Feminism Mega Thread

AutoModerator · 2021-04-11T20:00:25+00:00

This sticky is to semi-relevant hot topics that may change from week to week. Personal advice can be asked here: https://www.reddit.com/r/ToughLoveAdvice/...

[–]TheBookOfSeil 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]geometersbane 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TheBookOfSeil 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AutoModerator1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pilling_it1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]abaxeron✴️(Not Actually) Indian Programmer -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]SmurfESmurfersonStacy’s Post-Wall Mom 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]abaxeron✴️(Not Actually) Indian Programmer -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]SmurfESmurfersonStacy’s Post-Wall Mom 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]abaxeron✴️(Not Actually) Indian Programmer 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]SmurfESmurfersonStacy’s Post-Wall Mom 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]abaxeron✴️(Not Actually) Indian Programmer -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]SmurfESmurfersonStacy’s Post-Wall Mom 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]abaxeron✴️(Not Actually) Indian Programmer 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]SmurfESmurfersonStacy’s Post-Wall Mom 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]abaxeron1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SmurfESmurferson3 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]angels-fanLoves Pibbles 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]abaxeron✴️(Not Actually) Indian Programmer 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kissmetilyouredrunk{<my pussy tastes like pepsi cola>} 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]abaxeron✴️(Not Actually) Indian Programmer 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]kissmetilyouredrunk{<my pussy tastes like pepsi cola>} 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]abaxeron✴️(Not Actually) Indian Programmer 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GGMcThroway 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]LowCredditTrans-Inclusive Radical Misogynist 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]GGMcThroway 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]angels-fanLoves Pibbles 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]GGMcThroway 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]4derp 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]YoMamas_azzTheoretically 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]MisterJose 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Why should women have equality?

Which specific forms of equality should women have?

Equality under the law is definitely a desirable thing. This is not the same as claiming that men and women are exactly the same. Imagine if a refugee center stocked the same number of tampons for men as they did for women. This would of course be silly, and no one would be for that. But we come so very close to supporting certain things in the name of equality that may be equally silly.

The problem comes form the fact that we live in a world of positive rights. And that may be inevitable - I'm not a Libertarian idealist thinking we can strip laws and regulations down to the bone and get rid of social services and have it work great. So, in some places, the public services we provide are going to be unequal. The women's bathroom in a large public building might need to be larger and cost slightly more to build. If we get public health care, different amounts of money are going to need to be spent on care for men and women out of our tax dollars. No way to avoid that.

And because we don't like the look of that, sometimes people try to go to silly lengths to avoid those differences. "You're right, men should get exactly the same maternity rights as women." Um...I'm not the one growing another human inside of me and then pushing it out through a small orifice. Possibly the person who is doing that has different needs than I do?

What metrics could you point to which would show equality has been fully reached?

We're never going to be done. This is important to realize. It's like people who want to 'end war' - You're never going to end all human conflict, unless you fundamentally change human nature. And the place you have to go to in order to make that happen is scary dystopia shit, like mandatory pacification drugs, or implanting controls in people's brains. Similarly, some people need to accept that there's no viable future where no guy ever uses his physical advantages to try and compensate or control for the power he feels women hold over him. There's plenty we can do to make things better, but some people want perfect, they're never going to get it, and perfect so easily becomes the enemy of better.

What will be done in order to achieve this equality?

I see the major problem in modern society to be about perception. We're all exposed to so much negativity on social media, we hold so many grudges, we give it back and perpetuate the cycles. The big thing we should be putting our efforts toward is defusing that, for both men and women. Men and women are never going to be the same, or have the exact same wants or personality tendencies. But we are both human, and we're social animals capable of connection. You want to foster an maximize that connection.

My criticism of some feminist approaches is that I think they do the exact opposite. Nothing is to be gained setting up an adversarial situation, or operating under the narrative that everything is a zero-sum struggle for group power. Academic theory should not replace basic understanding of human interaction and reaction.

[–]GGMcThroway 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Why should women have equality?

All people of sound mind and capability of rational thinking should not have opportunities taken away for things they can't control. Technology has rendered most of our biological differences obsolete.

On the flip side: Why should men?

Which specific forms of equality should women have?

Equal opportunity for equal ability and equal effort.

What would the forms of equality youd like to see look like?

Meritocracy. No affirmative action. Drug trials having to be half women by default. Things that need to be tailored for either gender being easily accessible for both.

What metrics could you point to which would show equality has been fully reached?

Provable meritocracy where bigotry is so benign that it's treated like a (mostly) harmless character flaw.

What will be done in order to achieve this equality?

Fix female (and male, for that matter) childhood socialization. Stop treating girls as special for doing boy things. Reduce the notion of a woman's provable capabilities being inherently questionable due to her gender to being cartoonishly laughable. Remove gendered tribalism.

Are there any equalities women should not have?

Ideally no,

Are there any priveleges/advantages women should have that men do not?

Until genetic engineering puts men and women at the same strength level by default, the whole "don't attack women unless absolutely necessary" thing, unfortunately. "Equal rights equal fights" is an ideal I'd love to have in theory, but it would inevitably end in women as the easy targets for men who want to brutalize people that can't fight back without consequence as we are now.

[–]octocombo 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Why should women have equality?

Both because I (like many people) believe everyone should have equality of opportunity and because it causes the next generation to be healthier and better-educated.

Which specific forms of equality should women have?

Political opportunity, legally guaranteed rights, and (lack of) societal prejudice around gender roles.

What would the forms of equality youd like to see look like?

When going on dates, splitting the bill is the social norm. Stores don't market their goods in a gendered way (e.g., baby dolls aren't just for girls, shaving razors aren't curvy pink "for her" and blocky black "for him"). If you say a man is feminine or say a boy is girly, no one thinks that's an insult. People don't think it's scary/dangerous to have multi-stall gender-neutral public restrooms. No one censors specifically "female-presenting nipples" (unless they just censor all nipples regardless of gender). When men cry, it isn't seen as more shocking or shameful than when women cry. A man who paints his nails and wears a full face of natural-style makeup to a 9-5 office job is seen as just as professional as women who do the same. Employers expect that both parents will take at least a few months off (paid) after the birth or adoption of a child.

What metrics could you point to which would show equality has been fully reached?

The average cost from age 0-18 to raise a daughter is the same as the average cost to raise a son. Men and women who have committed the same crime and have the same criminal record on average get the same sentence. If two resumes are identical in every respect except whether the name is masculine or feminine, employers are equally likely to select the applicants for an interview, regardless of the industry. Quotes for repairs are the same regardless of whether the customer is a man or a woman.

(Currently none of these are true.) I don't think this is a comprehensive list of metrics or necessarily all the most important ones, but I think these are more relevant to equality of opportunity than bringing the wage gap to zero or setting a gender quota in important jobs.

What will be done in order to achieve this equality?

Enhanced gender-neutral and legally-mandated rights to parental leave, better education about consent and sex ed in general, enhanced worker safety rights (including protections from physical harm and outlets to report abuse of power), reduced prison sentences and reduced policing in general, ending for-profit prisons, requirement for health insurance to cover reproductive health, eliminating the draft, requiring health/safety testing to include people of all relevant body types, requiring employers to post the average amount they pay for each job title...

Are there any equalities women should not have?

I don't think it's appropriate to aim for strict equality in the sense of everything needing to be identical. Like obviously it's absurd to say that a man needs to get an ultrasound every time his pregnant wife gets an ultrasound. Or that women should get screened for prostrate cancer at the same rates men are screened for prostrate cancer. Only do what's medically helpful.

And equality of outcome also doesn't have to happen. For example, I think the wage gap is currently larger than it would be with perfect equality of opportunity, but I also don't think it's obvious that the wage gap would be zero with perfect equality of opportunity.

Are there any priveleges women should have?

That men in the same situation should not have? No.

[–]_lemazaki 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]YoMamas_azzTheoretically 13 points14 points15 points 5 years ago* (200 children) | Copy Link

[–]GGMcThroway 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]YoMamas_azzTheoretically 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]GGMcThroway 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]GGMcThroway 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]octocombo 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

It's wrong to think of modern feminism as an effort to guarantee more legal rights for women. Modern feminism is an effort to make the overall standing of men and women more equal in society.

Many of the biggest factors creating inequality currently are related either directly or indirectly to reproduction and parental rights. For example, neither men nor women have the right to paid parental leave in much of the US, though women who work for large companies are required to have access to some unpaid leave (it's still fewer weeks than WHO recommends). Feminists call for an increase in parental leave for everyone, noting that equitable paid leave makes it easier for parents to maintain careers and less likely that women will be pressured to drop out of the workforce for childcare. (If the woman can get time off and the man can't, can you guess who's going to make sacrifices in their career for childcare? And can you guess who is going to have a more distant relationship with their kids and feel pressured to have more career advancement in order to fulfill the demands on a breadwinner? It's not fair to men or women to structure parental leave in an unbalanced way with minimal guarantees beyond what the employer feels like providing.)

And the unjustly long criminal sentences given to men also negatively impact everyone. It directly ruins the lives of many men (especially POC) and shunts their families into cycles of poverty. Along with a lot of other issues.

Feminism isn't about who has it worst. It's about recognizing that inequities in society harm us all and working to address inequities both through legal and social action.

[–]parahacker 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago* (21 children) | Copy Link

No, you're describing egalitarianism.

Feminism only has this mandate for women, and is radio silent about what harms men (except in how that may affect women).

Further, feminism has a long history of excessive and sometimes corrupt activism on things that are equal. Gender-neutral rape laws? Feminists campaigned against. Equal draft? Feminists campaigned against. Equal numbers of women (this one really gets me, in an r/leopardsatemyface way) testing for drugs in alpha stage? Feminists campaigned against, citing risk to potential pregnancies. (While now decrying gender bias against women for the results of those studies.)

And if you're wondering why I add 'corrupt', there's plenty of examples but look up Erin Pizzey. https://johnbwellsnews.com/erin-pizzey-why-i-loathe-feminismy/

It's pretty hard to ignore the very woman that created domestic violence shelters when she tells you it's corrupt.

Oh, and fun groups like the Edit-O-Thon (https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/a-feminist-edit-a-thon-seeks-to-reshape-wikipedia) that like to erase entries for 'misandry'.

Feminism is NOT about equality. When they say they are, it is a LIE.

Vote Egalitarianism!

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

[–]parahacker 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

I kind of agree with what he's saying, but it's littered with fallacies like this:

When MRAs criticize the assumption that women make better parents than men or that women cannot commit sexual abuse, what they are really doing is criticizing patriarchal gender ideology, an ideology that feminists also reject.

No. That ideology is not 'patriarchal'. It is matriarchal. It was campaigned for and enshrined in law in Britain under the premise that women were more moral, caring, and just better than men.

I can hear you now - 'but it reinforces stereotypes about how men are the head of the family because of x'... no. NO IT DOESN'T. It is a purely negative stereotype about men. It is not 'patriarchal' in nature. And it didn't exist because of patriarchy; in the 1700's, arguably far more patriarchal a time period, men had full custody. It was never men arguing using 'patriarchal' logic to create the custody setup we have today.

It could be argued that it was in response to prior laws more patriarchal in nature that our current custody situation exists; but arguing that that situation is itself patriarchal? Flawed, flawed, flawed.

And using that language throws the problem of people thinking men are lesser caretakers back on to men or 'patriarchal' thinking, which is just wrong.

That's just one instance, your citation is littered with similar examples. Personally, I find academics like Bell Hooks to be part of the problem, under the veneer of 'finding common ground' covering up insupportable excesses of feminism from the past and present while managing to blame 'patriarchy' for it all.

[–]octocombo 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

No. That ideology is not 'patriarchal'. It is matriarchal. It was campaigned for and enshrined in law in Britain under the premise that women were more moral, caring, and just better than men.

If the premise was that women were more moral, caring, or generally better than men, why would this ideology limit that characterization to the sphere of parenting and home life? Wouldn't people who genuinely believed that also want women to be in control of the political systems and businesses which impact the setup for the entire country? There's a difference between using woman-praising gender-stereotyped terminology to cement women's place in the domestic sphere (leaving men to have primary power in the political sphere and in businesses which primarily control property) and actually believing in female superiority or having a matriarchal society.

I can hear you now - 'but it reinforces stereotypes about how men are the head of the family because of x'... no. NO IT DOESN'T. It is a purely negative stereotype about men. And it didn't exist because of patriarchy; in the 1700's, arguably far more patriarchal a time period, men had full custody. It was never men arguing using 'patriarchal' logic to create the custody setup we have today.

I agree it doesn't reinforce stereotypes about men being the head of the family (a role in the domestic sphere), and I agree this kind of stereotype isn't inherent to all patriarchal systems. What this stereotype does is strategically limit the dismantling of patriarchy to domestic roles, keeping upperclass women from engaging in the morally "dirty" realms of politics and business while disparaging lowerclass women as unfeminine. It's less patriarchal than keeping women subservient in both the domestic sphere and the public sphere, but it sets the stage to keep the domestic/public spheres separate in a new equilibrium which maintains patriarchy in the public sphere. So it's more accurate to say this is a strategic concession from a patriarchal system which was intended to maintain patriarchy in the public sphere than to say it's a matriarchal policy. The effusive language about women wasn't to elevate women; it was to designate women as too pure to lead politically.

And it didn't exist because of patriarchy; in the 1700's, arguably far more patriarchal a time period, men had full custody.

And still weren't expected to be caretakers. They were expected to financially provide.

managing to blame 'patriarchy' for it all

Patriarchy doesn't mean "men." Patriarchy is a system enabled and contributed to by men and women. Why is it wrong to attribute most systemic injustice to flaws in the systems of power distribution and culture (which we all need to work together to change)?

[–]parahacker 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

why would this ideology limit that characterization to the sphere of parenting and home life?

It wasn't. The same logic got prohobition made into a constitutional amendment. 'Moral authority' was used as an argument for everything from why men shouldn't be caretakers of children to supporting the 'purchasing' aspect of coverture laws. Moral authority of women was used by women's groups to lend weight to their efforts to institute the draft in Britain.

Like everything else in politics and law, it was messy and disputed, and you can find caricatures from old newspapers in the 1800's lampooning women's moral authority as much as you can supporting it. But as a subtext its effect on politics up until the 20th century was profound.

What this stereotype does is strategically limit the dismantling of patriarchy to domestic roles, keeping upperclass women from engaging in the morally "dirty" realms of politics and business while disparaging lowerclass women as unfeminine.

No. What you're describing here can best be categorized under the 'law of unintended consequences.' Neither the women's groups advocating for custody nor the legal authorities of the time made those laws in an effort to 'strategically limit' women.

The main arguments revolving around custody, as true then as it is now, were around the best arrangement for the children. They used the argument of women's moral authority because it made sense to people at the time - it was accepted. Which could itself be considered an unintended consequence of coverture.

And still weren't expected to be caretakers. They were expected to financially provide.

Wrong; they were absolutely expected to be caretakers. Shocking, I know, but men weren't always considered worse at child rearing. That was a cultural sea change stemming from protestant reformation and women's involvement in that, as seen by how English 'common law' and its parent 'civil law' practiced in France, Spain, etc. differ on the topic.

Patriarchy doesn't mean "men."

I stopped reading that paragraph right there. Unfair of me, I know. But this one sentence right here is so important to dispute that it overshadows anything you could possibly say after, even if it was telling me winning lottery numbers.

Feminists, whenever the term is challenged, keep saying this. Over and over.

Please consider that if you have to explain the same 'error' to damn near everyone who hears the word, that maybe their interpretation is not the issue at hand. Maybe, just maybe, it is utterly shit choice of words.

[–]octocombo 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The same logic got prohobition made into a constitutional amendment.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/01/13/prohibition-women-blame-history-223972

'Moral authority' was used as an argument for everything from why men shouldn't be caretakers of children to supporting the 'purchasing' aspect of coverture laws.

Coverture laws meaning...the laws that took away a woman's rights and property when she got married? How is anything related to coverture laws an imposition of women on men??

Moral authority of women was used by women's groups to lend weight to their efforts to institute the draft in Britain.

I'm not familiar with women's groups roles in instituting the draft in Britain, though I will note that women were included in the British draft.

old newspapers in the 1800's lampooning women's moral authority as much as you can supporting it. But as a subtext its effect on politics up until the 20th century was profound.

...are you really trying to make the argument that women had an inordinate impact on politics during a time period when women could not vote?

