~ archived since 2018 ~

Alleged "gender-based" treatment

avoiceformen

March 25, 2012

28 upvotes

/r/MensRights

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-lies-feminism/alleged-gender-based-treatment/

Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	Alleged "gender-based" treatment
Author	avoiceformen
Upvotes	28
Comments	51
Date	March 25, 2012 6:03 PM UTC (14 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/rcwp8/alleged_genderbased_treatment/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/alleged-gender-based-treatment.1025307 https://theredarchive.com/post/1025307

Comments

[–]sigtrap 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (49 children) | Copy Link

[–]BallaAssSpoon 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]itouchthepoopforlove 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (46 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (45 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago (44 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mooshiga -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]tango646 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Mooshiga -4 points-3 points-2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mooshiga -4 points-3 points-2 points 14 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

It does. And it also addresses response to violence against men in the home, the same arrest laws apply to men and women.

Edit: Here is how it defines domestic violence and dating partner:

6) DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.—The term ‘domestic violence’ includes felony or misdemeanor crimes of violence committed by a current or former spouse of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabitating with or has cohabitated with the victim as a spouse, by a person similarly situated to a spouse of the victim under the domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdic- tion receiving grant monies, or by any other person against an adult or youth victim who is protected from that person’s acts under the domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdic- tion. ‘‘(7) DATING PARTNER.—The term ‘dating partner’ refers to a person who is or has been in a social relationship of a romantic or intimate nature with the abuser, and where the existence of such a relationship shall be determined based on a consideration of—‘‘(A) the length of the relationship; ‘‘(B) the type of relationship; and ‘‘(C) the frequency of interaction between the persons involved in the relationship. ‘‘(8) DATING VIOLENCE.—The term ‘dating violence’ means violence committed by a person— ‘‘(A) who is or has been in a social relationship of a romantic or intimate nature with the victim; and ‘‘(B) where the existence of such a relationship shall be determined based on a consideration of the following factors: ‘‘(i) The length of the relationship. ‘‘(ii) The type of relationship. ‘‘(iii) The frequency of interaction between the per- sons involved in the relationship.

[–]typhonblue 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mooshiga -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue3 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

There may have been laws about wife beating, but through the 1970's police would not respond when a man beat his wife, even if he severely injured her.

Evidence? Further, is there evidence that police preferentially interfered in DV cases for male victims but not female?

Primary aggressor laws do not have gender quotas. Your campaign of misinformation is disgusting.

Did you read the linked documents. Here, I'll quote it directly. No primary aggressor laws don't have quotas and I don't think I said they did, but federal guidelines regarding domestic violence do:

If the ratio of male to female suspects and victims differs substantially from those found above[15% male, 85% female], departments should be alert to potential gender bias in their response to domestic violence. Ongoing training and supervision can address overrepresentation of female versus male arrests. (Research basis: Multiple studies of abusers and their victims brought to the attention of the criminal justice system [including civil protective orders] confirm the gender ratio as opposed to studies focusing on non-intimate and family conflict.)

Primary aggressor laws usually just justify treating the man as the aggressor in most cases. Federal guidelines regarding quotas for male victims ensure that the police are pressured to see the man as the aggressor as often as possible.

[–]Mooshiga-1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Mooshiga0 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue4 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Mooshiga-3 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue3 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]vintermann1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Mooshiga3 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]vintermann1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Mooshiga2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]itouchthepoopforlove1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sixofthebest3 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Mooshiga-1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]samarye 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

If all 'violence against women' was, tomorrow, directed against men, then the campaign to end violence against women would be successful.

You've made the unsupported assertion that "ending violence against women" campaigners care only about the ends, but not the means, so to speak. You've predicted that campaigners would define a situation as "success" when ithouch argues they would not.

The leap you make here is in conflating the end of violence against women with the goal of the "ending violence against women" campaign. Now at first that sounds like a reasonable equivalence. Actually, it's akin to saying that proponents of an "end nuclear weapons" campaign would be satisfied if all nuclear weapons were detonated in populated areas, since that disposes of them.

