Because you claimed it's about equality

[–]shjahaha 644 points645 points646 points 6 years ago (83 children) | Copy Link

[–]Arthuyo 423 points424 points425 points 6 years ago (78 children) | Copy Link

[–]TroubleTheMerlin 186 points187 points188 points 6 years ago (61 children) | Copy Link

[–]r0nson 31 points32 points33 points 6 years ago (52 children) | Copy Link

[–]miroku000 43 points44 points45 points 6 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]UbiquitousWobbegong 23 points24 points25 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I'm actually an atheist who regularly defends and supports theism. I think younger generations don't understand the value that religion has as a unifying force in society. It also is one of the best ways to pass down value systems that work to fight against our bad habits as instinctual creatures.

For example, is society better served now that sexual repression has died down, and hookup culture has picked up? I would argue no, and that a lack of emphasis put on starting families has led to the late or absent blooming of many men, and the perpetual, miserable singledom of many women.

There are a lot of useful lessons religions can teach us if we look at their instructions assuming that, rather than the word of God, they are just values passed down by our ancestors who knew what kind of trouble we can get up to when we don't have a guiding hand.

[–]RealBiggly 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ebinebinebinebin 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]DJ-Roukan 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RealBiggly 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RealBiggly 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]omegaphallic -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]foofighters69 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]omegaphallic 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ColorMeOffended1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NJBarFly 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]omegaphallic 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Plenty of Athiests are so careful. By all means mock and riticize extremists. And I don't mean that religions should be critism free, but some athiests are out right insulting, which is protected by free speech as it should be, but let's stop feinting complete innocence. No belief system is beyond critism, not religion, not atheism, ect..., I just want to make it clear it's not completely black and white. And Athiests being nasty to religious folks who didn't deserve it was one of the things that caused Athiesm + to rip itself apart (along with disagreements over feminism as I understand it). I subscribe to various athiest channels despite being religious for various reasons.

And their is a lot more to religion then just the Aberhamic faiths, I am not a member of the Abeehamic religions and I feel they damaged the very idea of religion in the past, and modern religious folks are reaping the consquences of that. An example is Sikhs paying for the abuses of power that the Catholic church made in the past in Quebec.

[–]NJBarFly 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]redmaster_28273 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Farseer_Uthiliesh 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]a-man-from-earth 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SageBus 16 points17 points18 points 6 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]r0nson 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]tapperyaus 16 points17 points18 points 6 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]DrDougExeter -3 points-2 points-1 points 6 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]plainwalk 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mashiki 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]plainwalk1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nicwyse -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]notwhelmed -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]notwhelmed0 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]3 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]notwhelmed-1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]3 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]notwhelmed0 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]notwhelmed1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bombardonist0 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]RealBiggly -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]a-man-from-earth -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RealBiggly1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BagelJrspongeofbuter -2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]onenifty 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]omegaphallic 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]RealBiggly 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]omegaphallic 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]RealBiggly 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]omegaphallic 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NJBarFly 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]r0nson 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]onenifty 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lonewolfhistory 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pinkeythehoboken22 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]TroubleTheMerlin 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]west_pac 8 points9 points10 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TroubleTheMerlin 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]omegaphallic 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pinkeythehoboken22 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ahielia 20 points21 points22 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+]MicrowaveBurns-6 points 6 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

And MRAs do an equally terrible job of calling out incels and other such extremists in my experience. The truth is that both "sides" have legitimate grievances and we'd all be better off if everyone realised it and had a discussion, but we're all too focused on taking sides.

People like having a "good" and an "evil", even if they have to make it up. We're unlikely to make any real progress until people realise that the other "side" isn't entirely wrong.

[–]kragshot 8 points9 points10 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]MicrowaveBurns-4 points 6 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Most feminists would say the exact same thing about the extremists in their own movement. Either agree that neither group of extremists belongs in feminism/MRM, or agree that they both put themselves under that label but call them out for their harmful views. MGTOWs especially absolutely do identify themselves with the MRM in general, their whole deal is that marriage, relationships (depending on the person) and the legal system surrounding it all disadvantage men. Incels hold particularly extreme views, not entirely unlike gender-reversed views of extreme "feminists", or whatever you'd want to call them. Red pills I can't speak for as well as I haven't conversed with many.

It's true that you don't see such things on /r/MensRights , and I'm truly glad about that, but there certainly are a significant group of people who fall under the umbrella term who do sympathise with Roger etc.. Acknowledge that they exist, publicly denounce them and their actions, ensure that the more well-known figures who sympathise with the MRM do the same, and then you can start complaining about feminists not calling out their own extremists. Without that it's just plain old hypocrisy.

Of course we can turn them away though, what do you even mean by that? If you see someone post something hateful, you report it and tell them that their views don't belong here and are actively harmful to the movement as a whole. The MRM will never get anywhere until it can separate itself from the extremists who the media likes to use as strawmen of sorts. It's easy to go after the incels and paint everyone else with the same brush, but if, as a movement, we can separate those nutcases from our platforms, we have a chance at being taken seriously and having our problems recognised.

In truth though, I don't see myself as an MRA or feminist and never will, the inherent gendered natures of the terms are harmful in my opinion. It's just more of the same old taking sides that got us into this mess. Don't advocate for men's or women's rights, advocate for equal rights and leave it at that - because again, we all have problems that need to be addressed, and that can't be done properly until people stop fighting and start talking to each other with an open mind instead of pointing fingers.

[–]kragshot 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]omegaphallic 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Bullshit, I have called out incels (self identified incels, not just folks that aren't getting laid), I started a thread here on the issue, I even got banned from an incel reddit that itself later got banned from reddit period, because I tried to talk some sense into them.

I have done my part.

Also note that incels are a by product of gynocentric policies and a society that doesn't know what to do with certain types of men who are functional discarded.

Yes, incels are fuck up and the more extreme ones are dangerous, especially to themselves, but you can't forget that society said go out, get married, and have kids or your a worthless failure who has no value as a human being. For 25% of the male population that white picket fense with the wife and kids is an unattainable dream that they keep getting sold.

And if they go to a sex worker to relieve their sexual needs, they get arrested potentially.

It's a huge fucking mess that is going to get worse, but the media is absolutely clueless about how to handle it or what to do about it. Instead the media blames the new Joker movie for fuck sakes so that cops are stationed at every threatre. It's stupid.

[–]AnonymousChezz 10 points11 points12 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DJ-Roukan 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]aeonasceticism 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rabel111 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]CanadianAsshole1 -22 points-21 points-20 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExtinctFlea 27 points28 points29 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]SubstantialTension3 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CanadianAsshole1 -4 points-3 points-2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]DJ-Roukan 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sininenn 103 points104 points105 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]BlueOrange22 186 points187 points188 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]XavierMalory 76 points77 points78 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]lasciate 35 points36 points37 points 6 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SharedRegime 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ElBatDood 140 points141 points142 points 6 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]prometheus_i 36 points37 points38 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]AgVargr 32 points33 points34 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]prometheus_i 24 points25 points26 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sventertainer 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AmuseDeath 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Benito_Mussolini 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Keenin455 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]DumbledoresFerrari4 points 6 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Wat? That's a fine way to use the term.

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

[–]unsettledpuppy 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]ElBatDood 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]unsettledpuppy 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lasciate -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[+]ForsakenBlanket5 points 6 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

“the mind boggles” That doesn’t even make any sense

[–]DumbledoresFerrari2 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]WeedleTheLiar 13 points14 points15 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Valmar33 34 points35 points36 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FormedBoredom 9 points10 points11 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]manbaby1769 7 points8 points9 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SquarePeon 7 points8 points9 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThrowawayGhostGuy1 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]thetrader321 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Humes-Bread 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Blutarg 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TheAndredal[S] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dolphinagin 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Read the U.N. Agenda 2030. It's documents outline and emphasize the order for helping to empower women. It's part of the fascist, totalitarian pillar to support complete control of the coming race of woe working empirical dictators and eradicate all who do not comply. It stayes that, " no person should be left behind." The World Bank shareholder's and all who do their bidding want to "use" women as the colonizers of this order that has been in the process and development for, only 200 years. The Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro 1993 was a gathering and commencement by all U.N. affiliated shareholder's to negotiate and agree on the terms of agenda 21, the main pillar of the whole 5 pillar plan for total global and transcontinental "oneness." In my opinion, the only true woman is one that doesn't have to prove anything to anyone.

