted here? Because that's anything but a representative sample. I object to the extremes at times just as much.

The people and websites and resources I view to learn about feminism and gender inequality have nothing to do with being "spoiled" or "dismissive" or ramming ideologies down throats or hurling insults without justification. They do focus on the patriarchy, which explains quite a bit about our current societal structure. They don't blame all men for women's problems, though they will object to those who deny these issues exist.

I've tackled a lot of what you're saying in other comments today, if you'd like to skim some of that, and I can only post every 10 minutes, so I have to pick and choose who to respond to. Thanks.

[–]thedarkerside3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Where do you see what's coming out of "mainstream" feminism? Is it what's posted here? Because that's anything but a representative sample.

Let me point out this post here as a decent starting point / summary as to what my perception of 3rd Wavers is.

I object to the extremes at times just as much.

The problem with that is that this rarely stands out / gets mentioned. Partially I think because many who disagree are either silent and or quickly marginalized.

Having said that: "at times"? Really? So you are still in support of the extremism you approve. There's the other problem then.

The people and websites and resources I view to learn about feminism and gender inequality have nothing to do with being "spoiled" or "dismissive" or ramming ideologies down throats or hurling insults without justification.

So where do you think that woman in the video fall on the spectrum? Do you think she considers herself extreme? Or was that just a bad moment for her?

They do focus on the patriarchy, which explains quite a bit about our current societal structure. They don't blame all men for women's problems, though they will object to those who deny these issues exist.

We can now start a debate if Patriarchy exists or not and if it does if it is a social construct or one mostly deriving from biological origins. I have done a lot of reading, I can tell you that in my reading / understanding Patriarchy as advanced by feminism does not exist. But it IS a pillar of a lot of arguments made in the name of Feminism.

Now that I have said that I can also tell you that yes, there are inequalities in the world and there always will be. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to make it a fairer place, but there are already other, less divisive movements out there that try to do that. Case in point: Humanism. It removes the idea that Gender matters, unlike Feminism which place the Gender card repeatedly.

Was there a time and need for Feminism? Yes. But that's gone. The name of the game is equality or humanism, two things 3rd Wave and modern day Feminism utterly fails at or can even be convinced to acknowledge as a viable alternative to Feminism.

Lastly, you got a branding issue. Even if people wouldn't get annoyed / have negative connotations to the term today, the fact that it strongly "reeks" of female is a marketing problem. And no, that has nothing to do with Sexism. The ones that have spoiled your brand are the women the video and the countless others like her who have coopted your movement.

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bodertz3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Slicktoxic11 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If a MRA wrote a blog about hitting women, even in self defense, with the same attitudes as this article holds what do you think would happen? It's hard not to paint you all with the same brush when you're all holding up the same signs, standing together on a streetcorner protesting. Most feminists -will not- listen to a man unless he is parroting the same doctrine as they are, ( in my experience anyways ) so there is no real dialogue.

I was arrested for protecting and defending myself from an assault. I didn't hit her, I grabbed her by the arms and threw her on the bed so I could get out the door she was blocking while punching me in the face. The police didn't even question me. ( It was a female officer ). When it finally went to court my ex didn't even show up because she knew she would have to lie to conform to the police report she made. The charges where dismissed because of that.

[–]boss1000-3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Most feminists -will not- listen to a man unless he is parroting the same doctrine as they are, ( in my experience anyways ) so there is no real dialogue.

How could you possibly even come close to making a statement like that. First of all, if you're trying to do this on a streetcorner, you're not going to have much success. That's not the optimal time for civil discussion.

Some women are defensive on these issues because of abuse online when discussing them and through living and seeing the influence of patriarchy on them daily. I then find it understandable to not tolerate unbridled dissent. If you really want to have a good discussion with a feminist (which, hey, maybe we're doing right now), you don't have to accept their views. You just have to be receptive and mindful of where they're coming from.

Women have some privilege when it comes to the courtroom, I think. I don't have actual stats, but it wouldn't surprise me if the perception of the need to protect women also plays out in legal cases. I worry a bit about the possibility of false assault (sexual or not) accusations if that's the case, but I much more readily recognize how infrequently this occurs, as well as how badly victims are treated and questioned if they do honestly come forward. And if it started to happen more often, the answer would be to educate younger people on honesty and the impact of crimes on people's futures.

It's not an easy issue when certain crimes leave so little evidence.