Evidence that 'transferring the violence to men' would be considered a success by the campaign is necessary to strengthen your argument.

[–]typhonblue -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

ithouch argues they would not.

I'm sure ithouch would argue that.

The leap you make here is in conflating the end of violence against women with the goal of the "ending violence against women" campaign. Now at first that sounds like a reasonable equivalence.

Considering the campaign is about ending violence against women, I assume the 'end of violence against women' would be a success to them.

Evidence that 'transferring the violence to men' would be considered a success by the campaign is necessary to strengthen your argument.

Here's some evidence of suppression of violence against men:

Anti-war-rape campaigners suppress evidence of widespread rape of men during war.

Anti-IPV campaigners suppress evidence of widespread abuse of men in relationships.

My own article on how the CDC obscured the equal rate of rape of men in the community in the last year

How Human trafficking organizations have ignored male victims of trafficking

And then there's the fact that men are subject to more violence then women, but these campaigners choose to focus on women.

If a group of people actively suppresses evidence of violence against men and ignores the greater rate of violence against men in order to focus on violence against women(and actually sees focusing on violence against men as a zero sum game that takes away from the focus on violence against women?), do you really think they are going to care if, tomorrow, all the violence against women is suddenly transferred to violence against men?

No.

Further the 'end violence against women' campaigns presuppose that violence against women is a special category of violence, separate from violence against men. They even say so in their materials. It's not just that they want to end violence against women, it's that they see it as categorically different then violence against men(which is more acceptable.)

To use the previous gun/knife violence analogy. It would be like an anti-gun group that hid knife violence, marginalized knife violence victims and refused to count them as victims of violence because knife violence isn't a manifestation of the gunarchy. Or an 'end nuclear weapons' campaign that wanted to replace nuclear weapons with some kind of antimatter bombs because antimatter bombs aren't part of the nuclearachy.

It's not that these campaigners see ending violence against women as important, it's that they see it as categorically different then violence against men, which is the more acceptable form of violence according to them.

[–]samarye 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Evelle 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

"Further the 'end violence against women' campaigns presuppose that violence against women is a special category of violence, separate from violence against men. They even say so in their materials. It's not just that they want to end violence against women, it's that they see it as categorically different then violence against men(which is more acceptable.)"

Why shouldn't they? Domestic violence is a different problem than say, armed robbery or gang violence. They all have different causes, different solutions, and different social aspects.

If we want to understand crime we need to understand it's causes and in order to do that you have to take a nuanced approach to it. Just saying all violence is bad tells us nothing. It gives us no actionable solutions. So yes, there are different categories of crimes for very good reasons.

It is beyond absurd for you to posit that because a group chooses to focus on one type of crime means that they don't care about other types of crime or other victims. They've simply chosen a problem to address because they feel it needs attention. This is only inherently exclusionary if you are too foolish to understand that advocacy requires specificity.

What would the "End all violence everywhere against everyone act" even say?

Besides, if what you say is true, then your own advocacy for male crime victims would necessarily imply that you thought the problem could be adequately solved by somehow making sure that only females were victims. Really? Is this what you think?

[–]typhonblue 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

This is only inherently exclusionary if you are too foolish to understand that advocacy requires specificity.

Selective advocacy is fine. But these advocates say that violence against women is categorically different then violence against men, violence against women constitutes 'systemic gendered violence', is 'patriarchal control' and is less acceptable then violence against men.

That's the fundamental issue. If someone is focused on violence against women because of these issues, then if the violence against women is directed against men instead, then those issues are resolved.

Thus it's not about ending violence, it's about ending 'systemic gendered violence', 'patriarchal oppression', and the 'targeting of presumptively non-violent groups'.

Again, if all the violence directed towards women was instead directed towards men, the issues of campaigners to end violence against women would be solved. Violence would thus be directed at more acceptable targets in their eyes.