What you're describing here can best be categorized under the 'law of unintended consequences.' Neither the women's groups advocating for custody nor the legal authorities of the time made those laws in an effort to 'strategically limit' women. They used the argument of women's moral authority because it made sense to people at the time - it was accepted.

Whether it was intentionally strategic or unintentionally so is not relevant. If the cause was prejudice in believing that was the natural role of women or a more intentional malice doesn't change the strategic effect. I didn't mean the word "strategic" in the sense of "someone intentionally crafted a strategy," I meant it in the sense of it having a strategic impact on roles and power dynamics.

Wrong; they were absolutely expected to be caretakers. Shocking, I know, but men weren't always considered worse at child rearing. That was a cultural sea change stemming from protestant reformation and women's involvement in that, as seen by how English 'common law' and its parent 'civil law' practiced in France, Spain, etc. differ on the topic.

It seems like you're focused on British history here. Sure, we can talk British history. Since the British monarchy began, the cultural expectation has been that women were the primary caregivers for children. What sources do you have suggesting that men were ever expected to be the primary caregivers in British society? Here's a brief source confirming that women were expected to be the primary caregivers in the 18th century (prior to the custody reforms you described, which happened in the 19th century): https://www.history1700s.com/index.php/articles/25-society-and-culture/2240-how-childcare-has-changed-since-the-1700s.html

I stopped reading that paragraph right there. Feminists, whenever the term is challenged, keep saying this. Over and over.

So what you're saying is you don't listen to feminists describing their own beliefs. Why do you think you are better able to understand feminists' beliefs than feminists are when you acknowledge that you tune out what you don't want to hear?

Please consider that if you have to explain the same 'error' to damn near everyone who hears the word, that maybe their interpretation is not the issue at hand. Maybe, just maybe, it is utterly shit choice of words.

If we changed the terminology to "systemic sexism," do you think it would fare any better than the term "systemic racism" has? White people are defensive about the term "systemic racism" even though nothing in that term is a reference to white people. It's not the terminology that's the problem. It's people who respond defensively without being willing to listen. If you're so sure that the terminology is the issue, what alternative would you propose which accurately captures the meaning and is offensive to no one?

[–]parahacker 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Coverture laws meaning...the laws that took away a woman's rights and property when she got married? How is anything related to coverture laws an imposition of women on men??

I was surprised by this one too, so you know. But coverture was arguably worse for men than women in many circumstances.

One key fact about coverture law was that women could 'purchase necessities'. In theory, this was to take care of the house. In practice, a married woman could buy a house and the husband would be on the hook for it.

Especially in the U.S., unless the husband posted a local advertisement in the paper that he 'would not honor debts', a wife could move from state to state, buying everything in his name and lenders/banks would hold him accountable.

There were other aspects of coverture that were... unbalanced. All crimes were the man's fault. Theft? Husband went to jail. Assault? Husband's fault.

Coverture was absolutely unfair towards women in a lot of ways, but it was far from one-sided.

...are you really trying to make the argument that women had an inordinate impact on politics during a time period when women could not vote?

I sure am.

The history of prohibition did not develop in a void. I looked at your link, but all it basically says is that men who had votes voted for it, and some of the women who rallied for it were mythic figures. This does not convince me that women had no say in the matter, or even a lesser say in the matter. I already knew women didn't have the vote yet; what, did you think I was saying men were helpless in this?

After all, that article itself points out that the only woman governor that existed at the time did in fact vote for prohibition.

Whether it was intentionally strategic or unintentionally so is not relevant. If the cause was prejudice in believing that was the natural role of women or a more intentional malice doesn't change the strategic effect.

It takes the 'strategic' out of it. So yes, it does change it. That's like saying 'well, we didn't plan to lose, but we lost, so that was our intent all along.'

It seems like you're focused on British history here. Sure, we can talk British history. Since the British monarchy began, the cultural expectation has been that women were the primary caregivers for children

No, women were the primary caregivers for infants. Wet nurses, etc., all that was geared towards the first few years. However, except for the upper classes men were involved every step of the way; there was no separate village for men and women. And men were considered the guardians and caretakers, if they were there - and the child was direly unfortunate if he wasn't. And if there was a divorce, the child typically stayed with the man.

Consider how all old fairy tales have 'evil stepmothers', not evil stepfathers. Because no matter the age, in a divorce the kids went with the father.

It wasn't until I believe the early 1800s that England granted a law to give judges discretion over who was a more suitable parent.

Which is somewhat ideal. Shared custody by default is better, in my opinion, but giving judges discretion is better than automatically granting either parent custody by virtue of gender.

But then... then came the Tender Years doctrine. Late 1800's. And that was entirely driven by women's groups, and it sent the kids with the mother, every, single, time. And here we are, still paying for it. America followed suit shortly after Britain.

Alabama recently passed a law stating 50/50 custody is the default option. Great news for kids in Alabama. Hoping for a sea change... but note that feminist groups have lobbied against such laws even in recent years.

So what you're saying is you don't listen to feminists describing their own beliefs.

No, what I'm saying is that that one sentence is so godammned important to abjure that nothing else matters, even if you paid me to look. It is that much of a disconnect in how you and I base our views on this.

If we changed the terminology to "systemic sexism," do you think it would fare any better than the term "systemic racism" has? White people are defensive about the term "systemic racism" even though nothing in that term is a reference to white people. It's not the terminology that's the problem. It's people who respond defensively without being willing to listen.

Fair point, but in the opposite direction. 'Systemic racism' raises static, so use a better phrase, like 'Lending bias', 'zoning discrimination', etc. Partly because it won't raise as many hackles, and partly because lending bias is a problem of systemic racism, but most people don't know that because nobody talks much about lending bias. Better terms would get better results.

If you're so sure that the terminology is the issue, what alternative would you propose which accurately captures the meaning and is offensive to no one?

Since I disagree with the principle that 'patriarchy' is intended to portray in modern contexts, I wouldn't give it a word.

But if you insist, I'd use 'disenfranchisement.' In the case of 'toxic masculinity', I'd use 'emotional disenfranchisement.' I'd describe and characterize it as socially removing agency, blocking paths, modes of expression or freedom to participate. 'Partial disenfranchisement' for situations like where men and women are technically allowed to do a thing, but heavily discouraged.

Your average person doesn't have a solid lock on the meaning of 'disenfranchisement', except a vague sense of something being taken from them, rights, freedoms or ownership; so it would be fairly easy to manage the conversation for that to mean 'your connection to x emotions have been blocked or taken.'

[–]octocombo 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Feminism only has this mandate for women, and is radio silent about what harms men

Or maybe you just don't know very much about what feminists say? Have you read anything written by bell hooks (a very prominent feminist)? Here is a quote:

"The first act of violence that patriarchy demands of males is not violence toward women. Instead patriarchy demands of all males that they engage in acts of psychic self-mutilation, that they kill off the emotional parts of themselves. If an individual is not successful in emotionally crippling himself, he can count on patriarchal men to enact rituals of power that will assault his self-esteem."

The rest of your comment seems to be saying that feminism is wrong because some feminists are flawed and corrupt. Given that feminism is a huge movement and people in general are flawed, it seems strange to say that having some individual feminists who are corrupt and some historical goals that were problematic means we should throw out feminism wholesale.

Take medicine as an example. Obviously, there are huge ongoing issues with how the medical system is run in every country (especially the US), and there have been many documented cases of corruption. Does that mean that we should stop practicing modern medicine entirely? Tear down the hospitals, fire the doctors and nurses, stop producing life-saving drugs? Obviously not. A system can have problematic elements and be made up of flawed individuals while also being important and providing positive value to humanity.

Vote Egalitarianism!

What do you mean by this? Is there a significant Egalitarianism movement that is actively working to achieve a more equal world? Can you share any progress that has been made by Egalitarianism organizations? Have they held protests, gotten laws passed? Are there major politicians who identify themselves as Egalitarians and advance equality?

As far as I'm aware, the answer to all of these questions is no. If Egalitarianism doesn't functionally exist as a force for legal, political, or social change, what does it mean to support it or vote for it?

[–]parahacker 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]octocombo 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]parahacker 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

1 is weasel wording.

If it's not 'dominated by male control' then call it something else. There's plenty of good words to use. Discrimination. Prejudice. Systemic bias.

'Patriarchy' blames men for a system that is not within their control, not all that favorable to them, and - key - not patriarchal. It is utter trash language.

2 is just incorrect. First, it's not a universal experience all men have - I certainly didn't. Bell is blaming men when he should instead be blaming the men he knew. Second, women feed into this more than men do, disengaging from men who 'show their emotions' rather quickly, if they don't like those emotions. Third, it pathologizes something that is in fact quite important: self control. By using this language instead of something more nuanced, it obscures that which is healthy about maintaining stoicism while failing to clearly differentiate what isn't healthy, instead lumping it all under 'patriarchy, therefore wrong.'

It's absurd on the face of it and dangerously pathologising of everything male, as we are now seeing in our schools, courts, and society. It is wrong.

[–]octocombo 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

If it's not 'dominated by male control' then call it something else. There's plenty of good words to use. Discrimination. Prejudice. Systemic bias.

It is dominated by male control, particularly in areas of political and corporate leadership. It does not have to be 100% dominated by male control to be overall dominated by male control. If in a couple one person got their way 70% of the time there was a conflict, I would say that person was dominating the relationship. Same deal. Discrimination, prejudice, and systemic bias are methods by which the system of control is maintained.

'Patriarchy' blames men

Patriarchy is not the fault of individual men more than it is the fault of individual women. You don't need to feel defensive.

First, it's not a universal experience all men have - I certainly didn't.

So you don't feel like you'd be shamed or lose status with friends or intimate partners if you cried in front of them while talking about a tough interaction at work?

Bell is blaming men

bell hooks isn't blaming men? She's talking about why it's important to have compassion for men and help alleviate a harm against men.

Second, women feed into this more than men do, disengaging from men who 'show their emotions' rather quickly, if they don't like those emotions.

Neither I nor bell hooks would say that women are blameless in maintaining patriarchy, I don't understand why you feel the need to keep setting this up as men vs. women.

Third, it pathologizes something that is in fact quite important: self control.

There's a difference between having self control and being unable to express your emotions. Having self control can mean keeping a calm appearance in the workplace when your boss rejects your request to get a raise, or it can mean restraining yourself from violence. It doesn't mean you need to bottle up all your emotions and tell your friends and family you're fine when you're hurting.

It's absurd on the face of it and dangerously pathologising of everything male

If you think everything male is being pathologized, I would ask you to question how you define masculinity.

[–]parahacker 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It is dominated by male control, particularly in areas of political and corporate leadership.

No it's not. There's no conspiracy of men to make men feel emotionally stunted. If anything, something like 80% of violent offenders, suicides, etc. come from the 25% of boys who were raised without a father. But, I'll add, with a mother.

It is not patriarchy causing the outcomes that feminist scholars accuse it of.

Patriarchy is not the fault of individual men more than it is the fault of individual women. You don't need to feel defensive.

The language used does not reflect this even in 'moderate' feminist literature.

I don't care what you think patriarchy is. I care how the word is used in our wider environment. And you're blind if you think it's not blaming men to near exclusion. Women are an afterthought in that blame game.

bell hooks isn't blaming men? She's talking about why it's important to have compassion for men and help alleviate a harm against men.

Then she shouldn't be using a term that is so loaded.

Neither I nor bell hooks would say that women are blameless in maintaining patriarchy, I don't understand why you feel the need to keep setting this up as men vs. women.

Again, I don't care what you think the word means, or what feminist scholars think the word means; I care how it's used commonly.

There is a reason corporations like Bic change their names from 'Bich'. No matter how many times you explain to an average English speaking consumer that it means 'pen', not 'bitch', it's gonna be called the bitch pen. Can you please acknowledge this point? It's not hard. The word choice matters, and patriarchy is a word that is insulting of men's dispositions. No matter how carefully it's defined.

There's a difference between having self control and being unable to express your emotions. Having self control can mean keeping a calm appearance in the workplace when your boss rejects your request to get a raise, or it can mean restraining yourself from violence. It doesn't mean you need to bottle up all your emotions and tell your friends and family you're fine when you're hurting.

Yes. There is a difference. Which is why filing it all under 'Patriarchy' is such a fantastically bad move. Any restraint a man shows, any time he bottles up when it's necessary, is now a pathology. Except when it isn't. It's a confusing mess for even rational and feminist-friendly men, which is part of the reason why Warren Farrel ditched the movement. (Mostly it was because of feminist hostility to the boy crisis, though.)

[–]parahacker 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

If Egalitarianism doesn't functionally exist as a force for legal, political, or social change, what does it mean to support it or vote for it?

Feminism didn't exist as "a force for legal, political, or social change" throughout history. Arguing this is a requirement is deeply flawed. Arguing that feminism is a force for good, given its excesses, is deeply flawed.

So not only is not supporting egalitarianism because - to be blunt - it's too weak is wrong, but supporting feminism because it accomplishes things is wrong.

The issue here is the inherent mandate of feminism.

I'll be honest with you: I agree with feminists who don't like Men's Rights or the MRM. From their perspective, it's full of men who are angry at women and what feminists see as inherent rights of women, because many MRMs are. Those topics and conversations, ones relating to being angry with some women and their actions, are allowed in MRM spaces. How could a feminist ever be ok with that?

The same, however, is true of feminism. And no matter how many articulate, balanced views of people who identify themselves as feminist you throw at me, they are outweighed by the tens of thousands who use a #killallmen tag, who deconstruct mens' spaces like the Boy Scouts, who use labels like 'patriarchy' 'toxic masculinity' to define cultural systems women of the past gave equal effort in creating, and more.

And it's a fair assessment to say that the MRM would not exist if feminism did not exist. I don't believe the MRM is as toxic as feminism - but for a reason not a lot of people seem to deem relevant: because the MRM hasn't had time to be. It will be, though, given a century or two.

But until we can change the language of equality, get people to deplatform from feminism and re-engage on the same issues under a truly equal-gender mandate, I don't see anything but more strife and tribalism in the future.

[–]octocombo 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Feminism didn't exist as "a force for legal, political, or social change" throughout history. Arguing this is a requirement is deeply flawed.

Explain what part of my logical process and/or premises is flawed, then.

Premises: (1) I want to help make progress towards a more equal society and see progress within my lifetime. (2) I have limited time, resources, and connections, and I am not willing to devote all my free time and resources to this effort. Changing society as a whole in any substantial way or getting a new movement off the ground requires more resources than I can individually provide.

Argument: (a) Given (2), I must participate in collective action to achieve (1). (b) Given (2), collective action which I participate in must be part of an existing movement rather than one which I start. (c) Given (1), (a), and (b), it is relevant and necessary for a movement I work on to already exist as a force for social/legal/political change.

Arguing that feminism is a force for good, given its excesses, is deeply flawed.

Overall, I do think that feminism is a force for good, but I'm not going to write an essay about that because it doesn't have to be a force for good overall in order for me to achieve good by working within it (especially I'm not going to spend time laying that out when the extent of the analysis you're presenting is "there are excesses, here's a list of examples with zero comparison to or even acknowledgment of the benefits which feminism has achieved"). Feminism includes a lot of causes, and I can add my effort/money to whichever ones I think are most worthwhile. Bail bond fund? Worth it. Requirement for contraceptives to be included in health insurance? Also worth it. Pushback against legislators trying to restrict parents' freedom to get puberty suppressants for their trans kids? I'll sign a petition, seems like a good fight. Bill proposal requiring men to get vasectomies after age 50? I know they don't intend for it to actually pass, and I see the comparison they were trying to make, but it's in poor taste and doesn't need any of my attention.

Those topics and conversations, ones relating to being angry with some women and their actions, are allowed in MRM spaces. How could a feminist ever be ok with that?

...I'm a feminist voluntarily in this space where a lot of men are angry with women and not trying to change the rules of this space to exclude such men. I don't think anger is wrong. I think there are some ways of expressing anger (i.e., violence or threats of violence) which are wrong. I don't see what you mean. If there were MRM who were productively targeting specific causes where men are disproportionately impacted, I don't need to agree with everything they say in order to help with those causes. I already support workplace safety initiatives (e.g., California SB 606) and prison/police reforms which disproportionately benefit men. If MRM were actually working on such causes, I'm not so spiteful that I'd be unable to work with them. The reasons I don't support MRM are that they accomplish nothing productive and that many violent criminals in recent years have been motivated by some combination of hatred and anger towards women (Elliot Rodger, Robert Aaron Long, Alek Minassian...).