[–]T4mvv1lc0xx 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]genericteenagename 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]timo103 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DiaFit0920 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheAndredal[S] 8 points9 points10 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DiaFit0920 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

[–]wellshii18 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]DrSanjizant -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Washys_finest 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BulbasaurusThe7th 7 points8 points9 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Chillz71 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[+]AchtungRedditGESTAPO -10 points-9 points-8 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpeedTuberYT 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheAndredal[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SpiritedProgrammer 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]nixxiepixie -57 points-56 points-55 points 6 years ago (52 children) | Copy Link

[–]problem_redditor 42 points43 points44 points 6 years ago* (23 children) | Copy Link

"Hating women" is not the reason why we dislike feminism. It's because feminism is anchored in patriarchy theory, the idea that men and women are the enemies of each other, that men would work in the interests of other men at the expense of women's interests given the chance and that most of the gendered societal norms we see were created for the purpose of privileging men and oppressing women. It's an inaccurate and completely off-base view of society, but this is what feminists have believed since the beginning.

The foundational document of feminism, the Declaration of Sentiments, was published in 1848 and signed by 68 women and 32 men at the first women's rights convention to be organised by women.

What did it say?

The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpation on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

It then lists a number of ways in which they perceive women to be lacking in rights, then constantly blames men for all of them and accuses them of creating the system that they created for the sole purpose of the oppression of women. There is no mention of the duties, responsibilities and burdens that men and boys had during that time (of which there were many), or the privileges and entitlements that women were entitled to during that time (of which there were many).

In that document, there is no acknowledgment of the sacrifices of men or recognition of their humanity. Instead, it solely imputes negative motivations on them, treating men as a monolithic oppressor class and women as their slaves. Feminists have created a narrative - a narrative that is now entrenched in all our systems and institutions - that males favor other males at the expense of females. That somehow, there is a "team men" that has been oppressing, subjugating and subordinating women since the dawn of human history. That men have waged a "war on women" since we descended from the trees and first tottered on two legs on the African Savannah.

But this could not be further from the truth.

I'll include an amazing quote from girlwriteswhat here that illustrates the reality of the situation very well.

"Men have bled for their women, fought to protect their women, died for their women, and admonished each other for millennia to love their virtuous women as Christ loves the Church, to treat their honorable women as queens and as jewels, to present to them the heads of the men who displease them, and to duel to the death to defend their honor. The literary canon, written primarily by men, has always lauded a masculinity that protects women--the villains identified by their willingness to harm women, and the heroes identified by their willingness to avenge those harms."

Yet feminists look at men as a group as a monstrous oppressor class - or at least a privileged class. A group that has done nothing for women except subjugate them and treat them like shit. A group that now has to repent for their sins in the past. A group that does not deserve even the slightest consideration or respect "because they're privileged!"

Wow, I don't see why men should ever take issue with feminism... /s

And since every single bit of activism they did has been based on such a view of society, they have pushed a lopsided "women-only" approach to gender equality which involved freeing and liberating women, and only women, from their historical roles. And they ever so blithely claimed that since all of history favoured men, no one ever had to think about them.

But here's the thing that feminists don't seem to realise. Both genders had an equal balance of obligations and entitlements in the past - that is to say, for every privilege men had over women, they also had an accompanying obligation or responsibility that came with it, and vice versa. Similarly, for every privilege women had over men, they also had an accompanying obligation or responsibility that came with it, and vice versa.

And when feminism decided to free women, because of their idea that only women had to be freed, they gave women all of the entitlements without any of the responsibilities, and left all the responsibility on men.

EDIT: Here are some examples of when they have done that:

It used to be that paternal custody of children was the default because only the husband would be financially responsible for the upkeep and wellbeing of the child, but women wanted to get the kids after a divorce. So during the late nineteenth century they changed it with the Tender Years Doctrine, and it was presumed that the mother should have custody of the child after divorce. You know what didn't change? The husband was still held financially responsible for the child, even when he lost custody.

And...

It used to be that when a woman got married she was considered a "feme covert". Her legal existence was consolidated into that of the man's and she sacrificed some of her rights to own property and enter into contracts on her own in exchange for the benefits of being a married woman - once they were married, women were entitled to be supported by their husbands to the best of their (the husband's) ability. They could buy necessaries on their husbands' credit as their agent and were immune from liability for the debts they racked up. Women could evade punishment for many crimes and their husbands would be prosecuted in their stead. Etc, etc.

So while women used to have to give up some rights in exchange for the benefits and privileges they received when they were married, well, guess how early feminists fixed things? They changed the law so women could own and buy and sell property and be recognised as separate from their husbands, but they did not have to use that money to support the family like their husbands did. Furthermore, husbands also had the sole responsibility of paying taxes on both their and their wives' properties and incomes.

And...

When (some) men got the vote before (some) women it was paid for by men by their having to render services to the state when called on. In contrast, women were exempt from the military draft and from civil conscription, like bucket brigades, the special constabulary and "hue and cry" laws - all of which were responsibilities that men were not exempted from. When feminists campaigned for women to get the vote they did not also campaign for women to get the corresponding obligation whatsoever to render services to the state. Even now, feminists are still campaigning against the equal duty of women to be drafted and serve the country because "women shouldn't be expected to do that".

These demands don't at all sound like "equality before the law" to me. It sounds like "I want all the rights, without the responsibilities. I want all the benefits, without the obligations".

But yeah, sure. Apparently the only reason why one would ever, EVER take issue with feminism is because they hate women. There's just no other reason.

[–]sprint_ska 11 points12 points13 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]morerokk 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]nixxiepixie -26 points-25 points-24 points 6 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

...first let’s get this out of the way. The patriarchy theory isn’t a theory that pits men and women against each other. In fact, it’s common knowledge among feminists and others of higher mental process that the patriarchy systemically disadvantaged women while societally disadvantaging men-predominantly. This can be seen with the higher suicide rate in males due to toxic masculinity as a result of the patriarchy-the same patriarchy that tells men to ‘man-up’ and hide away their emotions lest they be seen as ‘feminine’ because your biological counterpart is the worst thing to be in the world. Sigh.

And most of the societal norms we see today ARE for privileging men and oppressing women? If it wasn’t, how come this ‘reproductive-crisis’ is targeting women instead of men, despite the fact that one woman can only have about one pregnancy a year whereas one man can impregnate multiple women? Why aren’t we trying to police men’s bodies instead of women’s? Why?

And I’m sorry but what privileges did women have at the time? The privilege of being your mans property? Of not being allowed to work or vote or own your own anything? Deadass bro, cause sis is confused.

I also want to know how strongly your sense of male entitlement must be for you to expect a document specifying female liberation FROM the oppressive nature of men would document men’s sacrifices or a recognition of their humanity? Would the Jews do the same for hitler? I think not. Black people wouldn’t do the same for white people. For some strange reasons victims of oppression tend not to glorify their oppressors, idk why.

Look I’m not gonna read your whole comment because I haven’t the care or the time or the monetary compensation for my time, but idk how to tell you that men do favor men at the expense of women. If they didn’t, why would women have to march for our rights? Wouldn’t you men be trying to help us gain full autonomy over our bodies? Wouldn’t you men be helping us liberate our sisters in oppressive countries? Wouldn’t you men be helping us vote rapists and abusers out of office? Like if y’all men truly love your women, would bleed and die for your women, then do. Don’t demonize movements like ‘me too’ in which y’all prioritize men’s reputation over a woman’s personhood. Step y’all pussy game up🤮

[–]problem_redditor 16 points17 points18 points 6 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

Oh, if you don't like how long my previous comment was then you'll HATE this.

1/4

And I’m sorry but what privileges did women have at the time? The privilege of being your mans property?

Oh fuck off with that "women were property" bullshit. When a man married a woman, he was legally obligated to feed, clothe and shelter her to the best of his ability. He could not sell her. He could not return her for his money back. He could not drop her at the local midden heap. He could not destroy her the way he could his actual chattels. He could not trade her for a better one. He could not legally neglect her.

Here is a summary list of privileges that women enjoyed in marriage during the old "patriarchal" system of the past (again, there are some quotes from u/girlwriteswhat in these comments so I feel like I need to credit her).