If all the violence directed towards women was instead directed towards men, campaigners to end violence against women would consider this an improvement as it resolves many of their key issues.

Besides, if what you say is true, then your own advocacy for male crime victims would necessarily imply that you thought the problem could be adequately solved by somehow making sure that only females were victims. Really? Is this what you think?

I advocate for all victims and do not deny that women are equal victims of domestic violence and that whatever percentage of crime victims they are, they should be equally served as male victims.

[–]Evelle 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

"But these advocates say that violence against women is categorically different then violence against men, violence against women constitutes 'systemic gendered violence', is 'patriarchal control' and is less acceptable then violence against men."

Well, sometimes it is and it historically has been. By denying that you aren't equalizing the playing field for male victims, you're just denying reality for ideological reasons. If you criticize other people for this, you should avoid doing it yourself.

Note: you do not have to deny reality in order to advocate for male victims. Lots of advocates don't, so there's no reason for you not to, is there?

I would go even further in saying that denying this reality hurts male victims because we can't understand the hurdles they face if we don't understand the social and cultural dynamics that put those hurdles into place. As a culture, we don't think that men can be victimized by women. Why? Because women are weak and non-confrontational and men are aggressive and have all the power. Patriarchal culture plays a role in perpetuating these attitudes and it did us all a disservice. Why deny that?

The problem is further compounded for gay and trans men who are victims of IPV and this is largely rooted in misogyny. Don't believe me? Why don't you make a list of the worst insults you can dish out to a man and tell us what they are? By pretending this doesn't exist, you do an even greater disservice to those victims. You are denying the very cause of the discrimination they face and that is not advocacy, it's ideology.

"That's the fundamental issue. If someone is focused on violence against women because of these issues, then if the violence against women is directed against men instead, then those issues are resolved. Thus it's not about ending violence, it's about ending 'systemic gendered violence', 'patriarchal oppression', and the 'targeting of presumptively non-violent groups'."

Your logic (and I use that word loosely) here is absolutely bizarre and frankly, idiotic. For emphasis:

"... if all the violence directed towards women was instead directed towards men..."

You are literally just pulling this out of your ass. Short of deranged people or terrorist groups, this is not a part of standard public advocacy group I have ever heard of. It isn't even an accidental byproduct.

It's almost as if you think there is some universal violence constant and if one group isn't being victimized then, by some law of nature, it must be shifted on to some other group.

You mentioned that some groups seek to minimize IPV against men, but even that isn't the same as advocating that we actually replace female victims with male ones and viola! Problem solved! This is tinfoil hat territory.

You know, I think I know what this is about. In some of the more seedy MRA circles, they do often advocate violence and discrimination against women. Here's the thing though, legitimate advocacy groups (as opposed to hate groups) don't actually do that. In the regular world where people are not insane, people don't advocate for organized violence against a group of people. In fact, it's considered bad form and when acted upon, would probably be illegal. It's sort of like, um, terrorism.

Your projection of this attitude onto your "opponents" is baseless, irrational, and frankly tells us more about you than it does about the people you criticize.

"I advocate for all victims and do not deny that women are equal victims of domestic violence and that whatever percentage of crime victims they are, they should be equally served as male victims."

That may be what you think you're doing, but that's not what this particular argument does. It's puerile, ridiculous, inane and does nothing to help people understand the very real and ,yes, unique problems that male (especially gay or trans men) IPV victims suffer.

[–]typhonblue1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You're not actually following the argument.

Advocates for ending 'violence against women' believe that 'violence against women' is categorically worse then violence against men. Violence against women is 'institutional', it is 'oppression', it is 'targeting the vulnerable', it is, in effect, less acceptable for these reasons then violence against men.

My point is not that these people are advocating to increase violence against men, my point is that these people beliefs, logically, lead one to conclude that if all the violence directed towards women today were directed at men tomorrow that they would view it as a net improvement in the world.