The same, however, is true of feminism.

Feminism has a long list of accomplishments and has not been the motivating ideology of mass shooters. Even if you restrict the accomplishments just to feminist activism in western countries in the last decade, you still have some pretty big-ticket items, including legalization of same-sex marriage in several western countries and requiring health insurance in the USA to provide contraceptive coverage. This is not remotely true of MRM.

I don't believe the MRM is as toxic as feminism - but for a reason not a lot of people seem to deem relevant: because the MRM hasn't had time to be. It will be, though, given a century or two.

If you're talking about absolute harm done by MRM, I would agree. MRM hasn't had time or membership to cause as much harm as feminism. Given a century or two, it probably still will not have caused as much absolute harm as feminism because I don't think it will ever gain widespread acceptance or have major impacts of any sort. If you're talking about net harm, I disagree. Feminism has had a net positive impact on the world, while MRM has had a (small) net negative impact.

until we can change the language of equality, get people to deplatform from feminism and re-engage on the same issues under a truly equal-gender mandate, I don't see anything but more strife and tribalism in the future

Hard disagree. We're making progress on key issues (police reform, sexual harassment, trans rights...) without rebranding everything. Trying to deplatform intersectional feminism, anti-racism, and anti-fascism to start over would kill momentum on these issues without any guarantee of improved advocacy.

[–]parahacker 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

We're making progress on key issues (police reform, sexual harassment, trans rights...)

Police reform is BLM, not feminism. Sexual harrassment has over-corrected in a huge way, and men have little to no defense currently. Trans rights are, again, not feminism. Intersectional feminism was hijacked from the black woman who wrote the book on it and applied in ways she strenuously derides.

I could go all day on this, and have. I've cited pages worth studies on various topics related to it all.

I'm not gonna dive into it again. You're using the 'change the system from within' argument, and while that sometimes has its place it is not going to work with feminism. I don't care how 'intersectional' it gets, to feminists men will always feel like the enemy. It is a gendered mandate, and there's just no getting around it. Trying to enact social change under the mandate of feminism will always, always end up like this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/NoahGetTheBoat/comments/mu177i/feminists_shut_down_a_mens_suicide_awareness_event/

Here's the thing. r/Feminism blocks anyone who comments disagreeing with their echo chambers, but men's rights subs don't.

Go there. Disagree vocally. Talk to them. Go to places like r/antifeminists, r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates, r/MensRights, r/SupportForTheAccused. Argue with them. Don't just look at a meme or two you don't like and 'hard pass', make your stand. Educate yourself on what's happening to boys in schools, college students under Title IX, men dealing with domestic violence, etcetera. And tell them how feminists didn't actually cause a lot of that.

Then take a hard look at this comment you wrote again and see if it really stands up. I'll tell you right now: it does not.

[–]octocombo 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Police reform is BLM, not feminism.

BLM is its own movement, but it's strongly supported by intersectional feminists, it has been built on feminist organizational structures & fundraising, and its goals are a necessary part of gender equality. It's part of the growth of feminism that it can act in a support role without having to hog the screentime and messaging.

Sexual harrassment has over-corrected in a huge way, and men have little to no defense currently.

What do you think is the appropriate correction? When you say men have little to no defense, are you talking about male survivors of sexual harassment or male perpetrators? In terms of survivors, #metoo is to defend them as well as female survivors. In terms of perpetrators...the defense is to not harass others. And even if they have harassed, it's still the case that most have little to no consequences.

Trans rights are, again, not feminism.

How is it not feminism to fight for equal rights for all genders?

You're using the 'change the system from within' argument, and while that sometimes has its place it is not going to work with feminism.

I'm not looking to change feminism from within. I use feminist frameworks to selectively support causes I believe in, I believe in the theoretical goals of feminism, and I believe that feminists have broadly been making progress on the theoretical goals of feminism for most of its history.

to feminists men will always feel like the enemy.

I personally do not see men as the enemy.

Go there. Disagree vocally. Talk to them.

...what do you think I'm doing right this moment, talking to you?

Go to places like r/antifeminists, r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates, r/MensRights, r/SupportForTheAccused. Argue with them. Don't just look at a meme or two you don't like and 'hard pass', make your stand.

I've interacted with some of these subs before, but I gravitated towards this sub as the main place to interact because interacting in those subs tends to be much more time-intensive and depressing for me. This sub isn't easy for me, but I can talk on it once or twice a week without getting pulled in too deep. Also r/antifeminists I have looked at but not interacted with because it seemed like it was basically just memes. I stand by my comments.

[–]parahacker 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

interacting in those subs tends to be much more time-intensive and depressing for me.

Maybe that should tell you something.

No, I can see where you'll go with that, so let me clarify: The cause you so ardently support hurts people more than it helps. Feminism literally destroys lives. If you can't wade through the pain it causes without feeling depressed, that's a good thing. Use that feeling to start being more critical of feminism.

...what do you think I'm doing right this moment, talking to you?

On a sub revolving around Red Pill, which is more about dating behavior than anything else. The subs I listed regularly post topics that are directly, with evidence, critical of feminism; which this sub rarely is. It happens, but it's rare. That's why this 'mega thread' exists, so that posters would stop bringing it up. You're in the wrong place to get educated.

I personally do not see men as the enemy.

I really don't believe you. You are advocating for a group whose members write things like the 'S.C.U.M. Manifesto' largely uncriticized, who march and protest in massive numbers against prominent figures like Warren Farrel and Cassie Jaye, who are - in sum - a hate group given a patina of respectability.

KKKers would volunteer at homeless shelters and do all kinds of things to shine themselves up. They're still a hate group, even though you'll get plenty arguing all they want is 'fairness for white people'.

How is it not feminism to fight for equal rights for all genders?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_views_on_transgender_topics

"Feminism" is eating its own tail on that one. That's how.

Furthermore, feminism - I don't know how I can say this more clearly - has no mandate to defend men's equality, and doesn't. There are no feminist marches outraged about rape laws that eliminate male victims. There were no feminist marches advocating for men's access to domestic violence shelters. There is no feminist movement for equal custody.

Show me a single example where feminists are marching exclusively for an issue where women benefit and men suffer. Go ahead. I'll wait.

What do you think is the appropriate correction?

Make all sexual harassment materials dual gender. No more movies of a man catcalling a woman, unless it's right after a movie of a woman doing so to a man.

Note that I did not say 'gender neutral' here, though that's usually my default position - but in this case, men and women need to be educated that women can be and are offenders. My entire period working in bars and clubs can attest to that.

When you say men have little to no defense, are you talking about male survivors of sexual harassment or male perpetrators?

Both.

To give an example, my best friend was raped by a woman. To keep him silent, she threatened to claim to be the one raped. She trapped him in her home, and the only reason I know about this incident was that I was his ride home.

When I was a child of 10, a renter of the room next to mine brought a woman over. I was a witness to the entire evening. She claimed rape when I know that was a lie, but he still went to jail for it.

Stuff like this is common. I had a period where girl strangers were grabbing my crotch once a week, about. I've been run down in a dark parking lot by a van full of drunk women.

But the arrest reports, the 'facts' that people quote at each other in feminist forums, they don't really reflect that reality, do they?

And meanwhile, the laws become ever more draconian. I hated Trump, and his education advisor was a... highly questionable choice, but one thing they did right was start to challenge the state of Title IX implementation in universities. Which currently exists as a kangaroo court where male students accused have no recourse, often no representation, and get their lives upended on a whim if a female student decides to target them. No facts necessary. The Biden administration is rolling that back, by the way. And there are some rather draconian policies in the works that will make it even harder to defend against false accusations.

In terms of perpetrators...the defense is to not harass others.

Define 'harassed'.

But know that, no matter what your definition is, every other human being out there has a slightly different one.

Every 'reasonable' definition has some element that relies on 'common sense', but such a thing is rarely common or sensible.

And the bias falls on the man. Stories of men being harassed by women taken to court and winning are whispers on the wind, with the rare exception proving the rule. But I can tell you that it absolutely fucking happens but goes unpenalized. A lot. And counterwise, harassment of women by men has basically boiled down to 'anything women say it is.' In schools, in bars, in any public space women have the ability to have men removed from that space almost on demand. Even when it doesn't happen, the option is there, and colors every interaction nowadays. While men who are harassed frequently have no recourse.

I see absolutely zero feminist marches to correct this state of affairs.

And when men organize, feminists actively protest and interfere. Then, just to put the icing on the shit cake, we end up with feminist supports who say, 'there's no problem here, or men would stand up for it.' Using enforced silence to prove there's nothing to talk about.

BLM is its own movement, but it's strongly supported by intersectional feminists

No

it has been built on feminist organizational structures & fundraising

Hell no

and its goals are a necessary part of gender equality.

This is a truly warped view. Like, a lot.

BLM's primary structure draws from churches and community centers, neighborhood groups and civic centers, colleges and universities, and grassroots organization.

Feminism didn't 'create' the organizational structures, they lampreyed themselves in and made BLM issues into 'intersectional' issues. It is the opposite of what you're describing.

And the SAME THING happened to Occupy Wallstreet. I know this from personal experience, I was very active in that movement. In the city I lived in, Occupy started out having nothing to do with feminism. And then a small group of very loud feminists swooped in, started making every damned issue that was originally about income inequality, super PACs, and corporate investiture in politics, into a feminist issue. And they literally disintegrated the Occupy movement in our area; where we had thousands marching and protesting, all cohesion was lost. I credit that little experience with my first dawning loathing of feminism, to be honest - learning the actual history and never-ending shenanigans of feminists in other popular movements was just icing on.

[–]octocombo 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Maybe that should tell you something. No, I can see where you'll go with that, so let me clarify: The cause you so ardently support hurts people more than it helps. Feminism literally destroys lives. If you can't wade through the pain it causes without feeling depressed, that's a good thing. Use that feeling to start being more critical of feminism.

You assumed that what makes me depressed is compassion for the struggles of people affected negatively by feminism or questioning the causes I support. It's not. These subs depress me because they shift me towards interpreting human nature as more angry and spiteful than cooperative, and in particular they make me feel less compassionate. When I interact more with the people in those subs, I feel less compassionate and more disgusted towards them. And recognizing those feelings in myself upsets me, because I don't want to be full of hatred or anger towards men. It's not a good thing to feel myself filling up with disgust and giving up on men as worth helping, and in my daily life I never feel this way.

You're in the wrong place to get educated.

Because I'm not trying to become educated. I'm trying to educate. I think it's easier to educate someone who lacks education than someone who has been miseducated.

a group whose members write things like the 'S.C.U.M. Manifesto' largely uncriticized, who march and protest in massive numbers against prominent figures like Warren Farrel and Cassie Jaye

The SCUM Manifesto is largely seen as satire/parody. "A Modest Proposal" is also largely uncriticized today even by people who would be aghast if anyone seriously proposed eating babies.

Why do you think it's a hateful thing to protest a specific individual who communicates ideas which you believe are incorrect and harmful?

"Feminism" is eating its own tail on that one.

There's disagreement within every large group. There's strong anti-terf invective in practically all liberal spaces now, and almost all feminist spaces are liberal. The terfs have already lost, they just haven't all given up yet.

Furthermore, feminism - I don't know how I can say this more clearly - has no mandate to defend men's equality, and doesn't. There are no feminist marches outraged about rape laws that eliminate male victims. There were no feminist marches advocating for men's access to domestic violence shelters. There is no feminist movement for equal custody.

Feminism has historically focused on issues that primarily affect women, I agree. There's limited bandwidth for the movement, and most feminists are women (and so will have the most passion for and knowledge about causes that affect themselves). If you want to change that, adding substantial percentages of men to the ranks of feminists would increase the bandwidth/resources and diversify the personal experience.

Show me a single example where feminists are marching exclusively for an issue where women benefit and men suffer.

I already have? The police reform protests have heavy feminist involvement, and this is for an issue where primarily men suffer. I don't think any of the issues you brought up or this one are things that women truly benefit from, but definitely white women use police as a cudgel against black men (currently and historically).

Make all sexual harassment materials dual gender. No more movies of a man catcalling a woman, unless it's right after a movie of a woman doing so to a man.

This sounds to me like a place where there hasn't been enough correction to defend against sexual harassment rather than a case of over-correction, but beyond quibbles on that terminology I don't think that's a bad idea.

To give an example, my best friend was raped by a woman. To keep him silent, she threatened to claim to be the one raped.

This is a horrible situation and also seems to me like evidence that there needs to be more preventative education & protection against rape, not less.

When I was a child of 10, a renter of the room next to mine brought a woman over. I was a witness to the entire evening.

The criminal justice system definitely makes mistakes. This might have been a mistake. What you've described as an onlooker situation (I'm assuming without a direct view because if they were intentionally having sex in front of a 10-year-old that's child abuse) doesn't sound to me like evidence against a rape occurring. Did you watch the entire sex act, hear verbal consent every step of the way, and give her a drug panel and breathalyzer afterwards? Do you know that the same two people didn't have another less-consensual interaction the next day in a motel? Or that the guy didn't remove a condom midway through without her realizing? Or that he didn't get accused of rape by someone else entirely for an act you didn't bear witness to? I don't believe that would be possible for you to have all the relevant evidence as a child, and while I get that this could have traumatized you as a child, it disgusts me that as an adult you're treating this as evidence of abuse of the system when there is no way you could know for sure even if we make the generous assumption that you had the greatest amount of information possible and watched the entire sexual engagement through a peephole and know you observed what sent the guy to jail because you were summoned as a witness to the rape trial.

I am reaching a level where I'm starting to have difficulty responding to you without disgust, so I'm going to stop responding to you at this point. I think you'd have to be actively tuning out everything from the #metoo movement to currently believe that you as a kid watching from the sidelines had enough knowledge of their situation to be confident that she wasn't drugged or too intoxicated to consent or otherwise lacking consent at any time (including in other sex acts you might not have witnessed at all). To be so sure she was a vicious liar who ruined an innocent man's life that you hold this (and unless you're still a kid this is an event that happened before #metoo!) up as a grievance against feminism and the recent push against sexual harassment.

I don't want to speak to you with disgust, and I'm definitely getting there due to your usage of this anecdote in such an aggrieved way, so I think it's better if I stop saying anything to you at all and instead spend some time interacting with men who actually understand consent. There are many good men in my life, and I don't need to talk to you when you've made it clear you don't listen.

[–]parahacker1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

These subs depress me because they shift me towards interpreting human nature as more angry and spiteful than cooperative, and in particular they make me feel less compassionate. When I interact more with the people in those subs, I feel less compassionate and more disgusted towards them

Then you don't understand compassion.

What you're looking for is viewpoints that reinforce your views, not challenge them.

Feminism is a hate group, and you're buried deep. As I said before, I consider MRM along the same lines, just in its infancy; but retreating is not the correct choice, if you actually care. I regularly check r/Feminism for legit checks on my own bias; wading through the hate speech is challenging, but there's frequently legitimate issues brought up, that remind me why people get involved in one side or the other in the first place.

Which is why I truly believe that supporting and popularizing places like r/Egalitarianism is worth doing. Because of the mandate. It's in the word, and the word matters.

As for the rest of your nonsense further down in the comment, it seems like you're showing your true colors. But I hope that at least this much gets through: lots of people really don't like feminism, for all the reasons I listed and more, but do support equality. So instead of pushing them towards feminism, try meeting them in a different space.

[–]octocombo1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I have seen your most recent comments responding to me; this is an acknowledgement that I have read them. As I said, I'm no longer responding to your comments. This is because I don't think I can respond positively to this level of entrenched antifeminism and misunderstanding of consent. I don't hate you, and because I don't want to devolve to addressing you disrespectfully or to start seeing this as a problem for you rather than the societal problem it is, I don't think it's helpful for me to continue responding to your arguments when our basic understandings of how the world is are so far apart. If you continue writing comments or messages directed at me, I will read them, but I will continue not responding to the content. Thank you in advance for not taking this personally; it's not personal.

[–]parahacker1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I get it; you're angry, don't think that makes for good conversation, and are disengaging. If you're continuing to characterize - to assume - that I didn't understand consenting behavior, didn't understand the subtext of what I saw with my own eyes, heard with my own ears, well... believe it or not, I think that's fair. Witness testimony is among the least reliable forms of evidence there is. In some cases that's all we have, though - it is certainly all the courts had, when they put him in jail. I was there for that too, and the entire thing was a travesty.