When a woman married, she had to hand over her property to her husband's care (as he was administrator of the family), but he OWED her not just a living, but the best living he was financially capable of providing for her. A wife was entitled to be maintained by her husband.
Women had the Law of Agency, giving them the legal right to purchase goods on their husbands' credit as their agent. If the wife racked up debts that the husband couldn't pay, she was immune from liability for the debts she racked up - that liability fell to the husband instead. "She's out of control and does what she wants, regardless of my wishes," was not a valid legal defence for those men.
Women were protected from prosecution for any number of crimes if they could prove their husbands were aware of said crimes. In which case, he would be prosecuted in her stead--not just held AS responsible as she was, but held solely responsible for her actions. This allowed married women to displace accountability for a large number of offences onto their husbands.
The first legal domestic violence provisions existed to protect women from abusive husbands, not the other way around. Wives could obtain ‘surety for the peace’ – a bond which obliged a husband to keep the peace towards his wife – against violent husbands.
When women lost custody of their children, they owed nothing financially to the kids or their ex husband. When men lost custody, they were held fully financially responsible under the law for the ex wife and kids.
Women were exempt from paying taxes, and there was an entire female underground economy of barter and trade that was not subject to taxation or government interference. Even when married women gained the right to hold property within marriage, it was their husbands who were responsible for the taxes owing on it, and it was their husbands who were held 100% financially liable for providing all necessaries to the family, including the wife, even if she made more money than he did.
Women were exempt from the military draft (even mandatory war work, like sewing uniforms).
Women were exempt from civil conscription, like bucket brigades, the special constabulary and "hue and cry" laws (which are like the "good samaritan law in that last episode of Seinfeld).

Of not being allowed to work

False. Women were always able to work.

https://www.history.org/foundation/journal/spring04/women.cfm

"For most girls, becoming a blacksmith was probably not a dream. Husband, family, home: those were the pursuits of a young woman of the eighteenth century. Finding a woman or women working at all outside the home, much less in a male-dominated trade, most likely meant the dream wasn't shaping up the way they'd hoped. Some women worked because they had no choice."

"Though there was no system of standards governing the trades in the colonies, the method of learning a trade generally followed the apprenticeship guidelines established by the guilds in medieval England and Europe. Women were not excluded from membership in any of the earlier guilds. The Worshipful Company of Blacksmiths in London lists sixty-five "brethren" and two "sistren" in its 1434 charter."

And...

"The colonies are full of widows running businesses. A cursory visit to the restored colonial capital will introduce guests to many taverns run by women, and to Clementina Rind, the Virginia Gazette printer who published Thomas Jefferson's Summary View of the Rights of British America in 1774. She took over the business when her husband died. Between the seventeenth and early nineteenth centuries, there are records of at least twenty-one widows running their late husbands' printing businesses. Mrs. Jose Glover set up shop at Harvard, Massachusetts, in 1638 after her husband died on a ship from England. Sarah Goddard ran the Providence Gazette in Rhode Island, learning the business from her brother. Elizabeth Bushell learned from her father, and ran The Halifax Gazette in Canada, from 1752 until 1761. Jane Aitken's father left her his Philadelphia printing business in 1796, favoring her over her brother, who was apparently an "idler tippler and little better than a vagrant, cut off without a sixpence.""

And...

"Though creative research has produced evidence of women working at male-dominated occupations in the eighteenth century and before, there is undoubtedly more documentation out there, in newspapers, diaries, legal proceedings, and prints. What is more compelling is the lack of documentation that women were not allowed to work. Although religious practices and social norms might have restricted certain activities in some parts of the world, there were no laws prohibiting women from working a trade."

[+]nixxiepixie -16 points-15 points-14 points 6 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Idk if you know but this is literally what you opened with: “oh stfu about how women were property of men! Sure, women WERE property of the men but they were forced to treat the women like PEOPLE and not objects”. Nigha....

And since you wanna be counting shiiid I’ll count too. That was one, 2. You’re upset that women were allowed to buy things with what money they had little agency over, seriously? Do you not see how fucked up what you’re saying is?

Has it occurred to you yet that men had to take responsibility for their women’s actions because women weren’t viewed as sentient autonomous beings like men were? And you call this a ‘privilege’ lololol
Maybe the first preventative measures against domestic abuse protected women against men because a domestic abuse case in which a woman was abusing a man was quite rare in those times seeing as A) women had less rights, B) men had more rights than women, and C) women are socialized to be subservient to men and men are socialized to take what they will from women.
You state this privilege like it isn’t a direct result of the patriarchy?
Women weren’t taxed because women were the property of the man. Same reason you don’t tax children.
You state this like this isn’t a direct result of the patriarchy? Part VII

And you’re right, women were allowed to work subservient roles however they were not allowed in government or leadership positions. And while they were no laws prohibiting women from working, law is enacted by man. And that prohibited women from working. You’re welcome.

[–]girlwriteswhat 20 points21 points22 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

One: “oh stfu about how women were property of men! Sure, women WERE property of the men but they were forced to treat the women like PEOPLE and not objects”

This is ridiculous. Men had no legal duty of care toward the actual property they owned, nor any obligation to commit to own it until death. The closest analog for the handicaps inherent in the legal status of a married woman under coverture is the husband's ward. However, even this is too simplistic, since a legal ward doesn't typically have blanket signing authority on her guardian's credit card.

Two: That's a strange way to describe a nearly blanket authority to spend money that technically belongs to someone else.

Moreover, Millicent Fawcett was the woman who led the first campaign to change marital property laws in Britain. She did so after her purse was snatched, when she was shocked to hear the police and court referring to the money therein as being the property of her husband and not herself.

This was a legal handicap she had apparently lived under her entire married life without even knowing it.

Court records going back to at least the 1600s would appear to reveal that this was the case for a great many married women--women who only discovered this legal handicap when major disagreements over marital finances occurred, such as a dispute over the sale of valuable property she brought into the marriage, or disposition of property during legal separation.

Meanwhile, Fawcett--like all married women of her time--would have been reminded daily of the legal privilege they had to walk into any mercantile, make purchases, and tell the shopkeeper to bill their husbands. The law of agency was just that: the designation of the wife as the legal agent acting on behalf of her husband.

Court records also reveal that during legal separation, many women were not above abusing this privilege, racking up massive debts in their estranged husbands' names to strong-arm their husbands into more generous maintenance settlements. The courts did not consider a notice in a newspaper or on a town message-board that the man would no longer be responsible for his wife's debts to be sufficient to immunize him. He was expected to personally notify every shop owner in the area to refuse sale of goods to his wife. Even having done so would not necessarily absolve him of the debts, as only a maintenance settlement registered with the court could completely vitiate her status as his agent.

And of course, as far as maintenance goes, we're mostly talking about alimony for life here, because the couples involved were typically stuck in the limbo of legal separation. Divorce in Britain required an act of parliament, and as such was only really accessible to the upper class. In such cases, if the woman remarried, her ex husband could be absolved of his obligation to support her, but again, for the middle and lower classes the best that could be done is legal separation, meaning his obligation to HER remained in place for life, while she owed him nothing whatsoever in return.

Peasants (who rarely officially married, but more typically married common law) had a practice called "wife selling" to deal with this problem. The practice usually followed an infidelity on the part of the wife, mostly with her full and often enthusiastic cooperation, and with the tacit but obvious goal of publicly "auctioning" her to the man she actually wanted to be with. While there might be many bidders, it was understood that her paramour would win the auction, and other bids were merely ways of upping the price to penalize the adulterer. The husband was thereby compensated for the loss of the VERY necessary economic and domestic contributions of a wife, and the wife got to "marry" the guy she preferred to her husband. After the "sale", the original husband was no longer considered responsible for her upkeep.

Three: "Has it occurred to you yet that men had to take responsibility for their women’s actions because women weren’t viewed as sentient autonomous beings like men were? And you call this a ‘privilege’ lololol"

Actually, in some ways, women were viewed by the community as having more moral agency than they are now. That they were largely exempt from criminal and financial penalties if there was a husband they could offload those consequences on does not mean they were not viewed as sentient or autonomous, nor that they were exempt from any and all penalty.

Social scorn was HUGE, particularly considering women's greater dependence on community goodwill. Many forms of punishment for women's bad actions were socially, not legally, imposed.

And frankly, when black people's actions are more aggressively enforced by the system than white people's actions, we don't say that white people are oppressed and black people privileged. Furthermore, if feminists want women's sentience and autonomy to be recognized, they're doing a piss-poor job of it. You have feminists in Britain advocating the blanket elimination of incarceration for female offenders. You have Madame Justice Hale of Britain's Supreme Court ordering magistrates and judges to be even more lenient on women criminals than they already are.