Because violence as 'institutional gender oppression' or 'targeting the vulnerable' would end.

Simply, violence against men is more acceptable to these groups then violence against women. All their rhetoric indicates this is so.

Well, sometimes it is and it historically has been. By denying that you aren't equalizing the playing field for male victims, you're just denying reality for ideological reasons. If you criticize other people for this, you should avoid doing it yourself.

I am not doing it. As far as I'm concerned violence is violence. Understanding the dynamics behind why violence happens is fine; assuming that violence is somehow worse when directed at particular groups is not.

[–]Evelle1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

"As far as I'm concerned violence is violence. Understanding the dynamics behind why violence happens is fine; assuming that violence is somehow worse when directed at particular groups is not."

Actually, you aren't following the argument. Understanding why some people are targets of particular kinds of violence is an integral part of understanding the dynamics of violence. By arguing that it isn't relevant, and violence is just violence, you are actually undermining victim advocacy for both men and women. By dismissing that, you are missing the whole point of what it means to understand violence, help victims, and ultimately prevent it.

You keep pretending that the argument is about relative victim value and not cultural attitudes and practices. It isn't just about victims. It's also about perpetrators. It's about cultures that allow them to operate with impunity. What you are doing here is nothing more diversion and whitewashing. There are male victims. That doesn't negate history or reality.

Understanding and working to prevent the causes of racial violence doesn't mean that white victims are less important. It means understanding that all victims of racial violence are important while acknowledging the context in which it usually occurs.

Yes, I think we all agree that violence is generally bad. We can do that while acknowledging that institutionalized discrimination that breeds and legitimizes the kind of violence that minority groups faced, and continue to face, is not a fantasy dreamed up by feminists. Go read some of the Quiverfull literature if you don't believe me. These people are entirely steeped in the patriarchal "tradition" and it's no accident that they call it "traditional".

As wrong as they are, they didn't appear randomly in a vacuum. And you can also read about how damaging this movement is to men. I highly recommend it, it's eye-opening and terrifying. It's also one of the best examples of why advocating for the women trapped in this nightmare necessarily advocates for men.

The logical conclusion is not that more men should be oppressed, but that advocating for ending gendered discrimination against women necessarily results in advocating against gendered discrimination against men. In other words, it doesn't have to make more victims. We can all benefit. The fact that you don't see that is primarily because you aren't seeing the big picture and assuming there is some cynical zero-sum game at play. There really isn't.

This blog is mostly from a woman's point of view, but it's a good start and she has linked to men's blogs in her "Worthwhile reads" posts.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/

"My point is not that these people are advocating to increase violence against men, my point is that these people beliefs, logically, lead one to conclude that if all the violence directed towards women today were directed at men tomorrow that they would view it as a net improvement in the world."

That isn't the logical conclusion. That is you being a jackass and refusing to acknowledge that the problem of violence against certain groups of people actually exists and that it is relevant. This is you saying that it's relevant when it concerns men, but not women.

[–]typhonblue1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Evelle1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

"I'm taking issue with the idea that violence A is more important then violence B."

Except no one actually thinks violence A is "more important" than violence B. This is a construct of your imagination. They just recognize the difference between violence A and B and advocate accordingly. In other words, they are doing exactly what any rational advocate would.

"You believe violence against women is more important then violence against men. "

Where did I say that? Here's a hint: I didn't. In fact, I went out of my may to demonstrate that I didn't think that. Several times.

Lets contrast that. All you've done is argue that reality and history don't exist, that context is meaningless and that culture means nothing. I.e. all you've done is argue that your fantasy is more important than reality.

What I did say was that recognizing reality doesn't preclude us from recognizing victimization that doesn't fit the mold.

[–]typhonblue1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

First of all, I've said nothing about denying history and context.

And if you don't think that violence against women is categorically worse then violence against men, fine.

