The NationStates Feminist Thread

[Galloism]

I'm really glad you noted those victims are insulted by being accused of femininity.

I'm even more glad you have get the main point: males' issues are ALWAYS just ONLY a matter of backfiring misogyny, as every Feminist knows well.
That's EXACTLY there's NO need to focusing on the very few and minor males' issue: Feminism, achieving equality for women, will automatically solve even the very few and minor males' issues.

Repeating the same bullshit claim doesn't make it true.

Remember, your hero, Koss, already is fighting to reinforce sexist problems facing male victims of rape:

Actively preventing a real consciousness regarding men raped by women wouldn't be simply a bigoted position: bigots are really bad but not totally evil, due most bigots thinks in good faith that their positions are good for humanity.
Actively preventing a real consciousness regarding men raped by women would be EVIL.

So Mary Koss is evil - she's used her position on gender studies to prevent a real consciousness regarding men raped by women. Keep in mind, the CDC used her definition to exclude male victims of female rape from the definition of rape victims, an action that resulted in the suppression of known facts:

That, among adults, male victim rape is almost as common as female victim rape in the current timeframe.

But that's not what Mary Koss did: you're quoting her out of context.

Really? Here's the context:

A further issue is the sex neutrality of reform statutes, which have been ignored in all but a handful of studies. Instead, focus has been restricted to female victims. [b]This restriction makes practical sense because over 90% of rapes identified in the National Crime Victimization Survey involve female victims. Although consideration of male victims is within the scope of the legal statutes, it is important to restrict the word rape to instances where male victims are penetrated by offenders. It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman. (E.G. struckman johnson 1991) A final problem is the practice of summing attempts and completed rapes. Although it follows common-law practice to include attempted rapes in the figure presented as "rape prevalence", separate reporting of attempted and completed rapes is less prone to confusion when comparing across studies.

Adding context doesn't help. In fact, it makes it worse.

Incidentally, the study she criticized for including male victims of rape showed that 16% of men at college reported forced sexual intercourse where they were an unwilling participant. Roughly 1 in 6, incidentally.

http://www.uvm.edu/~vtconn/v19/manzano.html

Now, it's a limited study, but Koss KNEW that female on male rape was prevalent. She read the study, or she wouldn't have cited it. She then chose to weasel word her definition to exclude male victims of rape, fully knowing that it was prevalent. Her weasel-word definition is now used by the CDC to erase male victims of rape.

And she knows it.

That's evil.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

In other words, Feminism, which is supposed to fight Patriarchy, is the Patriarchy? How confusing.

Oh, yes, because feminists find femininity insulting. Because no feminists give a shit about anything that has ever happened to a man. Okay. Sure.

I didn't make this shit up on my own. I'm getting a lot of the logic from - gasp - things feminists have written.

Well, actually not very confusing at all - from the right perspective. Because it focuses (in practical terms, not platitudes) on only women, it has been thoroughly infected with Traditionalist ideas without even being able to realize it. It's like mold spores that have been in the air for so long that no one can remember what they smell like, and no one can remember not feeling ill from them, so being sick with internalized traditionalism feels normal.

MRAs were the ones to start popularizing the idea of this Duluth Model as flawed and harmful to men, because their theoretical groundwork doesn't do things like call all male benefits from the gender system "male privilege" and all female benefits "benevolent sexism". Also, as men, they're more viscerally aware of what it feels like behind the curtain of male gender advertising, rather than what it feels like to be a consumer of male gender advertising ("look how confident I am! I has no vulnerabilitiez! Date me plz, cishetneurotypical women!").

(Female gender advertising is also a thing, that men are consumers of, obviously.)

Pretty damn sure no one puts males suffering domestic violence under the category of "male privilege." Doesn't seem it still isn't a symptom of the sexist system that most largely benefits men.

[Italios]

I'm really glad you noted those victims are insulted by being accused of femininity.