[–]logrusmage8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Slicktoxic4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tiftik7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Blemish6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Doctor_Loggins5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]themountaingoat8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]boss1000-7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]logrusmage9 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]boss1000-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]logrusmage5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It all depends on how you approach the topic. People in that subreddit are likely on more of a default defensive because of the additional amounts of abuse women and those who speak about gender equality take on the Internet and through daily life.

I'm calling bullshit on this. I'm willing to bet a significant amount of money they take no more abuse than the average internet denizen. in fact, I think they hand out more abuse than they receive, on average, though I wouldn't bet on it.

If you approached the topic honestly, carefully, and with regard for the fact that you're potentially going against the grain, I believe you would have much more likelihood of being well-received.

This has been tried numerous times with the same result each time: they claim, contrary to facts, that feminism is already working on the issue, or they simply claim the issue doesn't exist.

If you simply posit the idea or drop it in some conversation, people won't be able to tell honest inquiry from loaded misogyny.

I'm sorry but that makes them retarded.

[–]boss1000-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]boss10001 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm not just one. I did a quick search on FTB for posts referencing Jezebel, and you'll see a very mixed reaction, very case-by-case. Some posts pull from valid stories, some rage against terrible articles.

Relevant quotes:

Well here’s a horrible piece of crap posted at Jezebel.

Jezebel has a pretty good piece up

Every time I do this I feel like I’m a really lazy blogger who’s just going for the low-hanging fruit*, but I feel compelled to once again criticize a Jezebel article.

Jezebel justifies its existence every now and then, and today is one of those days.

This reply could also be considered in regards to your other post with the sarcastic "STEP ONE SHUT THE FUCK UP". I know people who blog on FTB, and they are all very rational, articulate human beings. They discuss these issues, inform, and enlighten. But when people here or on MRA blogs go against what they and I find pretty established (the overall privilege of men), the rhetoric understandably picks up, especially considering that it's essentially an affront to their corroborated experiences.

I addressed some of your other questions in other comments, including on other branches of this thread.

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm not just one. I did a quick search on FTB[1] for posts referencing Jezebel, and you'll see a very mixed reaction, very case-by-case. Some posts pull from valid stories, some rage against terrible articles.

Well those aren't real feminists.

(see, it works both ways).

This reply could also be considered in regards to your other post with the sarcastic "STEP ONE SHUT THE FUCK UP". I know people who blog on FTB, and they are all very rational, articulate human beings. They discuss these issues, inform, and enlighten. But when people here or on MRA blogs go against what they and I find pretty established (the overall privilege of men), the rhetoric understandably picks up, especially considering that it's essentially an affront to their corroborated experiences.

I was directly referencing the feminist protest in Toronto against men's rights.

Some lady said basically that. And then wondered why men don't think feminists are on their side.

And as or the overwhelming male privilege . . . how does it manifest itself? Do we live longer? Are we given a greater share of social spending? Does society focus on our issues while excluding women's (so prostate cancer awareness but nothing for breast cancer)? Are we treated more leniently in the courts? Are men assumed wonderful whereas women are deemed untrustworthy?

[–]boss10001 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I don't think anyone here has ever said that there is no such thing as a person who identifies as a feminist and who is also rational and respectful of men.

Just that these aren't the ones driving the movement or effecting changes on a national level.

And that list of privileges is entirely uncited and seems to be largely based on feelings.

Like this:

If I do the same task as a woman, and if the measurement is at all subjective, chances are people will think I did a better job.

This is 100% subjective.

Men being more likely to die at work is something that can be proven.

If all feminists have to counter that is that sometimes they feel women aren't respected enough based on their own opinions . . . I'm sorry but that isn't sufficient.

On average, I am taught to fear walking alone after dark in average public spaces much less than my female counterparts are.

This is just silly. Men are aware that they are more likely to be the victims of violent crime than women. It's just that when we get assaulted and people say we were dumb for being there no one calls that victim blaming.

My clothing is typically less expensive and better-constructed than women’s clothing for the same social status. While I have fewer options, my clothes will probably fit better than a woman’s without tailoring. (More).

Seriously?

If this is what the modern feminist movement is fighting then maybe just pack it in and call it a victory.

[–]boss10001 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Many of the points have additional pages that detail sources and changed based on new information. Given the author's penchant for backing up her statements with evidence, I find it reasonable to assume those without links were tackled elsewhere. Pick your favorite, and I'll try and find confirming or damning evidence for it.