I did understand it, though. I knew exactly what was going on. And during the trial, it wasn't just the rape she lied about - other details, like how long she was there (she said she left that night, I know she was there until the next day midday), being 'trapped in the room' (she had her own vehicle, was under zero duress, both me and my mother were present, though at different times), her characterization of the night spent 'yelling at each other' (he never raised his voice, but she did, rather enthusiastically, while they were having sex...)

Were I do believe that she didn't give consent, then I have to draw from that conclusion that no woman can ever give consent, and if they do you can't believe it. She can withdraw said consent any time she wants after the sex has already happened.

No. She lied on the stand, and he went to jail for it. And you may believe my testimony or not, but know that I believe it, and that plus multiple other circumstances have led me to the conclusion that the presumption of innocence starts to lose its grip on the courts when it comes to men being accused of rape or sexual assault, even when the laws themselves are well-written.

For situations like these, there are reasonable and rational arguments that I agree with to not penalize victims, and not require such an impossibly high burden of proof that real offenders are not punished. What I do believe, though, is that better mechanisms need to be put into place to recompensate men who have been falsely accused and punished for it; that other forms of adjudication, such as Title IX in universities, need to be held to higher standards of evidence to bring them closer to those of the courts, or alternatively to remove those mechanisms entirely and refer those situations to courts instead of school administrators; and so on. As it stands, the current environment is outright hostile to men, even when no accusations have been made, and that cannot stand.

All of which is a winding way of saying that I understand why you want to disengage from this conversation, and don't entirely fault you - but at the same time, you're wrong, and ducking away from these kinds of perspectives has lead down a path to tribalism and biased institutions. So I'm not disengaging. Today, that is; I've had a few wallbanger conversations I had to walk away from myself, because I completely disagreed with their views and did not consider them debating in good faith. That's not what's happening here, but if it is from your perspective, I won't fault you - as long as it's not deflecting your own behavior onto me.

[–]IcarusKiki22F 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]YoMamas_azzTheoretically 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]akaeancuts himself shaving with Occam's razor 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AtlasBShruggin_esqdont ask 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThrowawayCOVID999 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NiceGuyNumber4 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]AtlasBShruggin_esqdont ask 5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]parahacker 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]YoMamas_azzTheoretically 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]GridReXXThe "XX" in my name means I'M A WOMAN 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]YoMamas_azzTheoretically 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]GridReXXThe "XX" in my name means I'M A WOMAN 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AtlasBShruggin_esqdont ask 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]parahacker 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]YoMamas_azzTheoretically 5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]AtlasBShruggin_esqdont ask 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]YoMamas_azzTheoretically 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AtlasBShruggin_esqdont ask 6 points7 points8 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]YoMamas_azzTheoretically 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Slyfer_Seven -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CatchPhrazeMaster Of Memeology 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (74 children) | Copy Link

[–]FrequentPangolin -2 points-1 points0 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Laytheblameonluck 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]YoMamas_azzTheoretically 6 points7 points8 points 5 years ago (69 children) | Copy Link

[–]CatchPhrazeMaster Of Memeology -2 points-1 points0 points 5 years ago (68 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 years ago* (38 children) | Copy Link

[–]CatchPhrazeMaster Of Memeology 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link

Sure feminism is for anyone who wants to help foster a more fair world for woman. But it's not here to solve male issues as it's main focus, thsts woman doing the work for men.

Here's a blog post about why we need to end circumcision by a woman.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/we-need-to-stop-circumcis_b_470689

Here's the official post of the crc, a group largely made of woman.

https://canadiancrc.com/circumcision_genital_mutilation_male-female_children.aspx

Woman care about your issues but for men to say that they don't want to campaign because they get smeared, I ask you wake the fuck up and look at history. Feminism activists are called awful things even in this sub. You get called antisemitic? "Feminazi" is a popular tern around here. Feminists in Russia, Poland, and the Middle East are routinely imprisoned and beaten.

Men crying about how woman should do it for them because men will be called mean names is so fucking ignorant and tone deaf.

[–]parahacker 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

[–]CatchPhrazeMaster Of Memeology 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[–]parahacker 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

> Both examples have woman who identify with feminist causes included.

Just checked. Christine Northrup, M.D., has based her career on women's role in the 'family unit'. She's written a few books like 'Women's Wisdom' that would have modern feminists in a frothing rage from reading them for 'reinforcing gender stereotypes'.

> what inequalities feminism has created?

The Duluth model. Campaigned against gender-neutral rape laws in California and Canada, among other places. Custody laws. Condoms. (Crazy, ikr? But feminists campaigned against and got condoms banned in 30 states.) LOTS OF STUFF. Like, a freaking book-length list!

I'd provide sources, but I've been doing that for the past few weeks and it doesn't seem to actually convince people. So if you want to investigate further, I challenge you to prove feminists didn't do these things. You'll run across some of the same stuff I have in the process, I posit.

[–]CatchPhrazeMaster Of Memeology 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago* (30 children) | Copy Link

She's gone on record as a feminist. Feminism is often about allowing women a choice. Not forcing them in or out of a gender roll.

Custody laws? Witch? Currently courts favor join custody but less then 2/5 fathers seek equal time.

http://faculty.law.miami.edu/mcoombs/documents/LGordonBirthControl19thC.pdf ? This. Sure banning condoms is maybe not the move, but that's sex negative not anti men. Both genders gain utility from condoms. Not sure how thsts a male issue.

While I agree the Duluth model has flaws, it's original creators (300 heterosexual woman) created it from their shared experience. It also as a standalone has no ability to erase male victimship. It's a guidkine for heterosexual male in female violence and not domestic abuse as a whole. I agree using it as such is wrong

My biggest issue with your statement isn't thst feminists have never been wrong, of course they have, they are people. But feminist ideology has never has enough power or intrest to actually change the rights of men. None if your examples are laws that have actually taken effect besides one, and that was largely in part due to moral purists and pressure from the church (headed by men). The inequalities you mention are at best an attempt at an over correction of acontroversial subject and at worst not even targeting men soley.

[–]parahacker1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CatchPhraze1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]parahacker1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Well, you can think that. You'd be wrong, of course. The Duluth model alone has contributed to an environment where violence against men by women has been regularly downplayed or covered up, along with contributing to a pervasive belief that men cannot be victims of women and are the sole population of abusers and predators. For example, I notice you explained about "300 heterosexual women" but did not mention a single male victim contributed to the Duluth model. And then passed that off as if it were a perfectly fine arrangement. You, too, are blind to what many - not all, but many - men face every day, having suffered at the hands of an abusive women but granted no therapy, shelter, or resources beyond training sessions to teach men not to be abusers.

But all of that isn't 'serious' enough for you. Ok. Then, respectfully, fuck the hell off. Because you're part of the problem.

[–]CatchPhraze1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]parahacker1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CatchPhraze1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]parahacker1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CatchPhraze1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]parahacker1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Volunteering and advocacy for local homeless - mostly men, but if they're women I don't discriminate. Until Covid hit, I was doing volunteer shifts once or twice a week at the local center for disabilities as well.

Didn't expect that answer, did you?

For strictly men's causes, because there is simply not enough traction locally, I donate and sign the occasional petition. And talk a lot. I don't have the money or freedom to do more than that, though I did when I was younger.

So pointing out that you're deflecting this on me is throwing stones? It's more like throwing back a stone, mate.

And I think you're misunderstanding the intent when I throw that stone back. It's not delivered with the same intent you threw it at me with. I don't expect you to walk in marches or sacrifice what you're doing already in other areas. I don't even want that - why advocate for a position you don't really understand?

Could you make the argument, right now, that women are as dangerous as men with intellectual honesty? Probably not. I'm not going to say you have to live through things like I did, watching friends get raped by women, being the target of sexual assault and harassment from women, and more to "get it" - you're probably perfectly capable of understanding. But there is a mountain of misinformation out there. There's also accurate information that misrepresents reality. It is hard to understand why this is a problem.

What I would prefer is that, instead of telling me to go form a protest, you instead dig deeper and start treating the narrative you've been force-fed your whole life - that men are the abusers and women are the victims, full stop - with the skepticism and rational thinking it deserves. To consider the harm such a narrative causes, not just in warped laws and legal applications, but to mens' psyches and self-image - and womens' as well! If you never went to a march in your life, I'd be happy with that much.

[–]CatchPhraze1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Did you expect mine any more?

I know and understand that men suffer as well and chaif under the narrative that men are dangerous, but they... are.

Men often rebuttal here that men are more often the victims of violence and murder, but that too is from other men. Men are dangerous as a collective in a way woman as a collective are far less. I fully understand this is not true on a singular level but as a whole in north America and more so globally it is.

As much as I want to say "yeah let's scale back on this push"...the push worked. Both woman and men here are less likely to suffer violence.

My father raised me as a single dad. When I was little if I was walking home from school he'd drive passed and offer me a ride. Once in blue moon another parent would ask me if I knew him. It was obviously embarrassing for my dad to be considered a possible predator, but when I asked him about he said this " what if one day it's not me but an actual stranger? I feel better that they ask."

I know two ex couples who in both cases both the male and female partners committed physical domestic abuse. In one case she punched him, brusing his neck. He punched her and broke her jaw in two places requiring it to be wired shut.

In the other couple, she pushed him, he beat her to the point both her eyes swelled shut and broke two ribs. The stats are the same but the results aren't. Domestic violence is committed about equally between genders. Woman are nine times more likely to be hospitalized due to it then a man and four times as likely to die by it.

Of course it's wrong to assume woman are never a threat either, but the idea men suffer because they are treated as threats is a small price to pay for protecting people.

When I see the conversation go "male violence is a big issue!" Get derailed by "woman do it to!" I want to say, of course they do. Anyone can be shitty. But the vast amount of harm done to people, violence, political power abuse, is done by men, and so it must be acknowledged, for all our good.

I'd love to see more mental health support for men. More D.V resources and education overhaul to help young boys. I want police and society to understand males can be abused. I do keep an ear to the ground for male issues and help where I can.

Do I want justice for male victims? Always. Do I think that means I can't be most critical of that gender and society controlled by that gender? No.

[–]parahacker1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

As much as I want to say "yeah let's scale back on this push"...the push worked. Both woman and men here are less likely to suffer violence.

This and other statements in your reply are just rewording points you've already made and I've already addressed.

Though I'll restate this one because, without checking, I'm not sure it was you I was talking to. So:

The drop in violence does not correlate with more stringent actions to restrict men's violence. It most strongly correlates with, of all things, lead particulates in the environment.

I thought it was cameras myself. But no, it's lead. Or at least, for now, lead prevalence can be used to theoretically predict rates of violent crime with the highest accuracy - if you look at a chart describing only lead in the environment, you can guess with almost perfect accuracy what the crime rate for that year was.

The next-most statistic that correlates with increased violence is civil protest. (edited in, sorry if you missed this)

All of which is not to convince you that lead is the cause of crime, and I absolutely do not want you to think I discourage civil protest - but to point out that your argument that discrimination against men solves crime is easily dismissed when you look at other factors. There is only a very loose correlation, statistically meaningless unless you isolate that and disregard all other factors.

The same goes with the rest of what you're saying. I will boil it down to this:

There is no justification for how we discriminate against men. None.

This:

Do I think that means I can't be most critical of that gender and society controlled by that gender? No.

Is ideology-based reasoning. And the consequences of that are extremely harmful. With clear causation, not just loose correlation. Some of which we've already discussed.

Don't be most critical of a gender. This point is important, and something else I noticed you doing and expecting me to do.

Several times you've said something along the lines of, 'This isn't proof that women abuse more than men.' I don't think they do. I think, all other conditions being equal, men and women are driven by near-identical emotional states, theory of mind, and other factors that lean into abuse. I've not claimed in any of my statements that, except for specific examples such as those children in state care or with statutory rape involving teachers, women are more abusive than men.

Because even when they are, there are other factors. A teacher abusing a student is more likely to be a woman not because women are inherently worse, but because some 80% or so of teachers are women.

But the ideology that 'men are the problem' directly interfered with the children in state care being abused by female officials. It directly harms justice in many circumstances. It is not beneficial.

[–]CatchPhraze1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]parahacker1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CatchPhraze1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]parahacker1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's undeniable that men comit more violence, and the most serious forms of violence (Severe bodily harm, murder ect) then woman.

It is deniable. I deny it. I say the DOJ arrest statistics do not match the CDC's statistic of equal victimization and near-equal levels of perpetration. I say the statistics on domestic violence do not match arrests, and the only difference was not that women started committing more domestic violence, but that investigators started asking different questions.

I completely deny your assertion, except in the edge case of mass violence, where men have a clear preponderance. But even there, current policy could be contributing to men shooting crowds vis a vis the Pygmalion effect, or by directly downplaying women's contributions.

My goal is harm reduction and I see taking a gendered approach based on those facts as the most effective.

And I deny that this approach is 'most effective'. It is not. Partner violence is on the rise, yet men are more hammered by the legal systems than ever. Further, the correlation between law and social practice to 'train men not to commit domestic violence', and the incidence of domestic violence, was never that strong to begin with.

I have told you now repeatedly that if your goal is harm reduction then discriminating against men doesn't work and does more harm than good. Instead of telling me to go march and protest, engage in some harm reduction yourself and stop blaming men. Violence, especially intimate partner violence, is not a gendered issue. It is a human issue. Treat it like one and you'll get a lot more harm reduction on all sides, your ridiculous house fire analogy notwithstanding.

[–]CatchPhraze1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Okay, so we hit each other in equal measure, yet with 40% more bone density and upper body strength who wins,

Men are so quick on this sub to boast physical supority and so quick to play stupid about what thst means to how much damage that actually inflicts.

Even if we say yes the justice system is unfair, do you honestly think that in wrongfully convicts men at seven times the rate of woman for murder? How about robbery or assault with a weapon? or let's woman off the hook that much more? Seven times.

Do remember that a male murderers victim is also most likely another male. By pretending that these million of circumstances are the cause of these numbers and not just occam's razor that maybe all this data points to the same thing for the simplest of reasons, truth.

I also take issue with some of the assumptions in these articles. Sure male numbers are likely underreported (but so are the female numbers, leaving us where we started) sure, maybe emotional abuse thar leads to suicide should count (but again for both genders so both numbers increse).

[–]parahacker1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

do you honestly think that in wrongfully convicts men at seven times the rate of woman for murder?

Yes.

How about robbery or assault with a weapon? or let's woman off the hook that much more? Seven times.

Yes. Though the statistic isn't as stark - there's about a 60% difference between men and women in arrests and sentencing for the same crime, not 1 in 7. At least from official statistics; I suspect the number is far larger, as I have witnessed a woman get away with murder and never even see the inside of a police station.

I also take issue with some of the assumptions in these articles. Sure male numbers are likely underreported (but so are the female numbers, leaving us where we started) sure, maybe emotional abuse thar leads to suicide should count (but again for both genders so both numbers increse).

This is fair, but consider that the issue is not merely men under-reporting their own victimization, but embedded in institutional studies, as this master's thesis points out:

"Current literature is unable to provide a clear interpretation and explanation of domestic violence (DV) and the different types of DV (DeKeseredy, 2000). It has been explained as a social issue (Lindquist et al., 2010)caused by aggressive behavior that negatively alters the socialization process in the socio-structural setting affecting women(Johnson, 2006). The current definition is vague. It excludes the possibility of women being DV perpetrators while labeling men as universal perpetrators despite evidence and research that demonstrates that women are also perpetrators of DV (Kilpatrick, 2004; Woodin et al., 2013)."

https://stars.library.ucf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6121&context=etd

But, and I want to stress this, you're right! We shouldn't trust the reported numbers for men or women. The scientific standards those surveys are held to have improved in (very) recent years, but studies that policy makers have relied on for decades are clearly in error.

The same ones that gave us the statistics you've quoted at me about women's perpetration are deeply flawed.

Hell, the ones I quoted might be wrong or over-representing male victims. Every woman alive might be a victim, and every man alive (except for a number that corresponds directly with the number of men you know) might be abusers, for all those studies are often good for.

And the same is true in reverse.

Do you have any idea how many men I've known abused by women? Or assaulted? All of them. Every man I've ever asked, 'Have you been hit by a woman' has answered yes. A damned good lot of them have had to get stitches, even.

I do not, despite that, advocate treating all men as victims and all women as abusers. Because my back-of-a-napkin survey is worth what it's written on.