You have Louis CK, who verbally asked women if he could jerk it in front of them, and taking their various yeses and noes at face value, and suddenly he's a piece of shit who should never be allowed onstage again because the women who said yes had no capacity as autonomous beings to say no?

You have feminists wanting to cancel Aziz Ansari because a woman he had sex with somehow thought that stopping moving her hand while still sucking his dick would be an obvious enough "non-verbal cue" that he should have KNOWN she wasn't consenting. Expecting her to just verbally decline to suck his dick when he verbally asked her to? To put on her clothes and leave? To tell him, "not on the first date, why don't we watch a movie instead?" TO TAKE SOME FUCKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR HER OWN DECISIONS AND ACTIONS?

Anathema to a LOT of feminists.

Women don't CHOOSE to go into nursing instead of software development because they want to, yo. They're prevented from going into tech by sexist brogrammers (which you'd know is the dumbest characterization ever if you've met more than three coders). Those women WOULD choose tech if only we changed the entire culture and curriculum to suit them, lowered standards, made the math less hard, banned Star Trek figurines at the office, and while we're at it, let's get rid of all the autistic nerds who do 90% of the actual work because they make neurotypical women feel unwelcome and creeped out.

And why? BECAUSE APPARENTLY WOMEN HAVE NO FUCKING AGENCY. All obstacles must be removed and a straight, even path cleared for them, and they need to be guided, coddled and encouraged the entire way, otherwise they're like Roombas, just bouncing off of surfaces with no ability to steer themselves.

My grandmother, a career woman born into rural poverty in 1909, would look at the feminist agenda today and be disgusted at their complete erasure of feminine strength, competence, mettle, merit, perseverance, responsibility and, yes, agency. Thank god she died before Buzzfeed became a thing...

[–]apeironman 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]w1g2 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Maybe the first preventative measures against domestic abuse protected women against men because a domestic abuse case in which a woman was abusing a man was quite rare in those times.

Please read The Wife of Bath by Geoffrey Chaucer, circa 1386.

"Well, when I realized that he was never going to stop saying such things, I got so angry that I ripped three pages out of the book, right there as he was reading it. I also punched him in the face with my fist so hard that he fell backward into the fire in the fireplace."

https://www.sparknotes.com/nofear/lit/the-canterbury-tales/wife-of-baths-prologue/page_25/

Or a medieval tale called The Walking Crucifix:

"“Mino dashed over to his wife and started battering her. “So you heaped shame on me and now you’re making fun of me?” Feeling the blows, the woman, who was much more robust than Mino , began to hit him back. What with one blow and another, Mino was soon down on the floor with his wife on top of him, giving him a good hiding.”

She said: “What are you talking about? Take it any way you like. You get drunk in this place and that, then you come home and call me a whore. I’ll beat you harder than Tessa beat her husband Calandrino the painter in Boccaccio’s story.”

Calandrino and Tessa from Boccaccio's Decameron (1353)

"Then, coming up to the door of the barn, the lady, who was all a-fume with rage, dealt it such a push with her hands that she sent it flying, and entering, saw Niccolosa astride of Calandrino. The former, seeing the lady, started up in haste and taking to flight, made off to join Filippo, whilst Dame Tessa fell tooth and nail upon Calandrino, who was still on his back, and clawed all his face; then, clutching him by the hair and haling him hither and thither. Accordingly he returned to Florence, chapfallen and woebegone, all flayed and scratched, and never ventured to go thither again."

An old practice amongst many societies has been Shivaree, Charivari, Skimmington Ride. All of these involve shaming and ridiculing individuals for something that the townspeople disapprove of. In addition to many other uses for it, shivaree occurred when a man beat his wife as well as when a woman beat her husband.

“With a ran, tan, tan, On my old tin can, Mrs. _ and her good man. She bang’d him, she bang’d him, For spending a penny when he stood in need. She up with a three-footed stool; She struck him so hard, and she cut so deep, Till the blood run down like a new stuck sheep!”

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

Samuel Pepys recorded in his diary, 10 June 1667: “in the afternoon took boat and down to Greenwich, where I find the stairs full of people, there being a great riding there to-day for a man, the constable of the town, whose wife beat him.”[4]

A Frenchman who traveled in England reported in 1698:

I have sometimes met in the streets of London a woman carrying a figure of straw representing a man, crown’d with very ample horns, preceded by a drum, and followed by a mob, making a most grating noise with tongs, grid-irons, frying-pans, and sauce-pans. I asked what was the meaning of all this; they told me that a woman had given her husband a sound beating, for accusing her of making him a cuckold, and that upon such occasions some kind neighbour of the poor innocent injur’d creature generally performed this ceremony."

https://www.purplemotes.net/2013/01/27/charivari-sex-inequality/

Something to note is that there was very different attitudes and punishments for men who beat their wives vs wives who beat their husbands. The cry given for a shivaree for a wifebeater demonstrates this quite well:

There is a man in this place Has beat his wife!! Has beat his wife!! It is a very great shame and disgrace To all who live in this place, It is indeed upon my life!!

Old Abram Higback has been paying his good woman; But he neither paid her for what or for why, But he up with his fist and blacked her eye.

Now all ye old women, and old women kind, Get together, and be in a mind; Collar him, and take him to the shit-house, And shove him over head.

Now if that does not mend his manners, The skin of his arse must go to the tanners; And if that does not mend his manners, Take him and hang him on a nail in Hell.

And if the nail happens to crack, Down with your flaps, and at him piss.

https://www.purplemotes.net/2013/01/27/charivari-sex-inequality/

Note the stronger condemnation of the husband for beating his wife. A great shame to all, he belongs in hell, let's piss on him and rip the skin off his ass.

When a man beat his wife, he was the sole recipient of the social censure. But when a man was beaten by his wife, he was often enough the sole recipient of the social censure for having allowed it to happen.

Men beating their wives has been portrayed and treated as a horrible thing for centuries, even millennia. Women beating their husbands has been portrayed and treated as funny for centuries, even millennia. It isn't because they thought of women as weak and therefore incapable of enacting any harm on men.

Although society might have tsk tsked at women who beat their husbands because of a societal expectation that he be the head of the house, the one in control, without those dependent on him trying and capable of usurping his role, the punishment for trying to do so was very light indeed, if you were his wife, that is.

In comparison, a king would have the ability to punish his subjects with impunity, and his subjects would receive a heavy punishment for the smallest of infractions against him. Yet we see the reverse with the relationship of husband and wife in history: the king (husband) is heavily punished for treating his subject (wife) ill, but the subject (wife) can abuse her king (husband) while only receiving a slap on the wrist for it.

[–]nixxiepixie -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I wasn’t gonna reply but the last part of your comment has me...curious. Did you just wonder why the king is heavily punished for treating his subject (mind you, women are of the same species, genus, phylum, kingdom, etc as men, just an fyi.) ill, but the subject (do you understand that you’re inherently putting a woman in a position of subservience to a man, and this is how you probably think irl and lemme just say it’s prolly why you’re a virgin/responsible for your lack of female companionship. Of substance.

Your whole comment reads weird and you’re either a kid in high school that hates women because you feel like you’re entitled to our bodies , time, or labor somehow or you’re a grown ass adult with mommy issues that hate women for the same reason. Either way, pathetic and smelly. Step your pussy game up, boii.

[–]SubstantialTension3 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]nixxiepixie -2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Is it that feminism is painting the picture that men are directly oppressing women to serve their self interest, or is it that that’s how many people who don’t have the intellectual capacity and openness to grasp what feminism is about interprets? Because a big thing in feminism is that oppression isn’t autonomous; meaning that Ajay himself can’t produce my oppression, merely reinforce and contribute to what’s already existing. I feel like so many people misinterpret what feminism is about because the first reaction to progress or anything new or changing IS opposition-a human response, not an oppressor response, it just happens to present itself in oppressors more frequently. I feel like if a lot of people with privilege can set aside their egos to listen to those who don’t have privilege, we can work together to amplify, uplift, and do some actual change. We’re a society it’s all about helping each other, amirite.

And history is paved with human rights violations. If men didn’t have full autonomy of their bodies now, or if the lack of autonomy of their bodies previously directly impacted them today then it would be an issue to be had. Otherwise it’s a non-issue. Men have full autonomy of their bodies. Fucking A. Now let’s get that for everybody.

[–]problem_redditor 13 points14 points15 points 6 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

4/4

Wouldn’t you men be helping us liberate our sisters in oppressive countries?