Most campaigners for ending violence against women do believe that violence against women is categorically worse then violence against men. They have various rationales for their belief, but it is there. (Ironically all societies have this belief and it ties into our beliefs about gender-based agency.)

edit: I think I've figured out why you're saying I'm ignoring history and context. You believe that history and context justify prioritizing ending violence against women(which implicitly means you believe violence against women is more important to address, thus more important period). This is exactly what I'm saying. You prioritize violence against women because you believe it is categorically worse due to 'history and context.'

Incidentally, if you do believe that history and context justify a near exclusive prioritization of violence against women (because it's worse or more important then violence against men, this conclusion is unavoidable) then your analysis better be very through(beyond a shadow of a doubt) because any time a hierarchy of victims have emerged in history, it has usually involved an atrocity, either an active atrocity or one of indifference.

[–]Evelle1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

"This is exactly what I'm saying. You prioritize violence against women because you believe it is categorically worse due to 'history and context.'"

I said that it was categorically DIFFERENT because of history and culture, not necessarily worse for women in every individual case no matter what, ever. That is your straw man talking, not me.

"First of all, I've said nothing about denying history and context."

No, but you don't have to. You just ignore social factors and pretend that IPV exists is in some sort of vacuum whereby it magically isn't affected by issues relating to gender equality. The fact that you aren't saying anything IS the problem.

" You believe that history and context justify prioritizing ending violence against women(which implicitly means you believe violence against women is more important to address, thus more important period). "

Sigh

I believe that for advocates this is a perfectly acceptable position, including yours.

Incidentally, and you completely ignored this, I also believe this is true for all advocacy. I specifically mentioned the unique circumstances faced by men, particularly gay or trans men. They do have special circumstances and they deserve to have advocates who understand that. Your remark that understanding this "implicitly means you believe violence against women is more important to address, thus more important period" is bullshit, pure and simple.

The only reason you don't get that is because you are ideologically committed to seeing only one implication.

I also pointed out that your "argument" about how advocating for female victims of IPV necessarily implies that any violence against men is acceptable is also complete bullshit. I'm going to repeat it just to hammer the point home:

1) IPV isn't just any kind of violence. It's a specific kind, with it's own issues, history, and solutions. You can further subdivide that based on the different hurdles typically faced by various kinds of victims or perpetrators.

2) Because, if your point was true, it would be trues of ANY advocacy, including your own.

People who advocate for animal welfare must necessarily think that violence against humans is acceptable.

People who advocate for the homeless must want people with homes to be homeless.

People who advocate for poor people must want rich people to be poor.

People who advocate for African American civil rights and equality necessarily want to oppress white people.

In other words, the sky is falling the sky is falling!

3) Because you never actually established this link exists, much less established that it's true for mainstream groups.

4) It's so oversimplified that it's actually, and forgive my French, fucking stupid beyond belief. There's so many errors in thinking that I'm having a hard time selecting which one is most suitable. Straw man, ad hom, appeal to consequences, faulty composition, undistributed middle.

5) You ignore the ways in which advocacy for one group might actually help another group. I gave you examples that directly disprove your point.

Here's another: thoughtful, effective advocacy for male victims helps all of us, including female perpetrators. See how that works? See how I don't have to assume advocating for male victims necessarily implies women are "less important"?

Do you see how freaking easy that was?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Evelle 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]itouchthepoopforlove 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]itouchthepoopforlove 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I'm still failing to see how this means that the supporters of VAWA want to see more violence against men. I'm sorry, because you seem like you're trying really hard to promote your blog, and I'm just not getting your point.

Violence against men is bad, and it's not "more acceptable" than violence against women. The power structures between a man abusing a man are different than the power structures inherent in a man abusing a woman, therefore different laws need to be enacted. This is why there are feminists fighting to end bullying, to stop war, to promote victims' rights (in ALL CASES, yes, even men). And why feminists support VAWA, because it's a bill specific to the needs of women, who are treated differently by society, and viewed different by society.

Oh, hey, so if affirmative action stays around, does that mean I don't want white people to go to college?