I'm even more glad you have get the main point: males' issues are ALWAYS just ONLY a matter of backfiring misogyny, as every Feminist knows well.
That's EXACTLY there's NO need to focusing on the very few and minor males' issues: Feminism, achieving equality for women, will automatically solve even the very few and minor males' issues.

So giving women gender equality in the few places were it doesn't exist will solve problems like male rape? I need more of an explanation on this, please.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Gallo, i salute you, you have far more patience than i do to constantly deal with this.

[Galloism]

I'm even more glad you have get the main point: males' issues are ALWAYS just ONLY a matter of backfiring misogyny, as every Feminist knows well.
That's EXACTLY there's NO need to focusing on the very few and minor males' issues: Feminism, achieving equality for women, will automatically solve even the very few and minor males' issues.

So giving women gender equality in the few places were it doesn't exist will solve problems like male rape? I need more of an explanation on this, please.

Oh, let me give you her source.

[Galloism]

Gallo, i salute you, you have far more patience than i do to constantly deal with this.

Someone might actually think her bullshit has a basis in reality. It's really a matter of containing the bullshit, not curing it.

[The Alexanderians]

So giving women gender equality in the few places were it doesn't exist will solve problems like male rape? I need more of an explanation on this, please.

Oh, let me give you her source.

I had a giggle at this...

[Chessmistress]

As per Duluth Model linked before, feminists actually have pushed into the territory of beyond-equal, and in terms of actual government law. They just convinced themselves, in that case, that that's not what they were doing, and that that land always rightfully belonged to them, like many an army has done throughout history.

Oh, I'm sorry, we're doing the snark thing now. Let me try this...

"Because being denied as a victim of domestic violence is male privilege, obviously."

No, it's a symptom of the patriarchy - the idea that men are always supposed to be the strong, invincible warriors and leaders. According to a patriarchal society's narrative, men shouldn't ever be victims of domestic violence - so when they are, it gets ignored and brushed off as the man being an effeminate and weak "pussy."

Being denied as a victim of domestic violence it's just because usually it doesn't happen so much.
Duluth Model, a FEMINIST policy, is right.
Domestic "abuses" by women are, in fact, almost always counter-reactions to abuse by our male partners, and that's EXACTLY what the Duluth Modle is indirectly highlighting.
There are some, very few, women who are really abusive, without quotation markls, but that's statistically irrelevant.
Males are not inherently/biologically more abusive than women, BUT, in fact, males are more abusive than women due the way they've been socialized.

[Jute]

I'm even more glad you have get the main point: males' issues are ALWAYS just ONLY a matter of backfiring misogyny, as every Feminist knows well.
That's EXACTLY there's NO need to focusing on the very few and minor males' issues: Feminism, achieving equality for women, will automatically solve even the very few and minor males' issues.

So giving women gender equality in the few places were it doesn't exist will solve problems like male rape? I need more of an explanation on this, please.

I think that really is a strong distortion of the actual intellectual foundation of feminism to the point where it's a nonsensical exaggeration.

[Dalcaria]

Well, Feminist or SJW. But the two seem interchangeable now.

Ah yes, the SJW. A toxic concoction of vitriol, idiocy and much ado about nothing. They're more harmful to ideologies than anything.

I concur. You and I may disagree on some points, but I think we both agree that equal rights for all are very important, but by being aggressive, blame laying, and factually inaccurate, they do more harm for all social movements than good.

[Jute]

Ah yes, the SJW. A toxic concoction of vitriol, idiocy and much ado about nothing. They're more harmful to ideologies than anything.

I concur. You and I may disagree on some points, but I think we both agree that equal rights for all are very important, but by being aggressive, blame laying, and factually inaccurate, they do more harm for all social movements than good.

That seems better than to shout at each other and only ever emphasize any bad points you find in the worldview of your opponent.