The idea that "men" or people in general don't care about helping women in oppressive countries is so off-base, I don't even know how to tackle this. Even in warzones, where the vast majority of deaths are men, people will focus on the minority of female deaths. When the terrorist group Boko Haram kidnapped girls, it was enough for the international community to start offering assistance and aid in dealing with Boko Haram, but nobody offered any help before when boys were being kidnapped and killed in far greater numbers.

https://www.oxfam.org/en/west-africa-crisis-nigeria/missing-men-and-boys-nigerias-unfolding-tragedy

"In an Oxfam protection survey with communities affected by violence done last year, people reported 41% more killings of men and boys by Boko Haram than of women and girls; and the number is even higher among adults, with 77% more men killed than women."

These oppressive countries are not just oppressive to women, but EVERYBODY. We so readily malign the cultures in third world societies such as Pakistan and Afghanistan for placing such severe restrictions on women and girls, and yes, this is a legitimate issue, but we ignore the other side of the coin: most notably how the men and boys are forced, yes, forced, to work to support their female relatives. Islamic law and custom is so strict on this set of entitlements and obligations that in Afghanistan, you can find 13 year old boys selling themselves as sex slaves to provide for their mothers and sisters.

For fucks sake, this is so widespread that in Afghanistan there's even a slang name for it: "bacha bazi", which translates as 'boy play'. It describes a wide variety of activities involving sexual relations between older men and younger adolescent men, or boys. Bacha Bazi is currently reported in various parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Force and coercion are common, and security officials state they are unable to end such practices because many of the men involved in bacha bazi-related activities are powerful and well-armed warlords.

Everybody everywhere seems to only ever care about the status of women and girls in these third world countries, but nobody seems to give a fuck about the wellbeing of the men and boys there.

And you think women are disadvantaged?

Wouldn’t you men be helping us vote rapists and abusers out of office?

For god's sake. Again, the idea that men or society as a whole "protects" rapists and abusers of women is so off-base I almost don't know how to respond to this. There are intense social stigmas around male violence against women, it gets nonstop media coverage, and evokes disgust and outrage in those who witness it. Men who are accused of rape are socially ostracised and dragged through the dirt by both men and women regardless of if there is evidence or not to support the accusation.

Oh, and legally, many countries (such as Spain) consider it a special crime, regardless of circumstance. The UN has innumerable initiatives to protect women and girls globally from everything from domestic violence to war rape to sexual assault to child marriage to genital cutting.

Every western country (and many nonwestern ones, such as India) has a federal minister, department, commission, etc, on the status of women (and girls), and one of its primary mandates is reducing violence against women (and girls). Most have federal legislation specifically criminalizing it and providing billions of dollars in funds to prevent it and assist victims. A lot of this legislation infringes on long-cherished due process protections that are afforded to any other type of criminal perpetrator.

This is how "oppressed" women are. Already the safest demographic in society, women are also considered the most deserving of protection (even above children), and our societies are more than willing to violate the rights of other people to provide it.

[–]problem_redditor 13 points14 points15 points 6 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

2/4

or vote

Yes, women didn't have the right to vote for most of history, but neither did men. Property owners had the vote, the vast majority of men did not. Male suffrage was something that was fought for. And just because most women did not have the vote back then does not mean that women were being oppressed solely on the basis of their sex. It was because the vote (and other citizenship rights) at the time was seen as linked to citizenship responsibilities such as the obligation to be conscripted and fight in war, something which women were not obligated to do. And still aren't.

This was an era where full citizenship rights were granted only to those with citizenship responsibilities (and sometimes not even then).

In that historical context, the vote was actually viewed not just as a right, but also as a duty that incurred other obligations.

So one of the reasons that people opposed female suffrage was because they felt that giving people the vote who did not owe these obligations was a moral hazard. Women would have an equal say in making laws that only men could be made to enforce. Women could swing a vote in favor of a war that only men could be forced to fight.

Something that makes this even more muddy than it already is is that: the reason why votes for women took so long was not because men kept it from them: it's because a huge amount of women did not want the vote and objected to it being imposed on them. There were many female anti-suffragettes.

Here's a 1903 article from the Atlantic talking about women's opposition to suffrage:

https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/306616/

I quote:

"She is unwilling to say to her son, to her brother, or to her husband, "I have decreed this; you must see that my decree is enforced on the reluctant or the resisting." She does not wish that he should act on her judgment against his own in obedience to her will; still less that he shall, in obedience to her will, compel others to act in violation both of their judgment and of his. And yet this is just what suffrage always may and sometimes must involve. The question, Shall woman vote, if translated into actual and practical form, reads thus: Shall woman decide what are the rights of the citizen to be protected and what are the duties of the citizen to be enforced, and then are her son and her brother and her husband to go forth, armed, if need be, to enforce her decision? Is this where the functional line between the sexes is to be drawn? Are women to make the laws and men to enforce them? Are women to decree, and men to execute? Is woman never to act as a private, but only as a commander-in-chief? Is this right? Is it right that one sex shall alone enforce authority, but the other sex determine when and how it shall be exercised? Is this expedient? Will it promote peace, order, prosperity? Is it practicable? Will it in fact be done? Suppose that in New York city the women should vote for prohibition and the men should vote against it; is it to be expected that the men would arm themselves to enforce against their fellow men a law which they themselves condemned as neither wise nor just?"

There were many, many female-led anti-suffrage societies. Here is a document by one such anti-suffrage society in Illinois detailing "Woman's Protest against Woman Suffrage".

And I quote:

"We acknowledge no inferiority to men. We claim to have no less ability to perform the duties which God has imposed upon us than they have to perform those imposed upon them. We believe that God has wisely and well adapted each sex to the proper performance of the duties of each. We believe our trusts to be as important and sacred as any that exist on earth. We believe woman suffrage would relatively lessen the influence of the intelligent and true, and increase the influence of the ignorant and vicious. We feel that our present duties fill up the whole measure of our time and ability, and are such as none but ourselves can perform. Our appreciation of their importance requires us to protest against all efforts to infringe upon our rights by imposing upon us those obligations which cannot be separated from suffrage, but which, as we think cannot be performed by us without the sacrifice of the highest interests of our families and or society. It is our fathers, brothers, husbands, and sons who represent us at the ballot-box. Our fathers and our brothers love us; our husbands are our choice and one with us; our sons are what we make them. We are content that they represent us in the corn-field; on the battle-field, and at the ballot-box, and we them in the school room, at the fireside, and at the cradle, believing our representation even at the ballot-box to be thus more full and impartial than it would be were the views of the few who wish suffrage adopted, contrary to the judgment of the many. We do herefore respectfully protest against any legislation to establish “woman suffrage” in the State of Illinois."

Similarly, in the UK, many women were opposed to woman suffrage.

https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1910/jul/11/parliamentary-franchise-women-bill

"Still, for what it is worth, one finds that from 1890–1906 only 193,000 women signed Petitions to this House in favour of female suffrage, and that during the last eighteen months, a period in which a strong anti-suffrage association has been in existence, 300,000 women, some of them eminent women, have signed petitions against it, and to the effect that these proposals shall not be forced upon them. A rather interesting illustration was furnished by an inquiry which was instituted by "The Sheffield Independent," a newspaper which I think itself is sympathetic with these proposals. This inquiry was addressed to the women householders of Sheffield. Twenty-three thousand papers were sent out, and of the replies 9,000 were in favour of woman suffrage and 14,000 were against it. The representatives of this paper reported that in many cases their emissaries were chased with violence from the houses by the female inhabitants under the impression that they were collecting statistical matter as the emissaries of the suffragist party."

or own your own anything? Deadass bro, cause sis is confused.

Single women had all the same rights to property and financial self determination single men had. Single women otherwise known as "femme sole" did have the right to own property, had the right to enter into contracts, and overall had the same rights as single men. It was only when they married that they sacrificed some of their rights to own property and enter into contracts in their own name. Still, women could retain property in marriage through ‘separate estate’ – a means by which property could be protected for the sole use of the wife during matrimony.

[+]nixxiepixie -8 points-7 points-6 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]bufedad 12 points13 points14 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]problem_redditor 13 points14 points15 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

3/4

but idk how to tell you that men do favor men at the expense of women.

You are wrong.

There is plenty of research that demonstrates that we care a huge amount about women.

Women have a strong "in group" bias where they favor/protect/side with other women.