Make it neutral. Make it gender-neutral. All of it. Treatment, messaging, domestic violence protocols, the national discussions on violence, all of it.

This tactic will not take away rights and safety from women who are victimized. It will not. What it will do is target the real problem - perpetrators - instead of their gender.

[–]CatchPhraze1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'd agree with you if you weren't denying the fact, if men are the majority in all these categories. Even if only a few %, but across the board in all of them we have a lot more men out there doing less then ideal shit.

Let's use a small scale model:

We have finite resources. Say we have a magical speaker. This person is so great at making people think about their actions they reduce the likelihood that the people who listen to them talk committing a violent crime by 100%. Wonderful! But they can only do this talk once a day. We'll who do we put in the auditorium?

First we should select by the biggest markers for crimes so, age and socioeconomic background. So now we're looking at poor and young. But we still have to many people for the space we need to fill. So if we pick randomly and get a 50/50 split of men and woman but a 100% male group contains more possible offenders and thus we are being less effective with our limited resources.

I'm not ever saying we should treat mem like they can't be victims or that women are always innocent. But I am saying by using our finite resources on where we find the largest issues, we can help thr most people.

This also applies across the board btw, I think we should shift some of our focus on mental health awareness to mental health awareness and destigmatation for men. Men are far more likely to suffer from being non nurotypical. Antisocial personality disorders, and comit suicide. Do you not think by using more resources for men then woman in those areas we'd do the most good?

[–]parahacker1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You keep trying to drive home the point that, since 'men are the problem', that 'fixing men is the solution.'

If men were the problem, I disagree that the current tactic of targeting them would work better than a gender-neutral approach.

And I disagree that men are 'the problem'.

I have repeatedly given citations, examples, and personal experiences as to why.

But try answering this: in your analogy, you say 'First we should select by the biggest markers for crimes so, age and socioeconomic background. So now we're looking at poor and young.'

Well... why don't I see signs everywhere that poor people commit domestic violence?

Not that I agree there's any truth to statistics that poor people do. I trust that statement as much as any other example I gave in my prior comment. But if they do, why not them?

But I am saying by using our finite resources on where we find the largest issues, we can help thr most people.

And I'm saying that FEMALE VICTIMS ARE NOT THE LARGEST ISSUE. The evidence is flawed! The research is disputed! Modern statistics of domestic violence, and retrograded analyses of past studies, are creating headlines like THIS:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/women-are-more-violent-says-study-622388.html

'Women are more violent!'

Do I trust those headlines? NO! But do I think the headlines claiming men are more violent are any better? NO!!!!

MAKE IT EQUAL!

Your 'loudspeaker', you gave the wrong answer. Because if the room in your hypothetical were filled with real people, those people would be full of many that were falsely accused or blame-shifted, and empty of people that authorities ignored as suspects.

If I had a goddamned magic loudspeaker, I wouldn't fill the room at all based on gender. I would pick a random sample, and instead of telling them not to hit, I'd tell them to look out for anyone - male or female - that might be a victim, and help them. Boom! magic loudspeaker leveraged way beyond just the people in that room.

I need to take a break from this shit again. UGH! You and I are not getting anywhere.

[–]CatchPhraze1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]parahacker1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CatchPhraze1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]parahacker1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Stop. Reconsider. Because your approach is not reducing violence and is creating more victims in the process.

But it doesn't really negatively affect you, does it? No. You'd march for women having domestic violence issues, but when I show you the CDC has reported for ten years - a decade - over multiple reports, that men are equally victims of domestic violence, you won't change your stance?

You know from history that negative stigma towards women directly harmed them, but don't think negative stigma harms men?

You - now, at least - know that perpetrators of violence are far from one-sided, that there is institutional bias proven to run up male perpetration while downplaying women, and you have the gall to say I'll die on that hill?

If I do, it's not because of the fucking hill. It's because of people like you who kill us on it.

[–]CatchPhraze1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]parahacker1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, it's vile to cast an entire gender as perpetrators when it's not fucking true.

It's vile to cover up female offenders because of 'extra victims' that don't exist in favor of the extra ones - men - already identified who are documented to exist.

It's vile to ignore the points I've made about the points you made and then tell me I'm ignoring them.

It IS honest to be gender-neutral when addressing domestic and sexual violence on the larger stage, because you're not trying to catch an entire gender in a fucking net, you're trying to catch perpetrators.

And if - IF! - all perpetrators were men, it would still be dishonest to equate perpetrator = man. Be careful around men. Men will hurt you. That is not true. It is not right. Even if that venn diagram were completely a circle of 'perpetrators' enclosed by 'men'.

But to rub salt on that wound, they're not! My friend was raped! By a woman! I caught a woman raping a different man in my fucking roommate's bedroom! The statistics don't add up! The whole fucking thing is misrepresented from the word go!

Mothers are more likely to sexually abuse kids than fathers, but you don't hear about it. Juvies are more likely to be abused if a)they're boys and b)it's a woman abusing them, but you don't hear about it! In Canada, indigenous victims of rape by the opposite sex are 5 million men to 4 million women! And on! And on! And on!!!!!!!!!!!!

YOU are vile. For calling trying to promote a policy that would benefit victims of ALL genders and reduce perpetration of ALL genders, vile.

That kind of thinking is sick and wrong.

[–]CatchPhraze1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]parahacker1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Ask how many women know bring followed walking home from school. Ask how many of them have been touched without permission. Ask them how many of them have been sent explict images without their consent. Then go read the names of the dead. Go through just your cities murder stats, see how many more killers are men. Open your eyes. Wretched.

I have. I got a lot of different answers.

One girl I remember claimed vividly that she was being followed everywhere.... because her family stole $100k from the mob. She introduced me to her sharpened tire iron she kept just in case.

Most said, 'not really a lot.' I got, 'men today are cowards, they won't even talk to me much less catcall me.' And, 'Yeah, I've been catcalled, but by old ladies too.' And the occasional 'yea, I had an ex boyfriend do that.'

I've been catcalled. I've been cornered by a carful of drunk women in a parking lot. Dick grabbed in bars, while I was working; and while I wasn't. Drunk girls taking a swing at me. And on.

And it's not just friends/coworkers/average women. I went to parties all the time, other musicians and artists; top-tier, sexy women with mad skills and money of their own, not your typical. One girl brought her journal, because she was proud of it. She was right to be, it was like a best-of-show scrapbook with amazing art and such. But around the middle she's telling the story of how she stalked a dude, like it's nothing. Fantasies of drugging him and killing his girlfriend.

This shit exists too.

I acknowledge that women have problems, that women are victims. But at some point you have to acknowledge that men are too. That women can be and are bad actors.

And if all the stuff I see in the media or in statistics not only doesn't match my life lived or other stats, then you've got to step back and go, 'let's try to fix the holes in the setup here.'

I'm not trying to make out all women to be bad. They're not. Open your eyes, though, because the shit you've been taking in is not the reality. Men are not the actors and women the acted upon. We're all on the same stage, doing roughly the same things. And a gendered approach to violent and sexual crime harms everyone.

[–]CatchPhraze1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I have never sense we started this conversation denied male victims exist. I have only pointed out that indisputably it happens that one gender performs most of the most violent acts. You refuse this, even though it balks in the face of reality. You have to ignore pretty much every data set avaliable. You have to ignore your own lived reality. You have to actively keep up a delusion. That's your choice.

If one gender is the problem more so then the other, it should be looked at as to why. Why do men commit violence more often, and why is there violence more extreme? We answer those questions and we better fight the majority of violence. Nobody wants to demonize men. My goal is harm reduction, if that means we need to better support men's mental health to lower these rates that's great. I don't want to treat men like villains, but I don't deny that there is a gender disparity in violence.

[–]parahacker1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I have only pointed out that indisputably it happens that one gender performs most of the most violent acts.

Do they, though? Because murders between partners are near a coin toss as to whether it'll be the man murdering the woman or the woman murdering the man. a 40:60 split, just about.

Child rape, child murder, and severe child abuse are all firmly in the woman's camp for perpetration by most measures.

Women in prison assault each other more than men in prison.

These are all things that are, to use your words, 'indusputable'. Easily verified.

Yet you're saying that because men exist and do 'most' of the violent crime, women shouldn't be bothered with.

Yeah, no. You're not going to convince me that a gendered approach brings more benefits. It doesn't. And it can be proven to have severe unintended consequences.

[–]parahacker1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I feel the other response is more central to the discussion and I'd rather you read and respond to that one than this one, but I also wanted to discuss this point:

Woman are nine times more likely to be hospitalized due to it then a man and four times as likely to die by it.

I've addressed this point before, but I will repeat myself: around 40% of abuse victims suffering serious injury are men. https://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/women-abuse-men-often-called-abuse-fiff/

And the ratio of men murdered by wives/girlfriends versus women murdered by partners is not 1 out of 4 times. (Death from abuse is a form of murder.) It is closer to 4 out of 6, or 41:59:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359178919300874

This article breaks down the discussion on severe intimate partner violence quite well:

https://fathersforlife.org/fv/fbi_spousal_murder_stats.htm

Discussions like these are shouted down by the absurd amount of 'men are murderers, here's why' articles. Which is why I'm not surprised you think what you do; why wouldn't you, articles constantly cite 'statistics' that are unexamined to support that argument.

But that is bias itself. And it has negative consequences as well.

You told me your story about two couples, so let me tell you my story about a friend whose boy was murdered.

Everyone involved knew who it was. His wife, separated from him, moved into her boyfriend's house - her boyfriend's mother's house, to be accurate. The infant was bedded in the living room. The mother, diagnosed with schizophrenia, constantly complained about the boy's crying. One night, while both wife and her boyfriend were in the boyfriend's room asleep, the infant died of asphyxiation. Murdered.

The police did not even charge the boyfriend's mother. They did charge the boyfriend, despite the wife's testimony; brought him in, then let him go.

Disregarding the other drama, we all watched a woman essentially get away with murder and the nearest man blamed for it.

That is the price we're paying.

Is it still small?

[–]YoMamas_azzTheoretically 7 points8 points9 points 5 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]CatchPhrazeMaster Of Memeology -2 points-1 points0 points 5 years ago* (26 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]CatchPhrazeMaster Of Memeology 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]parahacker 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]CatchPhrazeMaster Of Memeology -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]parahacker1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CatchPhraze1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]parahacker1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

you said:

sexually assaulted by those in positions of legal power more often (police, prison guards, even parole officers)

From the article:

Those surveys turned up the opposite of what we generally think is true. Women were more likely to be abused by fellow female inmates, and men by guards, and many of those guards were female. For example, of juveniles reporting staff sexual misconduct, 89 percent were boys reporting abuse by a female staff member. In total, inmates reported an astronomical 900,000 incidents of sexual abuse

Which is why I am convinced you have trouble reading things. Take a break from Reddit, pick up a good book and read it from cover to cover, savoring all the details. Learn how to take it all in. Then, only then, come back and try reading that article again. Because this nonsense is fucking tiring.

[–]CatchPhraze1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

And 99.91% of officers fired for sexual misconduct are male. But you're right, in one metric we have the sentence " many of those guards were female. " Not most, just many. And no real number. I feel like you're really pushing it.

Now I hesitate when this topic comes up because I DON'T want to erase male victims. They are valid. Female on male sexual assault and rape absolutely happens, and far to much.

Yet, it's less common by far, then Male on female, and even in many select groups (religious institutes, child care services) less common then male on male violence. I don't really get the idea that you aren't helping more woman AND men by focusing on male perpetrators first. Or that somehow the idea that it happens to men as well doesn't mean feminism doesn't have value in trying to prevent it.

Edit: This study does a pretty good breakdown of juvenile rates as well as other metrics:
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/svpjri1112.pdf

It doesn't however like your study actually show break downs of gender of offenders. Mearly. Staff vs Fellow inmate.

[–]parahacker1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Now I hesitate when this topic comes up because I DON'T want to erase male victims. They are valid

FINALLY some sense

Yet, it's less common by far, then Male on female, and even in many select groups (religious institutes, child care services) less common then male on male violence.

...and we're back to based superstition again. Great.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4062022/

Here. This paper goes deeply into why, despite skyrocketing levels of men reporting victimization in recent years, our legal systems and measurements/metrics have not caught up.

It's pretty well into the paper, though. Not in the abstract, and not in the first three sentences. Just warning you.

And, if that's not enough, here is a paper that states sexual perpetration self-reported equalizes to a 48%/52% (sigh... yes, the 52% is male, technically there are more male perpetrators than female) by the age of 18:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/1748355

...

Learn to live by this rule of thumb: women are human.

Shocking, I know.

And a lot of the shit you learned about women being special snowflakes who are better than human is just a fucking lie.

They're not worse, either.

But they are human.

And just about as many of them as there are men are abusers, dangerously violent, and rapists.

We just don't live in a society that treats them equally. Not in this. We do not criminalize women's behavior, even when it's the same behavior that will get a man locked away for life.

[–]CatchPhraze1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

As for sense you make "despite skyrocketing levels of men reporting victimization in recent years, our legal systems and measurements/metrics have not caught up. " Is a good place to start. I absolutely agree we need better support systems for men and more fair justice for them. I don't think when it happens male victims are given enough support. But I won't say there aren't more victims of men, because it isn't true.

The thing is, if we pick out of a crowd men are more likely to both be an assailant and be in a position of power then the woman we pick. This is a big issue, for both genders. Until men either reduce the power imbalance they hold, or better, reduce the rates of sexual assault , or best: both. Feminism has a valid and worthwhile fight.

If you point is: It happens to men to, and woman are people. I absolutely agree with you. But like it's well pointed out, men are disproportionately abusers and power holders.

Edit: I'll also add, self reported sexual assault statistics aren't worth the paper they get printed on. The majority of actual convicted rapists, who even admit to having forced sex with someone don't see themselves as rapists or abusers. In fact this is why the "teach men not to rape" campaigns started. You even seen trickles of it on the TRP sub with things like LMR and escalation. Men (and woman I supposed but ive never seen a woman say or post any of this stuff) encourage other men to pressure, get woman drunk, and perform myriads of predator behavior without calling it assault.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Sx4paW9-EE

Here is a great video I use to give a real example, I hate to use the term "Rape culture" because I find it needlessly sensational, but men and woman have different attitudes about what counts as acceptable behavior. Men under report these behaviors in themselves and their peers.

[–]parahacker1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

men are disproportionately abusers and power holders

Fucking hell. THEY ARE NOT. That is a toxic lie that's been told to you all your life, and all the rest of what we're talking about here is irrelevant in the face of that.

I've given numerous examples of equal victimization of men, roughly equal perpetration of women at the age of 18, how *over seventy percent* of juveniles in the system who reported rape were boys raped by women, and on and on.

'Men' are NOT THE ABUSERS. Asshole human beings are the abusers, and they can be and are just as much women.

The most prolific and publicized human sex trafficker of our lifetimes is a woman. Every day is a new news story about some teacher (almost always a woman) fucking a student. And on. And. on.

But this, this, hateful narrative that men are the ones doing all this shit just won't go away. I've seen articles written about how it's the fucking patriarchy's fault and rape culture's fault that women rapists exist. When will it fucking end?!?

Go away. I'm done. I can't do this anymore today.

[–]CatchPhraze1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm sorry reality hurts you so. But there it is. In none of your linked sources where woman the dominant offenders, none. Even in the one you cherry picked where men where the dominant victims, did not have defined data on the fact woman where the majority of those perpetrators (the words "many of them woman") is vague and still doesn't point to a majority.

"over seventy percent* of juveniles in the system who reported rape were boys raped by women"

Assuming we're looking at the same 2010 study. 70% of the victims in juvenile detention are male. Not male's assaulted by woman. The wording then just says, "many" by woman. Not half, not most, just many. So no data there. If I missed that I'm more then willing to reconsider that singular point.

You also certainly can't disagree with the fact men hold more political and legal power then woman.

So here we are. Men hold the power and abuse it more often then woman. Sorry about the truth.