[Galloism]

No, it's a symptom of the patriarchy - the idea that men are always supposed to be the strong, invincible warriors and leaders. According to a patriarchal society's narrative, men shouldn't ever be victims of domestic violence - so when they are, it gets ignored and brushed off as the man being an effeminate and weak "pussy."

Being denied as a victim of domestic violence it's just because usually it doesn't happen so much.

Claim contradicted by evidence. Evidence already presented - repeatedly.

Denial ain't just a river in egypt.

Duluth Model, a FEMINIST policy, is right.

Questionable at best. No evidence of effectiveness of Duluth model over a placebo is presented.

Claim without evidence. Needs evidence to ascertain whether right or bullshit.

Domestic "abuses" by women are, in fact, almost always counter-reactions to abuse by our male partners, and that's EXACTLY what the Duluth Modle is indirectly highlighting.

Claim contradicted by evidence. Evidence already presented.

Denial ain't just a river in egypt.

There are some, very few, women who are really abusive, without quotation markls, but that's statistically irrelevant.

Claim contradicted by evidence. Evidence already presented - repeatedly.

Denial ain't just a river in egypt.

Males are not inherently/biologically more abusive than women, BUT, in fact, males are more abusive than women due the way they've been socialized.

Claim contradicted by evidence. Evidence already presented - repeatedly.

Denial ain't just a river in egypt.


Conclusion: post contains 95% bullshit, 5% material of brown and questionable quality. More tests needed on the 5%.

[Schwere Panzer Abieltung 502]

I think most 'anti feminists' deliberately misrepresent all feminists as the idea of a SJW just to discredit them.

[Dalcaria]

I'm really glad you noted those victims are insulted by being accused of femininity.

I'm even more glad you have get the main point: males' issues are ALWAYS just ONLY a matter of backfiring misogyny, as every Feminist knows well.
That's EXACTLY there's NO need to focusing on the very few and minor males' issues: Feminism, achieving equality for women, will automatically solve even the very few and minor males' issues.

Chessmistress, meet me. I'm a very special breed of person, what I like to call a "pragmatist". Pragmatists are an interesting people, who can have big goals or small goals. But what makes us all the same is seeing the step by step, practical process of getting something done. Thus far, you and every other rad fem out there, has failed to give a structured plan for how feminism achieving "equality" for women will solve all male issues, never mind demonstrating it with facts and evidence. You have the chance now to end this argument by summoning forth all the combined knowledge of all of feminism to show me this process. If you're successful in it, you just might end the debate. The ball is now in your court.

[Jute]

And what reason is there to stress that you aren't a feminist? It seems odd to make that distinction.

Because feminism does not represent my values. There is a lot of underlying philosophical, political, and pseudo-scientific hypothesis that I outright reject, and they may not represent all of feminism, but they are (by their own definition) feminist creations.

Like what? If it has to do with Christianity, there are Christian feminists, too.

I think most 'anti feminists' deliberately misrepresent all feminists as the idea of a SJW just to discredit them.

I'd agree with that, and it's not just with anti-feminists and feminism either.

[Italios]

So giving women gender equality in the few places were it doesn't exist will solve problems like male rape? I need more of an explanation on this, please.

Oh, let me give you her source.

Hehe…. Can't wait to dig deeper and see what else she's got up her sleeve!

So giving women gender equality in the few places were it doesn't exist will solve problems like male rape? I need more of an explanation on this, please.

I think that really is a strong distortion of the actual intellectual foundation of feminism to the point where it's a nonsensical exaggeration.

I had to read this a couple of times. You're to complicated for me, Jute. I think what you're trying to say is that saying that solving all of women's issues will solve all of men's is stupid and blatantly untrue. I just know that's what you mean. Right?

[Chessmistress]

I'm just curious: how many feminists, here, disagree with Duluth Model?
How many feminists, here, think that Duluth Model is basically wrong in its very basic principles?