Now, you'd think that men would also have an in group bias favoring other men but that's not the case.. Men actually have an "out group" bias where they also favor/protect women over other men - men lack a mechanism that bolsters in-group bias.

Let me provide you with the evidence. These biases have been proven with multiple scientific studies.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15491274

"Four experiments confirmed that women's automatic in-group bias is remarkably stronger than men's and investigated explanations for this sex difference, derived from potential sources of implicit attitudes (L. A. Rudman, 2004). In Experiment 1, only women (not men) showed cognitive balance among in-group bias, identity, and self-esteem (A. G. Greenwald et al., 2002), revealing that men lack a mechanism that bolsters automatic own group preference. Experiments 2 and 3 found pro-female bias to the extent that participants automatically favored their mothers over their fathers or associated male gender with violence, suggesting that maternal bonding and male intimidation influence gender attitudes. Experiment 4 showed that for sexually experienced men, the more positive their attitude was toward sex, the more they implicitly favored women. In concert, the findings help to explain sex differences in automatic in-group bias and underscore the uniqueness of gender for intergroup relations theorists."

Yet another study showed that men were more likely to be sacrificed for the benefit of others than women, and that we perceive harming women as "more morally unacceptable".

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/men-more-likely-to-be-sacrificed-for-the-benefit-of-others-than/

"In one experiment a group of subjects was given £20 and told that any money they held at the end of the experiment would be multiplied up to 10 times. In the course of the experiment the subjects interacted with other individuals. They were told that if they decided to keep the money, these individuals would be subjected to mild electric shocks, but if they gave up the money, no shocks would be administrated.

Women were less likely than men to be subjected to shocks, suggesting an aversion to harming females - even when this came at the subjects’ own financial expense. While both female and male subjects were less likely to shock women than men, women in particular were less willing to shock other women.

Subjects were also asked questions such as: “On a sinking ship, whom should you save first? Men, women, or no order”; and “According to social norms, how morally acceptable is it to harm men/women for money?” Overall, the answers of both female and male respondents suggested that social norms account for greater harming behavior toward a male than a female target.

“There is indeed a gender bias in these matters: society perceives harming women as more morally unacceptable,” explains co-author Dean Mobbs, an assistant professor of psychology at Columbia University."

And a study of adolescent boys and girls showed that we produce more empathy towards women than towards men.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5112287/

"Gender differences were investigated in the experience of empathic sadness towards same- versus other-sex targets. The relationships were studied cross-sectionally (N = 730) and longitudinally (N = 318) with Dutch adolescents using the empathic sadness scale of the Index of Empathy for Children and Adolescents (IECA; Bryant 1982). In both studies, female adolescents reported more empathic sadness than did male adolescents. Female targets also received more affective empathy than did male targets, and, more importantly, gender differences were observed in same-sex versus other-sex affective empathy. Specifically, in both studies male adolescents reported less empathic sadness towards same-sex than towards other-sex targets. In contrast, female adolescents reported more empathic sadness towards same-sex than towards other-sex targets in the cross-sectional study, and equal levels of empathic sadness towards both types of targets in the longitudinal study.".

Full text: https://sci-hub.shop/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15491274

A 2009 study found that respondents were "particularly likely to condemn men's assaults on women, and to favor reporting them. The pattern appears to reflect both greater moral condemnation of men's assaults on women and the belief that the victims of these assaults are in greater danger."

Both men and women have more stronger feelings of positive affiliation with women, are less likely to harm women, and produce more empathy towards women than towards men. People care more about women, and are more concerned with the wellbeing of women than men.

[–]Egalitarianwhistle 10 points11 points12 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]apeironman 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BotThatSaysBro 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LettuceBeGrateful 20 points21 points22 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]nixxiepixie -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

You’re told feminism is for men but what is being said is ‘feminism also works against the systems that disadvantage you too, by default’. Like feminist work against the patriarchy, which also dictates that men should feel shame surrounding negative non-violent emotions.

How has activist feminism harmed men? Explain. Don’t run from this I want actual proof because you sound like a complete nut bro.

Men’s right activism is a direct and opposing response to feminism, a movement about female liberation. Of COURSE we finna think you don’t like women. And y’all main points bash movements like ‘me too’, showing y’all prioritize male reputation over female livelihood. Which is just weird and gross but y’all...do y’all.

And I have no problem with men talking about male issues, in fact I encourage it because y’all weirdos tend to talk about US when y’all aren’t talking about y’all and we don’t want that lmfao. You see maybe if you were talking about an actual men’s issue, I’d be all down for it. But you’re not, and this post wasn’t it. Like complaining why BLM movement doesn’t fight against white lives 😭😭

[–]LettuceBeGrateful 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

How has activist feminism harmed men?

Happy to explain:

Women's advocacy groups, including feminists, torpedoed the Equal Rights Amendment. As a result, men are specifically excluded from having the legal right to genital integrity and thousands of baby boys are brutally cut every day. Also, only men are obligated to sign up for the Selective Service, again based on their assigned-at-birth sex.
Mary P. Koss, one of the most decorated feminists of the past few decades, published seminal research on rape that resulted in the current legal definition of rape: forced penetration. (Here she is in 2015 (skip to 8:30) claiming that a man is not raped, even if drugged and physically forced into sex. She considers it merely "unwanted contact.") As a result, false statistics are still published to this day saying that the vast majority of rape victims are women, when in reality half of rape victims are men.
The Duluth Model, an explicitly feminist DV intervention framework, is widely practiced by American police. As a result, a male abuse victim is twice as likely as his abuser to be arrested.
The National Organization for Women has torpedoed alimony and child support reform which had both popular and bipartisan support. (It also recently tweeted that men who are suing schools for unjust expulsion are bullies and rapists, which tells us how NOW views the presumption of innocence for men.)

There. Specific historical answers. Also, for all your insistence about fighting the nebulous "patriarchy," what is feminism doing about the following:

Establishing men's DV shelters.
Passing gender-neutral genital integrity laws.
Updating rape laws and DV literature so men are included in the discourse and resource appropriation (under the PPACA, only women are entitled to free DV counseling).
Addressing the gender sentencing gap, which is six times larger than the racial sentencing gap.
Undoing the horribly sexist feminist Duluth model, which makes it safer for an abused man to take the abuse rather than call for help.
Repealing archaic laws that force men to pay child support, even if they are statutory rape victims (see: Nick Olivas, Nathaniel J, Shane Seyer), or if the woman impregnated herself from a used condom or in vitro without his consent.

Like feminist work against the patriarchy, which also dictates that men should feel shame surrounding negative non-violent emotions.

Men do not feel shame because of an ill-defined "patriarchy." Here is a link from psychologist Brene Brown, who has studied shame in men:

http://www.dailygood.org/story/676/brene-brown-on-shame-and-the-courage-to-be-vulnerable/

I talk to men and, you know, what I heard over and over was some variation of, "look, my wife, my girlfriend, whomever, they say be afraid, they tell me, you know, share your vulnerability with me, open up, but the truth is, they can't stomach it.

"The truth is that, when I'm very vulnerable, when I'm in fear, when I talk about it openly, it permanently changes the dynamics in our relationship." And when I started sharing this with women or whenever I started interviewing couples, women are like, "oh, God, it's true. I want you to be open and I want there to be intimacy, but I don't want you go to there."

[...] I remember driving home and having this moment where I was like, oh, my God, I am the patriarchy

The shame men feel when expressing everyday vulnerability doesn't come from an ethereal "patriarchy," it comes from women's expectations, and what happens when we share our vulnerability with women. It also comes from a lack of acknowledgement in statistics and discourse. If we continue citing false statistics that women are 90% of rape/DV victims, abused men will feel more shamed, anomalous, and isolated. We directly have feminism to thank for the widespread myths that women are the vast majority of rape/DV victims.

showing y’all prioritize male reputation over female livelihood.

No. You made this up. Don’t run from this I want actual proof.

Our concern is that men's lives have been destroyed based on unsubstantiated (and sometimes demonstrably false) accusations:

Jonathan Kaimen.
Matt Boermeester. (Even the alleged victim said he was innocent.)
Boy arrested and spent summer under house arrest over false accusations. He's now being homeschooled due to bullying, and there has been no consequence for his false accusers.
Albert Wilson Sentenced To Jail For Rape But Didn’t Have Sex With Victim. More about the victim, if you're interested.

Every person should have the right to the presumption of innocence, regardless of gender. Prove that someone is a criminal, and I'll cheer when they're locked up.