[–]parahacker1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CatchPhraze1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]parahacker1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]YoMamas_azzTheoretically 5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]CatchPhrazeMaster Of Memeology -2 points-1 points0 points 5 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]YoMamas_azzTheoretically 6 points7 points8 points 5 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]CatchPhrazeMaster Of Memeology -2 points-1 points0 points 5 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]YoMamas_azz3 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CatchPhraze1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]YoMamas_azz3 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Laytheblameonluck2 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CatchPhraze1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Laytheblameonluck2 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CatchPhraze1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GridReXXThe "XX" in my name means I'M A WOMAN 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link

[–]parahacker 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]abaxeron✴️(Not Actually) Indian Programmer 9 points10 points11 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]GridReXXThe "XX" in my name means I'M A WOMAN -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]abaxeron✴️(Not Actually) Indian Programmer 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]GridReXXThe "XX" in my name means I'M A WOMAN 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]abaxeron✴️(Not Actually) Indian Programmer 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]GridReXXThe "XX" in my name means I'M A WOMAN 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]YoMamas_azzTheoretically 8 points9 points10 points 5 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]GridReXXThe "XX" in my name means I'M A WOMAN 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]GridReXXThe "XX" in my name means I'M A WOMAN 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]geyges🐇 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]GridReXXThe "XX" in my name means I'M A WOMAN 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]geyges🐇 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Matt_Door 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]geyges🐇 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]AtlasBShruggin_esqdont ask 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]geyges3 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AtlasBShruggin_esq3 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SonicBackScratcher 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]parahacker 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]death_by_1000_cats 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Laytheblameonluck 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SonicBackScratcher 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]geyges🐇 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GridReXXThe "XX" in my name means I'M A WOMAN 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]athrowaway283222blue is my fav color 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]GridReXXThe "XX" in my name means I'M A WOMAN 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]geyges🐇 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]GridReXXThe "XX" in my name means I'M A WOMAN 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]-MetaethicsCars > Women 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

[–]Special-Armadillo-99 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]-MetaethicsCars > Women 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wekacuck 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]-MetaethicsCars > Women 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]wekacuck -3 points-2 points-1 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]wekacuck -2 points-1 points0 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]YoMamas_azzTheoretically 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]wekacuck 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago* (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]YoMamas_azzTheoretically 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]wekacuck -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]YoMamas_azzTheoretically 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]wekacuck -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]wekacuck1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]YoMamas_azzTheoretically 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]wekacuck1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]YoMamas_azz1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]wekacuck2 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Mondholm11 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LightOverWater11 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rft248 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PlayfulLawyer10 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]12 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]athrowaway2832221 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]5 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]athrowaway2832222 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LightOverWater5 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ChibsFilipTelfordd3 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LightOverWater2 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]YouSaidChicken8 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rosephase4 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]YouSaidChicken11 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rosephase0 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]angels-fan9 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rosephase1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]angels-fan8 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]zeedoctorzee9 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rosephase2 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]YouSaidChicken4 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rosephase1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]YouSaidChicken6 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rosephase1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cowfishAreReal7 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]angels-fan2 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Barneysparky3 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cowfishAreReal0 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]angels-fan2 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cowfishAreReal0 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]angels-fan2 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cowfishAreReal0 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]angels-fan3 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cowfishAreReal2 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]angels-fan6 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cowfishAreReal0 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]angels-fan5 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]poppy_blu-2 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]angels-fan4 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]poppy_blu-1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ChibsFilipTelfordd5 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]angels-fan3 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ChibsFilipTelfordd3 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]couldbemage2 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cowfishAreReal0 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ChibsFilipTelfordd1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]geyges6 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]6 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]XtoDoubt5 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]wekacuck3 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]XtoDoubt2 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]wekacuck3 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]taapy2341 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

feminism is not a movement for equality. feminism in its current form that exist in modern society acts more as a female lobbying group for women to put forward an agenda that calls for extracting resources out of men in fulfilling their female nature instincts that should only benefit women (and NOT men by any means)

In other words, feminists are defacto political players who only say the stuff they do for as long as it benefits them and "team woman" and will totally discard any principles they hold if it doesn't fulfill their stated objectives.

Just look at how feminists talk when it comes for the right to have abortion vs the right of a man to have financial abortion. Feminists shamelessly, and with no sense of irony use CONSERVATIVE ANTI ABORTION logic against men who don't want to be forcefully pay for women's choice to have a baby.

"Don't ~~open your legs and have premartial sex if you don't want a baby~~ put your dick in vagina if you don't want a baby!!"

"Don't be a ~~slut~~ deadbeat!!"

Feminists use the "its just a clump of cells bro" justification for supporting abortion, but men using the same logic for financial abortion is deemed bad for some reason and feminists turn around and go, "its in the best interest of the CHIIIIILLLLLLLDDD bro."

This is just one example of hypocritical feminist talking points. Pro life when it suits them, and pro choice when it benefits them.

[–]PeterGazerTheThird5 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Punished-Atlas-B3 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jax0062 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]I-wanna-GO-FAST1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PeterGazerTheThird2 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]I-wanna-GO-FAST1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PeterGazerTheThird2 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SmurfESmurferson4 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]angels-fan3 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Cybercunt20690 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]-MetaethicsCars > Women -4 points-3 points-2 points 5 years ago (74 children) | Copy Link

[–]octocombo 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The least bad form of assault? Rape lasts a minimum of a few minutes, while most non-sexual physical assaults are over within a few seconds. Rape can easily result in an incurable STD that affects you for the rest of your life (causing pain, embarrassment, and/or relationship difficulties). Many other forms of non-sexual physical assault will result in zero injury, or they will result in injuries that last less than a week. And rape often also includes pain and tearing of regions of the body that have many concentrated nerve endings, to the extent that the direct physical damage is comparable to the damage caused by a fist to the face. And it often has long-term effects on someone's ability to enjoy sex, which has long-term impacts on the kinds of intimate relationships they can have.

And this is even ignoring anything related to pregnancy since you classified that separately in responses to others.

[–]-MetaethicsCars > Women -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The least bad form of assault? Rape lasts a minimum of a few minutes, while most non-sexual physical assaults are over within a few seconds.

You didn't link a source, presumably because it's an assumption rather than a fact.

Many other forms of non-sexual physical assault will result in zero injuries, or they will result in injuries that last less than a week.

The least severe case of assault includes pushing, punching, or kicking whereas the least severe case of sexual assault is groping or fondling. The least severe case of assault is worse than the least severe case of sexual violence.

And rape often also includes pain and tearing of regions of the body that have many concentrated nerve endings to the extent that the direct physical damage is comparable to the damage caused by a fist to the face.

Your eyes and mouth are more sensitive than your genitals, dude.

And it often has long-term effects on someone's ability to enjoy sex, which has long-term impacts on the kinds of intimate relationships they can have.

An assault affects someone's limbs, their eyes or their face, all of which are more sensitive. You use your eyes, your hands more than you have sex and so a person will be more affected by it.

Rape can easily result in an incurable STD that affects you for the rest of your life (causing pain, embarrassment, and/or relationship difficulties).

Death, loss of bodily functions, etc are some of the permanent effects of assault and I don't think this is any better?

[–]octocombo 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Source for rape lasting at least a few minutes is every study on how long sexual intercourse lasts. There are many of them. This is about how long it takes a man to cum, and that timing isn't going to change drastically based on whether it's consensual or not. Here's one study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16422843/

Source for assault that's not rape often being over in a few seconds: I've seen guys fight, and I've been physically assaulted, and it has in my anecdotal experience never taken longer than a few seconds. Maybe I should have used the modifier "many" instead of "most" non-sexual physical assaults, but that doesn't change my argument.

the least severe case of sexual assault is groping or fondling

Groping is not rape. So you have just argued against your own claim. If you agree that groping is less severe than rape, then clearly rape is not "the least bad form of assault." And if when you made your original claim you meant to say "sexual assault isn't as bad as non-sexual assault" it's in bad faith to try to provoke people to argue with you using a clickbait version of what you actually believe.

Your eyes and mouth are more sensitive than your genitals, dude.

Very often an assault does not involve the eyes or mouth. But rape by definition always involves the genitals. If you meant "poking someone's eyes out is worse than rape" that's an entirely different argument from "rape is the most minor form of assault." You are making arguments to prove that some forms of assault are worse than rape. That isn't evidence for your claim. You need to show that everything else is worse than rape in order to prove your claim. You can't. You don't even believe it. You have already said that groping isn't as bad as rape.

An assault affects someone's limbs, their eyes or their face, all of which are more sensitive.

Some assaults do. Some don't. Limbs overall are not more sensitive than genitals unless you specifically mean the terminus of the limb (e.g., fingertips).

You use your eyes, your hands more than you have sex and so a person will be more affected by it.

The ability to have sex is strongly tied to the ability to form intimate relationships. If I am in an intimate relationship, I am affected by it even when I am not in the act of sex, e.g., my partner might be sharing a meal with me if I'm in a relationship whereas I might be eating a microwave meal by myself if I'm single. It could affect something as life-altering as whether I have children or not. Intimate relationships are very important to people, and rape damages people's ability to form and function within intimate relationships.

Death, loss of bodily functions, etc are some of the permanent effects of assault and I don't think this is any better?

If you want to play that game, death and loss of bodily functions are also sometimes the permanent effects of rape. (Via STDs, internal bleeding, miscarriage if you were raped while already pregnant, honor killing, non-STD infection, general trauma sustained while struggling, drugs/alcohol used to make someone compliant, suicide, PTSD causing loss of employment...)

To prove your claim, you don't need to show equivalency. You need to show that all other kinds of assault are worse than rape. All you've shown here is that some of the worst possible consequences of rape are equivalent to some of the worst possible consequences of non-sexual assault.

[–]athrowaway283222blue is my fav color 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]-MetaethicsCars > Women -2 points-1 points0 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LeJacquelope 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]-MetaethicsCars > Women -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]-MetaethicsCars > Women -2 points-1 points0 points 5 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Special-Armadillo-99 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Special-Armadillo-99 -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]-MetaethicsCars > Women 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

I've been beaten up during attempted muggings a few times before. I wouldn't trade it for a butt rape.

But I would

I don't think you understand the psychological damage of rape and are just thinking about physical injuries when you talk about 'assault'.

Why would a woman be affected by an assault on her vagina any more than an assault on any other part of her body?

Perhaps, it's because her genitals are the cornerstone of her existence - which is quite pathetic.

especially considering how your genitals are the last organ you'd need in order to survive, not the most delicate organ either, and if your face, hands, or legs get injured you won't be able to do a job, fulfill your dreams, or anything... if you lose your genitals then it's not gonna be that bad considering they're covered and unused most of the time anyway.

The rape will fuck her up for life.

No, her brain, hands, or her face are objectively more important than her genitals.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]I-wanna-GO-FAST 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]-MetaethicsCars > Women -2 points-1 points0 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]I-wanna-GO-FAST 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]IcarusKiki22F 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]-MetaethicsCars > Women 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]CatchPhrazeMaster Of Memeology 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Special-Armadillo-99 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]CatchPhrazeMaster Of Memeology 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]-MetaethicsCars > Women 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]CatchPhrazeMaster Of Memeology 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]-MetaethicsCars > Women 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wekacuck 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]-MetaethicsCars > Women 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]wekacuck 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]-MetaethicsCars > Women 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]relish5kpolitically red pilled, sexually blue 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]-MetaethicsCars > Women 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]-MetaethicsCars > Women 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cloudydays84No Pill Man 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago* (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]-MetaethicsCars > Women 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]wtknightGen X Slacker[M] 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]cloudydays84No Pill Man 6 points7 points8 points 5 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]-MetaethicsCars > Women -2 points-1 points0 points 5 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]octocombo 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]-MetaethicsCars > Women 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]octocombo 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cloudydays84No Pill Man 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]-MetaethicsCars > Women 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]octocombo 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cloudydays84No Pill Man 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]-MetaethicsCars > Women 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]cloudydays84No Pill Man 5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]-Metaethics2 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cloudydays844 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]octocombo1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dakingmonvii 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]-MetaethicsCars > Women 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ChibsFilipTelforddMen should not date virgins 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]ChibsFilipTelforddMen should not date virgins 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Certainly. Its trivially easy to calculate the proportion of men vs women overall.

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2011/03/24/prison-rape-and-government/?pagination=false

"How many people are really victimized every year? Recent BJS studies using a “snapshot” technique have found that, of those incarcerated on the days the surveys were administered, about 90,000 had been abused in the previous year, but as we have argued previously,

those numbers were also misleadingly low. Finally, in January, the Justice Department published its first plausible estimates. In 2008, it now says, more than 216,600 people were sexually abused in prisons and jails and, in the case of at least 17,100 of them, in juvenile detention. Overall, that’s almost six hundred people a day—twenty-five an hour."

216600+17100= 233,700 prison instances per year.

As I'm sure you're aware the CDC number of sexual assaults in the USA outside of prison per year is approximately 250,000, and approximately 80% happen to women.

.8(250k) = 200k

.2(250k) = 50k.

Female prisoners comprise 6.7% of prisoners, men 93.3%

.067(233,700) = 15, 658

.933(233,700)= 218,042

Total male victims per year: 50k+ 218042 = 268,042

Total female victims per year: 15658+200000= 215,658

Total = 483,700

55.4% of all victims are men

But please, continue to ignore the plight of jailed men, most of whom are in for drugs, most of whom are POC

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ChibsFilipTelforddMen should not date virgins 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ChibsFilipTelforddMen should not date virgins 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]-MetaethicsCars > Women -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ridderrobby 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]-MetaethicsCars > Women 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ridderrobby 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Exvareon 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]-MetaethicsCars > Women 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thedeets4321 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Hi,

I have a question. Can someone provide some resources and insight to patriarchy theory and its relationship to feminism? I read through this post, I found it pretty interesting, but I wanted to know more, especially in relation to the top comment about evidence/justification for the conclusions following from the premises.

https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/f19yrr/examining_patriarchy_theory/

If anyone has any insight or help for me, I would love it.

As an example, here is a specific snip from the post:

>hooks does not satisfactorily explain how or why a social system that harms everyone (even if it harms men slightly less) came into existence in the first place, nor how women have to ability (or why they would choose) to perpetuate a social system that specifically strips them of any such power or influence.

This is something I am curious about, but I have not read the book being discussed.

> One thing that is stressed in almost every feminist description of patriarchy is its universality. That is, patriarchy is present in every human society since at least the dawn of civilisation (there is some speculation of a prehistoric matriarchy). Patriarchy only varies in its forms. Millet in Sexual Politics states,

This seems incorrect. There is a significant body of evidence showing that there are very matriarchal and egalitarian societies, and studies on ancient ancestors show such as well. Can someone prove this claim is accurate?

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0038038596030004002

- The claim made here, about the mixture of descriptor and explanation is something I would also be interested in seeing a response to.

[–]Laytheblameonluck 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Smoogs2 6 points7 points8 points 5 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]relish5kpolitically red pilled, sexually blue 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thedeets4321 7 points8 points9 points 5 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

> if he believes the women in their society labored as much as he did, he would obviously say no... and why would be obvious.

I disagree. Many people (men and women) see the labor that women do in terms of things like childrearing, and count that towards labor, and for good reason. In addition, there are many societies, and research show this, who have incredibly egalitarian labor models, some of which even have men being a significant part of childrearing, etc. I'm trying to find a paper I recently read that cited many specific examples. I will link if I do.

> This idea that ancient societies were bastions of egalitarianism assumes that childrearing and berry picking is equal to the labor and warfare the men did.

I mean there's a lot wrong to unpack here.

Many men did berry picking and childrearing
Many women were involved in hunting and even combat
Childrearing is legitimate labor
Warfare isn't actually that massive a part of our history. In most prehistoric societies, they had about as much violence as we do right now, and we've never been more at peace and safe. Yes, this part is important no doubt, and there is an imbalance. But acting like warfare is inherently more valuable than anything else is your own value judgment. I'd rather we have another nurse or better paid teachers, than more contractors in Afghanistan.

Just so I understand, you are defending the concept of patriarchy and saying it does exist everywhere, justifying it as imbalanced inputs of labor between men and women. Is that correct?

Because I am saying that the idea patriarchy exists everywhere always is false.

[–]Smoogs2 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

Child labor counts as labor, of course. The question then is if this labor is more labor-intensive and valuable than what men were doing. They may value it as equally important, but economically speaking it would never really be equal (egalitarian). I would argue the feelings don’t really matter here. You could theoretically have a patriarchy where the women felt they were equal, but in actuality they were not because of the real economic value of the inputs and outputs of society. So whether or not these societies judged or valued childrearing as just as important to male labor is irrelevant, really.

You can cite these ancient societies where female combatants were commonplace lol I highly doubt this.

I am not “defending” any concept of any society. I am challenging the idea that ancient societies were so egalitarian.