[–]typhonblue 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It's funny because you're actually sorta stating my case.

Violence against men is bad, and it's not "more acceptable" than violence against women.

Really? But then you say:

The power structures between a man abusing a man are different than the power structures inherent in a man abusing a woman, therefore different laws need to be enacted.

Different, how? (And I notice you omit women abusing men.)

Why do you think that women need more protections against violence then men? They need their own, gender specific protections(therefore different laws need to be enacted)?

This is why there are feminists fighting to end bullying, to stop war, to promote victims' rights (in ALL CASES, yes, even men).

Did you actually look at my links? Many(all can't be proven) organizations(note I never said 'feminists') who are fighting to end 'violence against women' are known to ignore and marginalize male victims of violence.

It's right there, in the links. Male victims of human trafficking, wartime rape, community rape and domestic violence are all minimized and ignored because these 'end violence against women' campaigners often view it as a zero sum game.

[–]itouchthepoopforlove 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yes, but like you said, "all can't be proven." And I find it pretty damn unbelievable that this is deliberate. That doesn't sound plausible, and sounds like very (rightly) frustrated people making accusations.

And yes, I did read them. You didn't read what I said, though. I didn't say violence from women against men because I felt that it was inferred. I'll say it now: yes, we need to define each violence differently, or else we are doing a disservice to each group. Yes, it's hard, because that means that we have to acknowledge that there are systems of power in place to keep down specific groups.

And uh, no, I'm not stating your case. I don't think women need more protection than men, I think they need different protection than men, because the power structures that subjugate women are totally different from the one's that subjugate men, and culturally pervasive in a totally different way.

And stop saying you never said "feminists" as though that somehow makes you a bastion of neutrality. I don't care if you never said "feminists," I'm saying feminists, because we're, logically, the prime supporters of renewing bills like VAWA.

And if these campaigners really do what these articles say they do - deliberately sweep violence against men, by women or otherwise, under the rug - how does that in any way make VAWA something that will cause violence against men to increase? You still haven't given me any evidence, whatsoever, that that's what this bill is going to do, or that that's it's goal.

P.S. Seriously, I wanna know. Does supporting affirmative action mean I don't want white people to go to college?

[–]typhonblue0 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yes, but like you said, "all can't be proven." And I find it pretty damn unbelievable that this is deliberate. That doesn't sound plausible, and sounds like very (rightly) frustrated people making accusations.

Read the links. It is proven that at least some 'anti-violence against women' groups minimize, marginalize and ignore male victims of violence.

If you had read the links, you wouldn't be saying this.

Yes, it's hard, because that means that we have to acknowledge that there are systems of power in place to keep down specific groups.

And the violence by 'systems of power' against these specific groups is politically, socially or otherwise worse then the violence against other groups, correct? Since this violence constitutes 'keeping down' these groups, it has an added dimension of oppression that makes it worse then other violence.

Now... what specific groups are you referring to?

I think you're referring to women, since you mention women in the context of gender-specific laws designed to focus on their violence. (And omit gender-specific laws designed to address violence against men.)

I don't think women need more protection than men, I think they need different protection than men, because the power structures that subjugate women are totally different from the one's that subjugate men, and culturally pervasive in a totally different way.

Culturally pervasive in what way?

And if these campaigners really do what these articles say they do - deliberately sweep violence against men, by women or otherwise, under the rug - how does that in any way make VAWA something that will cause violence against men to increase?

Where did I say it would?

P.S. Seriously, I wanna know. Does supporting affirmative action mean I don't want white people to go to college?

If you were advocating affirmative action for black people in a situation where fewer white people were going to college and were ignoring the reasons what this was so, then yes.

But that wasn't what I was saying. I was saying that the acceptable targets for violence are men. Or, the more acceptable targets for violence are men. To use the analogy that means I'm saying that you think if anyone should be overtly discriminated against in college applications, it should be white people. Which is exactly what you're saying if you support affirmative action.