[–]manumiss1on 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nixxiepixie -2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

...female circumcision is a thing too. Y’all Americans are so sheltered and ignorant. Also feminists aren’t the reason why circumcision of baby boys is normalized and accepted in the west.
Feminists aren’t responsible for the draft, either. Those things aren’t an effect caused by feminism.
...half of rape victims aren’t men. Women are disproportionately at a higher rate of victims of sexual assault. However feminism is the reason men can even find legal justice for being raped so fuck that Koss biich we don’t like white feminism here anyway?
The Duluth model isn’t a feminist anti-domestic violence framework, ya wierdo. Its to fight all domestic violence. Male victims being arrested for domestic violence would have to be a direct result of the patriarchy and gender roles dictating that men have more power. You’d not think a kid would abuse an adult. Feminists are trying to get the world and justice system to stop seeing women as having less power than men. A direct result of that would be fair and equal trials among the genders.
Idk why y’all hold the presumption of innocence of men (ie men’s reputation) over the presumption of believing the victim (ie a person’s personhood). Like y’all do realize how weird that is, right? Rape is extremely traumatic. Being skeptical of victims hurts more than being skeptical of innocent men. Innocent men have nothing to fear.
You ask what feminists are doing about men’s issues...have you tried asking men to tackle those specific issues? Why must feminism center men? Genuine question.
As a psych major I can tell you that one case study from one psychologist that isn’t heavily accepted within the community will do nothing to impress upon my opinion. There are multiple studies linking gender roles and the negative impact they have on members of those genders. But hey you can say fvck science, bro I ain’t judging.
Women are NOT RESPONSIBLE for insuring MENS EMOTIONS. Women are not responsible for the upkeep of men’s emotions. Women are not responsible for men. In a society in which men are in the position of power, expectations from women affect NOTHING. Women expect men to stop raping us, but it’s still 1 in 5 to 1 in 71 men. I expect men to stop trying to regulate my uterus but Alabama, Georgia, Texas, PP losing funding, etc is happening. So nah women’s expectations on men have little to do with men’s actions. I mean unless a man is getting something out of it.

[–]LettuceBeGrateful 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Few of these points are even responses to what I said, but for the sake of conversation, I'll respond one last time. Ironically, as Brene Brown said, this conversation is a perfect example of how people cannot sit with men in their vulnerability.

Of course FGM is a thing. As I said, feminists helped torpedo an amendment specifically because they wanted to preserve certain female privileges, at the expense of equal rights for men. The Female Genital Mutilation Act was passed in 1996, and for 22 years upheld a sexist federal standard that excluded boys. In the West, female circumcision is not a thing. Male circumcision is.
I never said feminists are responsible for the draft. See #1.
Yes, half of rape victims are men. If you include "made to penetrate" in the statistic, then it is literally 50-50.
"The feminist theory underlying the Duluth Model is that men use violence within relationships to exercise power and control. [...] According to the Duluth Model, 'women and children are vulnerable to violence because of their unequal social, economic, and political status in society.'"* - From wikipedia. The concept of male privilege is fundamental to the Duluth model.
We can hold both presumptions simultaneously. If someone is accused of rape, they have a right to a fair trial. If a friend says she is raped, I will believe her. What you're proposing necessitates stripping fundamental rights from the accused. Innocent men have gone to jail, per my examples, so your assertion is wrong.
Feminism doesn't need to tackle men's issues, but why say things like "feminism also works against the systems that disadvantage you too" if that isn't true?
It's not just one case study. A psych major would know that, and would know that Brene Brown is respected in the field in her area of specialty.
The Alabama law was written and passed by women, so it's not just men who are regulating women's bodies. You say women shouldn't change to ensure men's emotions, but what is "fighting the patriarchy" if women help uphold it? Are only men responsible for changing? If yes, that's sexist. If no, then that means nobody should change, in which case "fighting the patriarchy" is literally doing nothing aside from throwing around words like "systemic" and "dismantle."

It's alarming that you claim to be a psych major, but the minute we start talking about vulnerability and shame, you say "women are NOT RESPONSIBLE." Women as a group are not responsible for all men's feelings (obviously), but at an individual level, women are adults who are responsible for their actions, and that includes their treatment of men. I would have thought that you would jump on an opportunity to abolish traditional gender roles, but maybe that only applies if men are the ones changing their behavior.

[–]Omz-bomz 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Public_Masterbation 31 points32 points33 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]nixxiepixie -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Public_Masterbation 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BotThatSaysBro -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]KingKnotts 11 points12 points13 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]nixxiepixie -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Male suicide is made into a joke by whom specifically? Give me a personal example where you have encountered a feminist, and not a woman-because unfortunately those things aren’t mutually synonymous, like common sense and personhood-who has made male suicide into a joke. Because 100% of feminists are trying to dismantle the patriarchy- the oppressive system that allows the conditions for men to be shamed for displaying non-violent negative emotions that account for the high suicidal tendencies in men. Also men having to register for the draft is the fault of the PATRIARCHY, not feminism.

Also feminism doesn’t oppose men’s voices, feminism is uplifting women’s voices. It’s just that progress looks like oppression to the privilege and y’all think equal mic time looks exactly like no mic time. Embarrassing on your part tbh

[–]KingKnotts 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11962537/Whats-so-funny-about-a-mens-rights-debate.html

Jess Philips for one, when it was suggested they discuss the issue of male suicide she laughed at them.

Feminists aren't trying to dismantle the patriarchy, they have also never considered any mens issues as important they only care about empowering women.

Feminism does oppose mens voices, they have repeatedly attempted to silence the voice of male victims. Feminists have consistently opposed the idea that anyone speaking up for men's rights should even have a platform. Look up why Earl Silverman committed suicide, guess who prevented him being able to have government funding for his shelter for male victims of domestic violence.... feminists that claimed it was mocking real victims of domestic violence.

Also for fucks sake you claimed anyone supporting men's rights hates women. YOU are the embarrassment.

[–]SpiritedProgrammer 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]nixxiepixie -3 points-2 points-1 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpiritedProgrammer 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Guys can’t hit you but you can hit them , you can swear at guys but when guys swear back at you they are just hate speeching , you don’t have to deal with financial fuck ups you do in your life , you can abort a baby and get out of your parental responsibilities but guys can’t and if a guy doesn’t want the baby if the mother gives birth men are still forced to pay the child support , life time alimony basically rewards women for being a bitch , women can sleep with any person they see and people can’t say anything anymore because its slut shaming , society teaches young men not to shame women and teaches women to shame men , you don’t have to go to war , you can enter colleges easily literally there are engineering programs only for women because women can’t compete with men in engineering so it’s easier for you guys to enter engineering thanks to your women privilege , marriage is rigged gamble only women benefits at the end , women can now eat anything they want and they are considered beautiful and if anyone says otherwise it’s fat shaming , if a married woman cheats the law says the guy she is cheating with must pay money to her husband this law basically punishes men for women’s bad behaviour , women’s husband’s wallet is hers , most women are extremely controlling and if they act this way they are considered empowered , women are able to make false rape accusations and get away with it ruining men’s life completely but if a men gets raped by a women they are not even hold accountable , women can lie about taking a birth control pill then get pregnant forcing men to pay for child support . Im kinda tired and i can’t think of anything else but I’m pretty sure if you check posts in this sub you will find more things .

[–]nixxiepixie -2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpiritedProgrammer 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]nixxiepixie -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpiritedProgrammer 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]nixxiepixie -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No one, especially not feminists, are gatekeeping the body positivity movement. The space is there for men. The space is there. Feminism isn’t about exclusivity.

Also beauty standards affect both men and women but disproportionately affect women as women are expected to look a lot less casual than men. Messy hair, body hair, fat rolls, etc is all accepted in men far more than women. This is why women are more likely to have eating disorders/disorders surrounding obsessive/compulsive tendencies surrounding outward appearance/outwardness. Fat acceptance doesn’t only benefit women, y’all are just not allowing it to benefit men. This is the first time I’ve ever heard about gatekeeping body positivity. And as a psych major, a person with an eating disorder, an an active body-positive person, this is the FIRST time I’m hearing that body positivity movement isn’t for men too. It just so happens that men’s natural bodies are more accepted than women’s, so women have to break down more barriers than men. That’s probably why you hear it discussed more by women. But there’s no gatekeeping in feminism.