The first example you bring up is hardly subjective. That would be very easy to measure or run an experiment on, in fact. The second example is a clear privilege: men are not conditioned nearly as much as women to adjust schedules and their lives in general to avoid assault.

Regarding your third example, I'll refer you to the term "microaggresion". It's easy to make fun of objections to pronoun usage ("he" versus "she"), grooming requirements, and standards of dress. But little inequalities add up; don't dismiss them so quickly.

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That would be very easy to measure or run an experiment on, in fact

So let's see it.

And to be fair you'd have to include a variety of jobs. Like say child-care as well.

The second example is a clear privilege: men are not conditioned nearly as much as women to adjust schedules and their lives in general to avoid assault.

That is a claim that is made likely without ever discussing it with men.

We are taught this. We just accept it and move on. We don't have campaigns saying we shouldn't be taught ways to avoid violence, there just shouldn't be any violence directed at us.

You assume men are never taught what they can do to avoid being a victim. As a male I can assure you this isn't true.

Regarding your third example, I'll refer you to the term "microaggresion[1] ". It's easy to make fun of objections to pronoun usage ("he" versus "she"), grooming requirements, and standards of dress

All of which are entirely voluntary, not so?

But little inequalities add up; don't dismiss them so quickly.

The reason men's clothes aren't more expensive than they are is that we won't pay extra for that in general.

The reason we don't is that we receive fewer benefits for looking prettier.

Women spend more on their looks because it is a better investment for them.

This is an example of female privilege in that it is an entire area where they can derive benefits from that is much reduced for men.

Where men are considered unattractive, for being short or bald, there is often little they can do to fix the problem.

[–]boss10001 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NCender27-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CyberToyger4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No. We don't want to work with Feminists, we are however willing to work with Women's Rights Advocates.

"But Toyger, aren't they the same thing?!"

Well I'm glad you asked! And the short answer is, no, they're not!~.

You see, a Feminist is a subscriber to the ideology that all of womens problems branch from men and the ever-elusive Patriarchy™. Rather than taking a look at an actual history book, they consume rhetoric-ready liberal extremist writings and interpretations of history. For example, rather than learning that men weren't born with the "privilege" of voting and had to sign up for military service in order to get the chance to vote (and often didn't get to utilize that right to vote if they were killed, kicked out, or were a Conscientious Objector), instead they're taught and believe that all the evul menz kept women locked away at home and simply flashed their privilege at the voting booth in exchange for a voting ballot.

Women's Rights Advocates on the other hand tend to see reality for what it is, and rather than blaming men or patriarchy, they point out the exact problems as they exist. For example, female genital mutilation in 3rd world countries and abortion are two of the most recent and important subjects for any WRA. While there is some overlap with Feminists in these areas, WRA's are more focused on raising awareness of FGM and fighting for the ability/right to do with their own body as they see fit, without bringing up any Patriarchy nonsense. Also, many WRA's see no problem with the gender of politicians but rather they recognize that the actual problem is having Authoritarian politicians who want to control people and what people do with their own bodies. Feminists are the first to notice extraneous circumstances such as the gender of politicians, without even taking facts into consideration such as -- gender has little to nothing to do with laws in comparison to overall ideology (authoritarian v.s. freedom-oriented), and they fail to recognize that 50% of the population is women and have the power to vote in female candidates.

That's the basic overview anyway. I will gladly work with WRA's and other Egalitarian groups to correct real problems caused by laws (as opposed to straw-problems like 'Wage gap') as well as educating the society on how to treat everyone equally and to put judges & cops in place who aren't interest-serving or sexist/racist/etc.

[–]ChocolateMeoww21 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MS2point09 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]egalitarian_activist17 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Blemish14 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sunset26113 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dysgraphia_add2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Stephen_Morgan11 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]11 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CrossHook9 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AtheistConservative7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Zanchbot6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PierceHarlan6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Cthulusbaby5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]11 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Blemish3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]stop_stalking_me5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Ron-Swanson4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dont-YOLO-ragequit3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ataxiwardance3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Steampunk_Moustache2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ChrisHernandez2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Blemish2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CrossHook1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Foreskin_Jizz_Bomb-7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bodertz3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]damn_it_so_much-7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Doctor_Loggins9 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Comments