This is the Duluth Model:
http://www.theduluthmodel.org/about/index.html

Since the early 1980s, Duluth—a small community in northern Minnesota— has been an innovator of ways to hold batterers accountable and keep victims safe.
The "Duluth Model" is an ever evolving way of thinking about how a community works together to end domestic violence.

A community using the Duluth Model approach:

Has taken the blame off the victim and placed the accountability for abuse on the offender.
Has shared policies and procedures for holding offenders accountable and keeping victims safe across all agencies in the criminal and civil justice systems from 911 to the courts.
Prioritizes the voices and experiences of women who experience battering in the creation of those policies and procedures.
Believes that battering is a pattern of actions used to intentionally control or dominate an intimate partner and actively works to change societal conditions that support men’s use of tactics of power and control over women.
Offers change opportunities for offenders through court-ordered educational groups for batterers.
Has ongoing discussions between criminal and civil justice agencies, community members and victims to close gaps and improve the community’s response to battering.

[Ashkera]

In other words, Feminism, which is supposed to fight Patriarchy, is the Patriarchy? How confusing.

Oh, yes, because feminists find femininity insulting. Because no feminists give a shit about anything that has ever happened to a man. Okay. Sure.

I didn't make this shit up on my own. I'm getting a lot of the logic from - gasp - things feminists have written.

The Duluth Model was created and implemented by feminists, ostensibly to fight the "patriarchy" because it was supposedly responsible for domestic violence, and directly enforces what some feminists would call a "Patriarchal" idea of gender roles.

In other words, insomuch as we use the idea of "patriarchy," the Duluth Model, a feminist creation, directly reinforces it.

...which is because Feminism has lots of traditionalism mixed in without realizing it. Victim and powerless are very traditional roles/ideas for/about women. Men as powerful and in charge is a very traditional idea about men. Framing a class struggle between powerless, low-agency women and powerful, high-agency men is accepting key frames from Traditionalism itself.

Pretty damn sure no one puts males suffering domestic violence under the category of "male privilege." Doesn't seem it still isn't a symptom of the sexist system that most largely benefits men.

It was just a snark comment to your snark comment. I tend to think snark is used too often these days.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Ah yes, the SJW. A toxic concoction of vitriol, idiocy and much ado about nothing. They're more harmful to ideologies than anything.

I concur. You and I may disagree on some points, but I think we both agree that equal rights for all are very important, but by being aggressive, blame laying, and factually inaccurate, they do more harm for all social movements than good.

Oh, absolutely.

I'll be the first to admit that feminism does needs to answer for a few things. Mainly the creation of a narrative that can be construed as sexist. I'll be the first to admit that certain elements of feminism, like TERFs, SWERFs and overall radfems, do more to harm the movement than aid it. These elements are not about equality. They're about supremacy. We do not gain equal footing by trampling on others. We don't need patriarchy, we don't need matriarchy. What we truly need is egalitarianism in society, as a whole.

I do believe that was the intention of feminism in the beginning; egalitarianism. And we need to get back to that. So, instead of feminists yelling at MRMs and MRMs yelling at feminists, we need to have a ceasefire, peace negotiations and a meeting in equal grounds on what needs to be done.

Chess and Ostro, the two main examples, are a blueprint on what we shouldn't be doing.

[Val Halla]

So women are all the same then Chess?

[Prussia-Steinbach]

I'm just curious: how many feminists, here, disagree with Duluth Model?
How many feminists, here, think that Duluth Model is basically wrong in its very basic principles?

This is the Duluth Model:
http://www.theduluthmodel.org/about/index.html

Since the early 1980s, Duluth—a small community in northern Minnesota— has been an innovator of ways to hold batterers accountable and keep victims safe.
The "Duluth Model" is an ever evolving way of thinking about how a community works together to end domestic violence.