[–]SpeedTuberYT 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]whibbleymoondanc 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

If you spent more than a few minutes here you would know your last sentence is incorrect. I am guessing that your experience and interaction with comments from this sub are extremist comments that are cross linked to 2x or some other feminist sub. Yes, there are hateful men her that detest women, but they are the minority, just like there are hateful women on feminist sites that want to “kill all men” but are not the majority there either. Unfortunately when we assess the opposition we often use the extreme viewpoints as a means to demonize them, push them away, and make yourself feel more noble and motivated to continue your quest against whatever group you agree with. This destroys communication and gives you exactly zero chance of coming to an actual understanding of the other groups actual view points and goals. For example, men here more often want equality for women in the sense that they have opportunity to be equal but not equal success SIMPLY because they are female and did not put the same work in that the male did. They also want equality with rape laws, child custody laws, prison sentencing, domestic violence laws, and mental health services. All these issues currently have overwhelming disparities against men. Feminists and feminism are not attempting to correct this disparity so here we are. If you or anyone else would like to have a productive and informative conversation I urge you to hang around and be open minded, and take extremist comments here with a grain of salt, understanding that many of use dismiss them as extremists, or at least understanding that their comments come from a lifetime of frustration.

[–]nixxiepixie 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]problem_redditor 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Really? Feminism is trying to improve the lot for men when it comes to rape laws, child custody laws, prison sentencing, domestic violence laws, and mental health services?

Yeah, no, they have done exactly the opposite of that.

The Duluth Model of domestic violence is based on feminist theory. It is predicated on a paradigm of domestic violence (DV) that assumes that men are aggressors and women are victims, which characterises DV as a primarily male-perpetrated crime caused by "patriarchal terrorism" and characterises any DV committed by women as "violent resistance" towards an abuser. It theorises that the reason for this gender disparity is that men are socialised in a patriarchal society that makes them feel entitled to have power, dominance and control over women. Supposedly, men who batter are using violence to to maintain their individual and societal patriarchal dominance over women.

This model, by the way, is incredibly widely accepted. It is the most commonly used model in the world and is the sole model in the majority of US states and across the English speaking west.

However, it is a flawed model and the statistical evidence contradicts this feminist narrative.

Here is the LARGEST set of meta analyses on domestic violence known as The Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project (PASK). Researchers were asked to conduct a formal search for published, peer-reviewed studies through standard, widely-used search programs, and then catalogue and summarize all known research studies relevant to each major topic and its sub-topics. Approximately 12,000 studies were considered and more than 1,700 were summarized and organized into tables.

The key findings were:

Among large population samples, 57.9% of IPV reported was bi-directional, 42% unidirectional; 13.8% of the unidirectional violence was male to female (MFPV), 28.3% was female to male (FMPV)
Among school and college samples, percentage of bidirectional violence was 51.9%; 16.2% was MFPV and 31.9% was FMPV
Male and female IPV perpetrated from similar motives – primarily to get back at a partner for emotionally hurting them, because of stress or jealousy, to express anger and other feelings that they could not put into words or communicate, and to get their partner’s attention.
Eight studies directly compared men and women in the power/control motive and subjected their findings to statistical analyses. Three reported no significant gender differences and one had mixed findings. One paper found that women were more motivated to perpetrate violence as a result of power/control than were men, and three found that men were more motivated; however, gender differences were weak

https://domesticviolenceresearch.org

So approximately half of domestic violence is reciprocal violence where both partners abuse each other. And in cases of non-reciprocal violence, female violence towards men is just as common, if not more common, as male violence against women. Abusers of both genders reported perpetrating violence for similar reasons.

However, researchers, activists and reformers who produce those results or support the idea of gender symmetry are ostracised and shamed for going against the prevailing narrative.

In 1971, Erin Pizzey opened the world's first DV shelter. She soon realized that most of the women there were as violent as, or more violent than, the men they were fleeing. So she began talking about it, and feminists protested against her. She began to receive regular bomb and death threats. She eventually had to flee England with her children due to all the protests, threats, and violence, and she has said she is banned from the refuge she started.

In 1977, Suzanne Steinmetz published a book and articles which clearly showed about equal rates of perpetration by males and females. Anger over this resulted in a bomb threat at her daughters’ wedding and she was the object of a letter writing campaign to deny her promotion and tenure at the University of Delaware.

In 1979, Murray Straus, a family violence researcher was challenged by some colleagues to conduct unbiased research on DV. What he found was gender symmetry in perpetration and victimization. He published his findings, and was subjected to a campaign of threats, blacklisting, shunning, having his grad students' careers sabotaged, etc etc.

These types of harassment have caused there to be widespread self-censorship by authors who fear that publishing this data will undermine their reputation, or in the case of graduate students, their ability to obtain a job.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228350210_Gender_symmetry_in_partner_violence_The_evidence_the_denial_and_the_implications_for_primary_prevention_and_treatment

So. Feminists have fought against acknowledgement of male victims and female perpetrators. They have pushed a faulty model which characterises domestic violence as a primarily or even uniquely male-on-female crime and have described it as patriarchal violence. Even worse, they have attacked and attempted to silence people who have dared to demonstrate gender symmetry in DV - even engaging in acts of terrorism to do so - which is especially egregious when you consider that men often experience unique barriers when seeking help.

There are many qualitative studies of male helpseekers who reveal that they are turned away, doubted, ridiculed by the formal systems in place that are supposed to prevent DV. Across multiple studies a huge amount of male victims reported being referred to batterers' programs when they called domestic violence hotlines, or arrested by the police who made the false presumption that the man was the primary aggressor. Within the judicial system, some men who sustained DV reported experiencing gender-stereotyped treatment. Even with apparent corroborating evidence that their female partners were violent and that the helpseekers were not, they reportedly lost custody of their children, were blocked from seeing their children, and were falsely accused by their partners of DV and abusing their children.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3175099/

[–]problem_redditor 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Regarding rape: The feminist Mary Koss, considered an expert on sexual violence, has pushed the idea that male victims of female perpetrators should not be considered as rape victims.

Here is a quote from a paper she wrote: "Detecting the Scope of Rape."

http://boysmeneducation.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Koss-1993-Detecting-the-Scope-of-Rape-a-review-of-prevalence-research-methods-see-p.-206-last-paragraph.pdf

Although consideration of male victims is within the scope of the legal statutes, it is important to restrict the term rape to instances where male victims were penetrated by offenders. It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman.

More shockingly here is an interview with Mary Koss on a radio program about men raped by women. I would encourage you to listen to the entire thing but this is a transcript of what she said:

https://soundcloud.com/889-wers/male-rape

The reporter Theresa Phung: "Dr. Koss says one of the main reasons the definition does not include men being forced to penetrate women is becuase of emotional trauma, or lack thereof."

Dr. Koss: "How do they react to rape. If you look at this group of men who identify themselves as rape victims raped by women you'll find that their shame is not similar to women, their level of injury is not similar to women and their penetration experience is not similar to what women are reporting."

Theresa Phung: "But for men like Charlie this isn't true. It's been eight years since he got off that couch and out of that apartment. But he says he never forgets."

Later on:

Theresa Phung: "For the men who are traumatized by their experiences because they were forced against their will to vaginally penetrate a woman.."

Dr. Koss: "How would that happen...how would that happen by force or threat of force or when the victim is unable to consent? How does that happen?"

Theresa Phung: "So I am actually speaking to someone right now. his story is that he was drugged, he was unconscious and when he awoke a woman was on top of him with his penis inserted inside her vagina, and for him that was traumatizing."

Dr. Koss: "Yeah."

Theresa Phung: "If he was drugged what would that be called?"

Dr. Koss: "What would I call it? I would call it 'unwanted contact'."

Theresa Phung: "Just 'unwanted contact' period?"

Dr. Koss: "Yeah."

The CDC has adopted her definition of rape in its research, adjusting the definition to specifically mean forced penetration of a victim and excluding victims who were forced to penetrate a penetrator, placing them into a separate category. This by definition excludes the vast majority of male victims of female perpetrators.

Sorry, I don't believe the idea that feminists are trying to correct these disparities at all because their actions demonstrate otherwise. If these disparities are caused by "the patriarchy" then feminists are doing a fucking awesome job helping the patriarchy.

[–]whibbleymoondanc 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Because you claimed it's about equality
Author	TheAndredal
Upvotes	5706
Comments	187
Date	October 5, 2019 12:59 PM UTC (6 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/ddmy6d/because_you_claimed_its_about_equality/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/because-you-claimed-its-about-equality.867586 https://theredarchive.com/post/867586

Comments