Basically, they all had strict gender roles. And a society with strict gender roles can’t be egalitarian, in my understanding of the word. But maybe the people using the word are referring to it in a different way. I consider egalitarian societies as ones that forgo gender roles, not strictly adhere to them.

The economic problem is that some labor roles don’t scale well and this problem is strongly apparent in female leaning roles. You can only child rear a select amount of people. You can’t nurse 1,000 people a day. You can’t give birth to 1,000 people a day. But you can feed 1,000 people a day by killing a whale or a mammoth. It’s basically a math problem. Societies can’t be egalitarian with strict gendered labor roles, mathematically speaking.

Egalitarianism is only really possible currently or in the future where technology allows us to escape the bounds of these largely biological barriers - or economic ones considering AI (if such advanced AI is even possible).

[–]thedeets4321 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

The economic problem is that some labor roles don’t scale well. You can only child rear a select amount of people. You can’t nurse 1,000 people a day. You can’t give birth to 1,000 people a day. But you can feed 1,000 people a day by killing a whale or a mammoth. It’s basically a math problem. Societies can’t be egalitarian with strict labor roles, mathematically speaking.

In a very broad sense, if both genders have a more equal participation in certain labor roles, then they are more egalitarian than one with very disparate and rigid/exclusive gender roles, OR if the society equally values the labor done by people (or the people more generally/labor value is NOT the same as actual value. Men often produce more labor value, that doesn't mean men are significantly more valuable in all areas, or even just economically - see Scandinavia) in both roles, then that society is more egalitarian/equal. To be clear, I'm not saying there is necessarily perfect equality and egalitarianism, just moreso than now in some places like the USA. I absolutely agree that scaling is a thing that exists. And I've read all the arguments about scaling and everything else, including psychological differences.

I define equality as the SEP does: Egalitarianism is a trend of thought in political philosophy. An egalitarian favors equality of some sort: People should get the same, or be treated the same, or be treated as equals, in some respect.

People can be different but equal. Males and females are obviously different, that does not mean they are unequal. Men and women may have innate psychological prefernece differences which means that it will never be possible to have equal representation in nursing or tech. I don't care, because we can achieve equality and egalitarianism despite that. There is a reason we point to places like Norway and say they are egalitarian. Unless they have special breeds of men and women that are somehow identical, they still have differences but are somehow equal/more egalitarian.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22071-inequality-why-egalitarian-societies-died-out/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5727548/

etc. etc.

We are getting off point a little bit.

Do you have any information that will help me improve my understanding of patriarchy theory? I know I talked about egalitarian societies, but I don't wanna get caught up in the weeds. I feel like saying society was quite egalitarian, for many peoples, and far moreso than it is now, is uncontroversial.

[–]Smoogs2 5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

if both genders have a more equal participation in certain labor roles, then they are more egalitarian than one with very disparate and rigid/exclusive gender roles,

Again, the participation doesn't matter. I can participate in the labor of masturbating all day but that does not equate to your participation to the labor of you hunting all day.

OR if the society equally values the labor done by people (or the people more generally/labor value is NOT the same as actual value.

And again, the feeling of the society doesn't matter. You can feel that the labor of me masturbating all day is the same economic value of you hunting all day, but that doesn't make it true.

Egalitarianism is a trend of thought in political philosophy. An egalitarian favors equality of some sort

I don't believe that egalitarianism can exist in a separate but equal society. I think we have established that this is the case in the 1960's. Don't you agree?

People can be different but equal.

If they are different and contributing the same amount of economic value to the society, then yes they can be different and equal. If they are participating in labor that inherently can't scale and is therefore of lesser economic value, then no. They are different and unequal. That is just math.

Men and women may have innate psychological prefernece differences which means that it will never be possible to have equal representation in nursing or tech. I don't care, because we can achieve equality and egalitarianism despite that.

This by the way, is not how economics work. I can write a software code that millions of people download (think tik-tok or snapchat). I can't nurse millions of people - it is just not physically possible. Nursing doesn't scale like tech, inherently. So therefore, nursing will always have lesser economic value. This is how scalability in labor economics works and why an egalitarian society is not really possible under capitalism - which is largely why academic feminists are communists.

So ancient society may have men and women participating in labor, but this is not equal as the labor has different economic values attached to them, inherently. Basically you would have an ancient society in which men or women contributed 80% of the economic value and the other gender contributed 20%. Even if this ancient society was "communist" you would still have these market forces as economic value doesn't disappear in a communist society. You would just be convincing men that their disproportionate contributions to societal value was for the greater community - which is what I think these researchers are saying when they pose that they were "egalitarian." But again, I don't really consider that equal or egalitarian. It's basically saying: "it's egalitarian if you only ignore math."

[–]thedeets4321 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Smoogs2 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]thedeets4321 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

LOL. Again, indicating a complete lack of understanding of labor markets, egalitarianism as a concept, political economy, political theory, economies of scale, and even more.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/egalitarianism/

People should be treated as equals, should treat one another as equals, should relate as equals, or enjoy an equality of social status of some sort. Egalitarian doctrines tend to rest on a background idea that all human persons are equal in fundamental worth or moral status.

This ideal is attractive to some and repulsive to others. One serious objection is that to bring about and sustain the condition in which all people have the same amount of money would require continuous and extensive violation of people's Lockean rights, which as standardly understood include the right to gain more property than others possess by gift or trade or hard work. Another, closely related objection is that a regime of equal money could be maintained only by wrongful interference with people's liberty, because if money is distributed equally at one time people will choose to act in ways that over time will tend to result in unequal distribution of money at later times. (For the first objection, see Nozick 1974, chapter 7, for the second, see Walzer 1983.)

Another objection to the ideal of monetary equality is that its pursuit would inhibit people's engagement in wealth-creating and wealth-saving activity, and in the not very long run would reduce society's stock of wealth and make us all worse off in the terms of the effective freedom that was being equalized. Yet another objection is that people behave in ways that render them more and less deserving, and monetary good fortune is among the types of things that people come to deserve differentially.

The advocate of egalitarianism in the broad sense has some replies. Unless some substantive argument is given as to why Lockean rights should be accorded moral deference, the mere fact that equality conflicts with Lockean rights does not by itself impugn the ideal of equality. Maybe some purported “rights” should not be regarded as momentous, and their sacrifice to secure equality might be acceptable on balance. In the same vein, one might hold that the fact that continuous restriction of individual liberty is needed to satisfy some norm does not by itself tell us whether the moral gain from satisfying the ideal is worth the moral cost of lessened freedom. Some restrictions of liberty are undeniably worth their cost, and some ideal of equality might be among the values that warrant some sacrifice of liberty.

Equality might be upheld as one value among others, and increase in wealth or in wealth per capita may be included along with equality in a pluralistic ethics. We may want more effective freedom (of the sort money combined with goods for sale provides), and we may also want this freedom equally distributed, and then we would need to find an acceptable compromise of these values to deal with cases when they conflict in practice. Much the same might be said about the conflict between the achievement of equality of money and the distribution of good fortune according to people's differential desert.

I mean this isn't even getting to the basic economics of this whole thing. Do you think American engineers produce 3-4x the value compared to American teachers, but British or Scandinavian engineers only produce 2-3x relative? American doctor vs population (226k/46k) and UK (80k/31k). Do you think somehow British doctors produce less than half the value that American doctors do, and relative to the rest of the population, British doctors are a lot worse; compared to American doctors, who produce IMMENSELY more value than the rest of the population?

https://revisingrubies.com/us-vs-uk-doctors-salary

Literally 5-10 minutes of research annihilates the idea that salary perfectly correlates with produced value of labor. Like, cmon. Do you think that when we call places like Scandinavia egalitarian, we need straight up communism with PERFECTLY EQUAL incomes for everyone, regardless of labor value? Do they have perfect communism and a classless society there? Do you think that when a burger flipper in Denmark makes 22 an hour, but 7.25 in the US, the burger flipper in Denmark produces approximately 3x the labor value? Christ. Stop watchin Peterson explaining basic economies of scale. I can say, as I have, that people can produce different amounts of "value" with their labor, and earn drastically different incomes for that same labor value/output, depending on local economic policy, and even assuming there is somewhere a perfect "true" value for labor (one we would agree that is greater for scalable commodities, which is a fair economic assumption, but more importantly, the magnitude of this difference is the question. This idea of a "true" value also assumes some market can be extracted from the associated rules and policies governing the economy, a nonsense idea. Also, note the final article about how scalable comp programming salaries were pretty low when women dominated the field and were lower than less scalable field, including manual labor, which is literally UNSCALABLE, but salaries have since increased.), that does NOT end egalitarianism, as described eloquently by the Stanford Plato article sections quoted above.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/what-programmings-past-reveals-about-todays-gender-pay-gap/498797/

[–]Smoogs2 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

People should be treated as equals, should treat one another as equals, should relate as equals, or enjoy an equality of social status of some sort.

Again, if one has more valuable work than the other, then this is not egalitarian. You are not related as equal. You are not treated equally. If my labor is masturbation all day and yours is hunting all day, then our relationship is not equal. I am taking advantage of you. Such a society can never be egalitarian because I am not treating you with equality. I am taking advantage of your over-production.

Do you think American engineers produce 3-4x the value compared to American teachers

Yes. American engineers can build a bridge that millions of people use every day. American teachers can only teach 20 kids a day. It's again a scalability problem. It's hard to scale the output of female-dominated jobs. They don't scale as well, so they are often not as valuable. This is not basic economics here so I don't expect you to understand this, but it's not a particularly difficult concept to grasp.

the idea that salary perfectly correlates with produced value of labor.

Nobody said it correlates perfectly. Lots of inputs go into the value of labor. Scalability is merely one.

call places like Scandinavia egalitarian

We don't really. We call them the most egalitarian relative to other places. But to suggest that any society with a free labor market is egalitarian is wrong. This again, is why academic feminists are typically communists. I also think that they call places like that egalitarian because they have less strong gender roles - which is exactly my point.... an ancient society with strict gender roles cannot be egalitarian.

One serious objection is that to bring about and sustain the condition in which all people have the same amount of money would require continuous and extensive violation of people's Lockean rights,

But your link perfectly describes my objection. Your society would have to be technically communist where everyone has the same amount of wealth to be egalitarian. This is why I said that I believe these researchers are using a different definition when they refer to them as egalitarian. But you are just arguing against your own link now.

which is a fair economic assumption, but the magnitude of this difference is in question -

The magnitude is really irrelevant. The point is that they are not equal - hence cannot be egalitarian. If they are not and can not be equal, then it can't be egalitarian. I just don't think a society with strict gender roles can ever be egalitarian. A society can only be egalitarian if they have strict 50/50 split in all labor roles or close to that - hence why people consider Scandinavia "most egalitarian."

[–]Banned_BY_SOYMEN 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link

Which of these potential solutions would you accept?

If you had to choose, you could select none, one, or multiple — which would you pick?

Have a good old fashioned world war (no nukes) which kills about 10-15 percent of the male population
Ban all social media and OLD (basically have current technology but with the social media sphere of the late 2000s)
Say a development in fertility technology occurs, and we can now skew fertility such that for every 1000 children born — 600 would be female, 400 would be male.
Have feminists invest more in the campaign to abort male babies (basically accomplishes what 3 does)
Legalize prostitution
Abolish permanent marriages and replace them with privatized renewable contracts where the terms agree customized to the married couple's choosing and must abide by those terms

[–]ThrowawayCOVID999 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]octocombo 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lonelybuthopeful9 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kratom_Dumper 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points 5 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]LeJacquelope 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]StarchRunner 6 points7 points8 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]YoMamas_azzTheoretically 5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]YoMamas_azzTheoretically 5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]YoMamas_azzTheoretically 5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

I dont think top 20% only gets attention, they get about 80% of it though (pareto principle).

If you mean that you want women to experience raw sexual desire towards you, well sure you need superior genes for this kind of attention, but overall I'd say any man can improve and get a partner :) And what good does it do to compare yourself to a Chad and stomp your feet that you are not getting the same treatment? I can compare myself to Trump Jr and complain that he got his wealth for free while I'm over here have to work for living.

I agree with all of this though. This is from an individual perspective, I was talking about macro group level though. Yes I think an individual man's best bet is to improve themselves. My point was on a macro level if all men improve it benefits women as a group more than men as a group in the smp.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]YoMamas_azzTheoretically 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]LeJacquelope 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Banned_BY_SOYMEN 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]abaxeron✴️(Not Actually) Indian Programmer 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NarniaFox 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

War isn't generally good. Especially when the only apparent justification for it is killing off a sizeable chunk of the male population. Can't wait to see how many feminists here can't see any sort of problem with that, though.

Mental illness would drop without social media. That's a plus all around, I think.

3 seems like it would have unintended negative consequences that may counteract its potential benefits. But maybe it could be good; I'm not in any position to say for sure. On the bright side, it's a relatively humane way to decrease the male population (compared to the other two choices that do the same thing).

4 isn't good, in my opinion. As if feminists aren't already hateful enough. Encouraging them to invest in a campaign like that just seems like it would make the movement even more destructive than it already is.

I don't really see any issues with 5. I doubt it would really make society better in any tangible way, however.

6 would promote the sort of equality feminism doesn't approve of — the kind that levels the playing field, instead of shifting it in women's favour. I like it. It works wonders in France, as far as I know. I see no reason it wouldn't work in the west, too.

[–]athrowaway283222blue is my fav color 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]angels-fanLoves Pibbles 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]StarchRunner 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]angels-fanLoves Pibbles 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]StarchRunner 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]IcarusKiki22F 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ridderrobby 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]poppy_blu 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Banned_BY_SOYMEN 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]poppy_blu 6 points7 points8 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I’m 100 for legalizing prostitution. It’s safer for the women, it’s safer for society, and it’s basically insanely hypocritical to that porn is legal but prostitution is not. Would probably also help a lot of men who either lonely or want sex with zero commitment and without a shit load of work. I’ll use George Carlin’s words: “why is it illegal to sell something that is perfectly legal to give away.”

Also I’ve always said marriage should be a contract that can be renewed, renegotiated or cancelled in 5-10 year intervals. People change, relationships change, and frankly someone shouldn’t be bankrolled for 30 years and then decide they’re going to walk and take everything with them. Short term contracts would prohibit that. My only caveat that you should add is 50/50 custody and support is mandatory.

[–]Banned_BY_SOYMEN 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]poppy_blu 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]relish5kpolitically red pilled, sexually blue 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]abaxeron✴️(Not Actually) Indian Programmer 6 points7 points8 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]relish5kpolitically red pilled, sexually blue -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wekacuck 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AidsVictim 19 points20 points21 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]wekacuck -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]AidsVictim 6 points7 points8 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]wekacuck 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AidsVictim 7 points8 points9 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I guess I just don't expect feminists to bother themselves with predominantly male issues.

These aren't predominately male issues. These things are very common and bad with women as well. It's just that men tend to be even worse off in the social category.

I also don't think of the things you've listed as issues caused by women, either.

No one said or implied that. The causes are primarily related to the current economic-technological-social paradigm.

When ranking things in terms of importance to women, for things that affect men more than women I'd just say the ball's probably in men's court. Similarly, I wouldn't really expect men to be on the champions of breast or cervical cancer efforts. It seems odd to hold feminists accountable for things that aren't women's issues.

No one is holding them accountable or whatever. As I said in the original post it's mostly that feminism is simply irrelevant and useless in relation to these problems. For the most part feminism (at least pop feminism) is too busy navel gazing and feeding womens narcissism to address real modern social issues.

[–]wekacuck 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheBookOfSeil 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]colgateexpert 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]poppy_blu 15 points16 points17 points 5 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]StarchRunner 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Robotemist 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]poppy_blu 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]YoMamas_azzTheoretically 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]poppy_blu 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]rhomu-31 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Teflon08191 5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SonicBackScratcher 8 points9 points10 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eastuss༼ つ ▀̿_▀̿ ༽つ 14 points15 points16 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I have my own issues with mainstream feminism but I don’t get triggered by it like men here do.

What a surprise female supremacy movement doesn't trigger a... woman.

The main issue with feminism is the indoctrination of kids by their parents and school. Just like many women have complained that patriarchal homes have been harmful, matriarchal homes and schools are harmful for boys. It's not like people are going to be broken for life, but many years can be lost or wasted to fix oneself.

The fact you think this isn't a big deal doesn't make it untrue. And we can teach parents to stop trying to interfere with their kids of the other opposite sex.