A community using the Duluth Model approach:

Has taken the blame off the victim and placed the accountability for abuse on the offender.
Has shared policies and procedures for holding offenders accountable and keeping victims safe across all agencies in the criminal and civil justice systems from 911 to the courts.
Prioritizes the voices and experiences of women who experience battering in the creation of those policies and procedures.
Believes that battering is a pattern of actions used to intentionally control or dominate an intimate partner and actively works to change societal conditions that support men’s use of tactics of power and control over women.
Offers change opportunities for offenders through court-ordered educational groups for batterers.
Has ongoing discussions between criminal and civil justice agencies, community members and victims to close gaps and improve the community’s response to battering.

I don't see anything wrong with the quote provided.

[Galloism]

I'm just curious: how many feminists, here, disagree with Duluth Model?

Ultimately, popularity is irrelevant.

It either works, or it doesn't, and you've provided no evidence that the Duluth model works better than a community that has a model based around equality of treatment and intervention of the underlying causes of the domestic violence - namely, psychological and drug problems, money problems, etc.

[Galloism]

I'm just curious: how many feminists, here, disagree with Duluth Model?
How many feminists, here, think that Duluth Model is basically wrong in its very basic principles?

This is the Duluth Model:
http://www.theduluthmodel.org/about/index.html

I don't see anything wrong with the quote provided.

You mean other than it marginalizes and victimizes roughly half the victims of domestic violence, and directly leads to that class of victims being arrested for domestic violence more often than the perpetrators?

[Chessmistress]

Oh, yes, because feminists find femininity insulting. Because no feminists give a shit about anything that has ever happened to a man. Okay. Sure.

I didn't make this shit up on my own. I'm getting a lot of the logic from - gasp - things feminists have written.

The Duluth Model was created and implemented by feminists, ostensibly to fight the "patriarchy" because it was supposedly responsible for domestic violence, and directly enforces what some feminists would call a "Patriarchal" idea of gender roles.

In other words, insomuch as we use the idea of "patriarchy," the Duluth Model, a feminist creation, directly reinforces it.

...which is because Feminism has lots of traditionalism mixed in without realizing it. Victim and powerless are very traditional roles/ideas for/about women. Men as powerful and in charge is a very traditional idea about men. Framing a class struggle between powerless, low-agency women and powerful, high-agency men is accepting key frames from Traditionalism itself.

Pretty damn sure no one puts males suffering domestic violence under the category of "male privilege." Doesn't seem it still isn't a symptom of the sexist system that most largely benefits men.

It was just a snark comment to your snark comment. I tend to think snark is used too often these days.

Recognizing that males are socialized to being always dominant and sometimes abusives, and trying to address the HUGE problem domestic violence and gender violence (that is, in fact, just only the violence against women, as defined in the Convention of Istanbul) that derives from that, is TOTALLY UNRELATED with reinforcing gender roles.

[Galloism]

The Duluth Model was created and implemented by feminists, ostensibly to fight the "patriarchy" because it was supposedly responsible for domestic violence, and directly enforces what some feminists would call a "Patriarchal" idea of gender roles.

In other words, insomuch as we use the idea of "patriarchy," the Duluth Model, a feminist creation, directly reinforces it.

...which is because Feminism has lots of traditionalism mixed in without realizing it. Victim and powerless are very traditional roles/ideas for/about women. Men as powerful and in charge is a very traditional idea about men. Framing a class struggle between powerless, low-agency women and powerful, high-agency men is accepting key frames from Traditionalism itself.



It was just a snark comment to your snark comment. I tend to think snark is used too often these days.

Recognizing that males are socialized to being always dominant and sometimes abusives, and trying to address the HUGE problem domestic violence and gender violence (that is, in fact, just only the violence against women, as defined in the Convention of Istanbul) that derives from that, is TOTALLY UNRELATED with reinforcing gender roles.

Culturally reinforcing the gender role that women are almost always victims and men are almost always violent perpetrators is not reinforcing gender roles?

Well, I hereby declare that eating food is not eating. It must be true. I've declared it.