The second main issue is it gets listened and reshapes society in the long run even for trivial exaggerated shits. Maybe not an issue in the USA but in france macron is kind of a women's bitch.

Then, it occupies too much of the mediatic space and censors everything else, unless it got more "intersectional oppression points" lmao.

And lastly, men eventually get punished for the action of a few, mostly foreigners. It's wrong even if you think it's no big deal.

[–]ChibsFilipTelforddMen should not date virgins 12 points13 points14 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]OkLieThen 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]angels-fanLoves Pibbles 6 points7 points8 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]poppy_blu 6 points7 points8 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LeJacquelope 24 points25 points26 points 5 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]disayle32 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LeJacquelope 5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]disayle32 14 points15 points16 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]disayle32 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eastuss༼ つ ▀̿_▀̿ ༽つ 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ChibsFilipTelforddMen should not date virgins 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]angels-fanLoves Pibbles 14 points15 points16 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]reLincolnX 5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]OXOzymandiasBig Sexy 5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago (68 children) | Copy Link

[–]djblackmith 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]StarchRunner 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]djblackmith 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eastuss༼ つ ▀̿_▀̿ ༽つ 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]GGMcThroway 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eastuss༼ つ ▀̿_▀̿ ༽つ 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]GGMcThroway 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

They're more fit for girls.

Girls are better at staying quiet. Both genders would do a lot better with a larger focus on physical play in elementary school.

IDK what's everyone's experience, but the simple fact most teachers are women is impacting a lot. Every classroom with a male teachers, boys would have an easier time, and invertedly with female teachers.

How much would you attribute that to societal norms vs. secondary and tertiary sex characteristics? I definitely think the whole "boys will be boys" vs "girls are held higher social standards" thing bleeds well into adulthood. And I think that that coupled with gender tribalism causes the majority of it.

Male teachers also generally get more respected by both boys and girls IME.

That I won't deny as western society is now. Though I do wonder how much of it would stay that way with equalized gender norms and socialization.

[–]Eastuss༼ つ ▀̿_▀̿ ༽つ 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]GGMcThroway 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eastuss༼ つ ▀̿_▀̿ ༽つ 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]GGMcThroway 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Eastuss༼ つ ▀̿_▀̿ ༽つ 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]OXOzymandiasBig Sexy 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eastuss༼ つ ▀̿_▀̿ ༽つ 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I have yet to see parents proactively raising their kids in a feminist way.

You have yet to see a first world native family :P Immigrants, even white, are those who were from red pilled families.

Mutilated? damn. I mean school wasnt created by feminist... i dont totally get this point tbh.

Infantile circumcision is rampant in some countries, cultures or religions.

Schools are leftist and always have been. At first they were socialist, and socialism is already feminism-light. Then feminism happened and schools became feminist too. Schools will always side with whatever is perceived as the oppressed or the opponent of the white men in power.

Schools also try to morph boys into girls and refuse to understand boys differences. So much that nowadays many conflate boys being boys with ADHD and wrongfully intoxicate their kids with treatments. It's anecdotal but it's an example. I can already see it with my 4 year old son how things are generally unfit to boys and how teachers dislike them early on.

I guess thats just you and me having different views on it, i never saw something like that irl.

CMV feminism is a non subject and doesnt affect your life much

You said that. It depends where you live, your culture, and your luck. If you're in the UK, France, germany, or nordic countries, and you were native and not born from immigrant families, chances are high feminism affected you.

[–]OXOzymandiasBig Sexy 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

You said that. It depends where you live, your culture, and your luck. If you're in the UK, France, germany, or nordic countries, and you were native and not born from immigrant families, chances are high feminism affected you.

I am living in Canada, small town, i have saw a few things here and there that feminism impacted aka i have one class supposed to tell us what is unacceptable in the uni with a strong emphasis on harassement lol, and thats the biggest thing, like for real...Indeed i dont from canada originally but still most of my buddies who are white never have their lifes impacted by feminism.

So much that nowadays many conflate boys being boys with ADHD and wrongfully intoxicate their kids with treatments. It's anecdotal but it's an example. I can already see it with my 4 year old son how things are generally unfit to boys and how teachers dislike them early on.

Yeah and in the past these same boys would have been beaten by the prof if they were too agitated, i have been through that lol. I mean lowkey i think these things are better handled, one of my friend has a bro with strong ADHD, they just gave a paper to a prof, to make her understand that it wasnt the kid fault if he was agitated sometimes.

I am genuinely confused, when there was a time when the school institution was able to handle nicely people who didnt like to sit down, study, and obey the prof, IMO never. So these issues are the same we always encountered.

[–]Eastuss༼ つ ▀̿_▀̿ ༽つ 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]OXOzymandiasBig Sexy 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

they knew better how to handle boys and bring out the best of them.

i have been in these classes, i liked when my mom stop putting me in the african system, with gender segragated classroom and prof hitting or cursing at the kids cus they were just laughing tbh i never understood the idea that school was better then, maybe it is just my fam, but most men left school back then, the prof would hit you or curse at you or put a target on you and always annoy and shit, none of my uncle/grandpa finished school.

...And i had the immense chance to be in a french school with a bunch of 2nd wave feminist women who werent basically in pre retirement, who werent trying to hit me, curse at me, put a target on me, just cus i was a dumb fucking kids who was sometimes talking to his classmates, we might have different experiences and thats it, but when i talk to men who were in these school they never said it was better than our current school.

And maybe it is just african school, but tbh if i read and see older books made in europe and usa about male teachers teaching male students, it is the same, just a dude being abusive to young boys.

[–]Eastuss༼ つ ▀̿_▀̿ ༽つ 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]OXOzymandiasBig Sexy 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LeJacquelope 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]geyges🐇 5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]OkLieThen 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]angels-fanLoves Pibbles 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]geyges🐇 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]CanisLupisAutism 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]OXOzymandiasBig Sexy 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]OXOzymandiasBig Sexy 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]athrowaway283222blue is my fav color 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]OXOzymandiasBig Sexy 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]CanisLupisAutism 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]OXOzymandiasBig Sexy 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]athrowaway283222blue is my fav color 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]OXOzymandiasBig Sexy 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

If you got higher education in the past 20 years, you've probably ran into some feminism somewhere

Yeah they fine, they like to think they hot shit, but it is whatever

Some of my coworkers in the last 10 years have been SJW types. You wouldn't want to joke about women or age gap relationships or trannies with these people.

I dont joke about it with most people tbh, but at the same time it is my second day at my new work and we already talking about nazi soldiers taking drugs and the russian selling nuclear material in the 2000s lol...

Twitter and other social media are now the public square. Things discussed online influence behaviors of everyone around you, and you.

I cant agree with that sorry lol, twitter esp is so fucking useless, has no impact irl IMO, we could still disagree and debate tho

[–]geyges🐇 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]couldbemage 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]OXOzymandiasBig Sexy 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]angels-fanLoves Pibbles 8 points9 points10 points 5 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas__B__ShrugginI AM AN INTROVERT 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]angels-fanLoves Pibbles 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas__B__ShrugginI AM AN INTROVERT 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]yvaN_ehT_nioJyour account has temporarily suspended for being based 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]OkLieThen 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]zeedoctorzee 5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]OkLieThen 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]angels-fanLoves Pibbles 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]poppy_blu 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kaisha001 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]angels-fanLoves Pibbles 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]OXOzymandiasBig Sexy 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]angels-fanLoves Pibbles 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]poppy_blu 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]angels-fanLoves Pibbles 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]poppy_blu 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]angels-fanLoves Pibbles 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]OXOzymandiasBig Sexy 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]poppy_blu 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]badgersonice 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]poppy_blu 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]OXOzymandiasBig Sexy 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]poppy_blu 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]OXOzymandiasBig Sexy 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]angels-fanLoves Pibbles 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]reluctantly_red 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]OXOzymandiasBig Sexy 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]angels-fanLoves Pibbles 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]reluctantly_red 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]OXOzymandiasBig Sexy 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WanWhiteWolf♂ 35 6 points7 points8 points 5 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]LeJacquelope 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]OkLieThen 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]athrowaway283222blue is my fav color 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]zeedoctorzee 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GridReXXThe "XX" in my name means I'M A WOMAN 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eastuss༼ つ ▀̿_▀̿ ༽つ 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WanWhiteWolf♂ 35 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I never really dived into either of those "ideologies" so going on a limb based on first impressions.

I think the idea of targeting "top-tier" men, while abusing average/low caliber men expands on both sides.

I think one example from feminists was to put up sexual harassment complaint at work UNLESS whoever was complimenting was attractive.

For FDS it seems the same. Half of their "strategies" are about games and mental gymnastics that will make most sane men cringe. For example, one strategy is to force the guy to wait for sex for 3 months while having some FWB in parallel to take care of her own sex drive. Or going on first date in a "make populated place" and slowly flirt with other men to see how your date reacts.

It's basically a over-the-top male goal while leaving a trail of bodies behind.

[–]GridReXXThe "XX" in my name means I'M A WOMAN 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]PlagueDoctorDNo Pill 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]mmeIsniffgluehave a nice day 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]PlagueDoctorDNo Pill 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Bugu4787 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eastuss༼ つ ▀̿_▀̿ ༽つ 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]badgersonice 7 points8 points9 points 5 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]StarchRunner 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]badgersonice 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]athrowaway283222blue is my fav color 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GridReXXThe "XX" in my name means I'M A WOMAN 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]badgersonice 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

But one can’t dwell on things they can’t change like all of those things you mentioned.

Yeah, not worth worrying about the stuff you can’t change. And there’s some perks too, like being less hot-headed, less urges to do stupid deadly risky stuff, and better immune system.

But I do think women experience their “tough red pill to swallow” circa puberty lol.

Yeah, although I think a big part of the really awful pill girls get (and way too young) isn’t just the dimorphism part, though, but the adult men creeping on them when they’re twelve part. Girls learn way too young just how awful some men can be, and it’s such a shocking and awful experience your first time. That’s one of the very legit complaints that I do still kinda dwell on (and think feminists are right to be aggressive about too).

Like, it’s completely fine by me if I have a daughter who has periods and can’t dunk a basketball... but I’ll be ready to commit murder if some adult man targets her for sex while she’s in middle school.

[–]GridReXXThe "XX" in my name means I'M A WOMAN -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]throwaway93286946 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]athrowaway283222blue is my fav color 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]IcarusKiki22F 5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]geyges🐇 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]geyejoe7No Pill 9 points10 points11 points 5 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]Punished-Atlas-BIts time to admit it, i really am a man 7 points8 points9 points 5 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]LeJacquelope 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]IcarusKiki22F 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]Punished-Atlas-BIts time to admit it, i really am a man 5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]LeJacquelope 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]IcarusKiki22F 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]OXOzymandiasBig Sexy 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Punished-Atlas-BIts time to admit it, i really am a man 6 points7 points8 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]angels-fanLoves Pibbles 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Punished-Atlas-BIts time to admit it, i really am a man 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ChibsFilipTelforddMen should not date virgins 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Punished-Atlas-BIts time to admit it, i really am a man 6 points7 points8 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]OXOzymandiasBig Sexy 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Punished-Atlas-BIts time to admit it, i really am a man 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Punished-Atlas-BIts time to admit it, i really am a man 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]angels-fanLoves Pibbles 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Punished-Atlas-BIts time to admit it, i really am a man 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]OXOzymandiasBig Sexy 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Slipthe 5 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Punished-Atlas-BIts time to admit it, i really am a man 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RepresentativeSwan1Sexlessness Survivor 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]athrowaway283222blue is my fav color -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 years ago* (64 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]I-wanna-GO-FAST 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]nemma8834/F/UK Married -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

men know what women can look like and do when they're actually trying to please men. Most of their arguments are focused on how they believe it gives men "unrealistic" expectations.

You know it's not real right? Like, it's scripted, takes are put together and it's not about the actors having pleasure but what looks good on camera. I'm not sure unrealistic but it's certainly not realistic or particularly pleasurable for anyone but the viewer. It isn't how people have sex, its how people have sex when performing for a 3rd party.

Go watch how the sausage is made.

Should probably mention I don't dislike porn. Well, I dislike most of it for me viewing it because I personally don't think the actors /actresses are for the most part good at acting, giving a whole other level of fake I don't get along with, but some gels with me and I don't want to ban porn or anything.

[–]I-wanna-GO-FAST 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]nemma8834/F/UK Married -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Do you think that the only kind of porn that exists comes from high budget, well known studios that feature outlandish scenarios and sex acts?

No, but you know - most are. Amateur is it's own section, and even that is a performance for a 3rd party. At the extreme end you have hentai and things that are not even people anymore.

it would at least give men an idea of that women are at least capable of feigning enthusiasm during sex

You can't hold everyone to the same standards as actors/actresses, more so unwanted sex for women isn't just a neutral experience it's often negative and / or painful. Enthusiasm is a bit of a scale here, and yeah the comment came off a bit weird like you think sex is only about the mans pleasure.

Is that what you think I was trying to say? I'm not even sure, because your accusation that I believed porn is never scripted and nobody is acting is just so absurd.

You quoted the word unrealistic, suggesting you believe it is realistic or at the least that is isn't unrealistic. Hetro porn isn't what women do to please men, its what men write to please other men. Like the male orientated version of a romance novel. I'm fairly sure nit all men are sporting >7 inch cocks and can shag for hours and come on demand.

[–]I-wanna-GO-FAST 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]poppy_blu 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]OXOzymandiasBig Sexy 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]OXOzymandiasBig Sexy 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]OXOzymandiasBig Sexy 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]OXOzymandiasBig Sexy 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]OXOzymandiasBig Sexy 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

NO i am weirdo, i literally snoop for that lol..

thats a tough one tbh, for men to pay for sex....it either take someone like me with fucked up views (it seems) on sex, so like i dont see the actual issue with sex work, like i was the one who told my buddies to offer it to my friend lol, someone who straight up likes it (like the dude with "his" escort), and thats it...

Most men will feel very pathetic paying for sex, even if they could think about this woman as a fleshlight, most men and i can guarantee you that put validation points on their abilities to get laid.

My final verdict will be from 5 to maybe 10% of men have payed for sex once in their life, i think 5% is the better number, you can go in circles and see no men doing that, and go in other with a lot of men doing it, i knew a dude who told me he brought an escort to a cocktail cus he had no gf at the time and wanted to impress people there, i was like shocked and for him it is normal it seemed

[–][deleted]1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]OXOzymandias1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I think the ability to seduce women is a part of what men consider 'masculine" - so lots of men are too ashamed to pay for sex.

EXACTLY

My 52yo neighbour said he was celibate for a year and out of pure desperation paid for it twice and really hated himself after. I was like chill dude..it's no big deal. And he said the whole thing just felt viscerally wrong and abnormal.

Thats why i told my friend we aint taking her cus she is your only way to ever get sex, we taking her cus she is banging hot chicks and she agreed to fuck you for money, think about it like you having the time of your life and you not pathetic...i know a dude who is still bragging he had a 3somes qith hookers lmao, thats the energy you must have when you go for hookers, if the idea isnt attractive, it is gonna hurt you A LOT.

[–][deleted]1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]OXOzymandias1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]I-wanna-GO-FAST 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]I-wanna-GO-FAST 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]I-wanna-GO-FAST -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]IcarusKiki22F 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]IcarusKiki22F 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]IcarusKiki22F 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–]cloudydays84No Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]IcarusKiki22F 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]cloudydays84No Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SliptheLust, Thrust, Bust and Dust 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]zeedoctorzee 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]IcarusKiki22F 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago* (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]zeedoctorzee 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]IcarusKiki22F 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]I-wanna-GO-FAST 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]IcarusKiki22F 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]I-wanna-GO-FAST 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]IcarusKiki22F 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]I-wanna-GO-FAST1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]IcarusKiki1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]I-wanna-GO-FAST1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]IcarusKiki1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]OXOzymandias1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]IcarusKiki22F 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]zeedoctorzee 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]IcarusKiki22F 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]IcarusKiki22F -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]I-wanna-GO-FAST2 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]IcarusKiki1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]IcarusKiki22F 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]IcarusKiki22F 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]angels-fanLoves Pibbles 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Comments

Batshit Feminist Ideas Part 5

Title	Feminism Mega Thread
Author	AutoModerator
Upvotes	5
Comments	614
Date	April 11, 2021 8:00 PM UTC (5 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/moy47y/feminism_mega_thread/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/feminism-mega-thread.1188935 https://theredarchive.com/post/1188935