Feminists destroy posters advocating human rights for men

[Great Yorkshire]

The problem there is the 5'2 125 pound bit not the woman bit. We have the tendency to think of woman to intrinsicly mean a dainty woman. I've known women who were more than qualified to carry a two hundred pound man on their shoulders.

You are right, I cannot deny your point. On the other hand, since women activists had a shot at having women to work in our fire departments(that is where I live), they have lowered the standards for physical prowess's in the exams, so to let more women in. Because, you have to have an equal number of men and women in every job or occupation. Since then, our fire workers are less fit and capable overall.

Reality is not one size fits all. Yes, all humans should be treated equally. No, not all humans have the same capabilities. Yes, some roles require special sets of aptitudes. Yes, genders favor specific sets of aptitudes. No, you should not evaluate someone on the basis of gender.

Rip all the posters you want, what you get? Ripped posters.

This sort of thing does unfortunately happen from time to time, when well meaning but blinkered people can make these sorts of silly mistakes.
Which is why people like whoever is in charge of your fire department should have the self confidence to hold fast and say: "No. This is the wrong way of doing things, let's make advertisements aimed at women, recruitment drives, but we're not going to pad out statistics by handing out token jobs."

However on the bright side, if the physical standards are lowered slightly, more people get through this stage and therefore there is a greater pool of candidates which can be filtered by other requirements. Perhaps since your fire department had more men and women to choose from, they were able to pick only the smart ones.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

"Men are more often victims of violence than women; therefore violence against men is a bigger problem than violence against women" is pretty much the textbook definition of intellectual dishonesty.

You see, when people talk about "violence against women," they're not referring to acts of violence where the victim merely happens to be a woman. Instead, what they mean is acts of violence committed upon women specifically or primarily because the victim is a woman--i.e. the simple fact of the victim's being a woman is the cause for the act of violence.

[Great Yorkshire]

"Men are more often victims of violence than women; therefore violence against men is a bigger problem than violence against women" is pretty much the textbook definition of intellectual dishonesty.

You see, when people talk about "violence against women," they're not referring to acts of violence where the victim merely happens to be a woman. Instead, what they mean is acts of violence committed upon women specifically or primarily because the victim is a woman--i.e. the simple fact of the victim's being a woman is the cause for the act of violence.

If you are a woman beating a man. You are virtually certain to get away with it, you have been socialized by every arm of the media to believe that it is fine, or at least not so bad, so you do it... Sounds to me like an act of violence commited against a man because he is a man.

I'm not saying one societal problem is worse than another. But this isn't a competition. And denying the existence of one does no one any favours except for abusers.

[Zephie]

"Men are more often victims of violence than women; therefore violence against men is a bigger problem than violence against women" is pretty much the textbook definition of intellectual dishonesty.

You see, when people talk about "violence against women," they're not referring to acts of violence where the victim merely happens to be a woman. Instead, what they mean is acts of violence committed upon women specifically or primarily because the victim is a woman--i.e. the simple fact of the victim's being a woman is the cause for the act of violence.

Uh what? "Oh look, there's a woman. I gotta punch her, be right back."

[The Emerald Dawn]

"Men are more often victims of violence than women; therefore violence against men is a bigger problem than violence against women" is pretty much the textbook definition of intellectual dishonesty.

You see, when people talk about "violence against women," they're not referring to acts of violence where the victim merely happens to be a woman. Instead, what they mean is acts of violence committed upon women specifically or primarily because the victim is a woman--i.e. the simple fact of the victim's being a woman is the cause for the act of violence.

Uh what? "Oh look, there's a woman. I gotta punch her, be right back."

The Emerald Dawn, better known as TED, has been found on the streets in the wake of Sandy punching every woman he comes across. Said bystanders, "He was a whirlwind engine of destruction. His fists were like ocean liner pistons just destroying every female face they could find."

[Free Tristania]

They have. They would previously have been known as 'feminists' before feminism became such a common view that it was no longer worth remarking on.

Feminists are selfish, self-pitying liberals who think they are in some exclusive gender club and must still fight for their rights? Like there's some rights women don't have as compared to men? Intelligent women aren't part of this self-hate circle. Classical feminism was fighting for equality, but women are equal now, so modern day feminism has been fighting for SPECIAL rights, like getting a job ahead of a man just because you're a woman.

Hear hear !

[Zephie]

Uh what? "Oh look, there's a woman. I gotta punch her, be right back."

The Emerald Dawn, better known as TED, has been found on the streets in the wake of Sandy punching every woman he comes across. Said bystanders, "He was a whirlwind engine of destruction. His fists were like ocean liner pistons just destroying every female face they could find."

[Czechanada]

I think the solution is to catch the people vandalizing the posters and prosecute them for vandalism. This will protect everyone's right to use posters to express their opinions, regardless of subject matter.

Or you know, we should just have them given forty lashes in the centre of town, and have them wear burqhas for the rest of their life.

How dare they oppose the natural order?





_(Satire)

[Dyonis]

You are right, I cannot deny your point. On the other hand, since women activists had a shot at having women to work in our fire departments(that is where I live), they have lowered the standards for physical prowess's in the exams, so to let more women in. Because, you have to have an equal number of men and women in every job or occupation. Since then, our fire workers are less fit and capable overall.

Reality is not one size fits all. Yes, all humans should be treated equally. No, not all humans have the same capabilities. Yes, some roles require special sets of aptitudes. Yes, genders favor specific sets of aptitudes. No, you should not evaluate someone on the basis of gender.

Rip all the posters you want, what you get? Ripped posters.

This sort of thing does unfortunately happen from time to time, when well meaning but blinkered people can make these sorts of silly mistakes.
Which is why people like whoever is in charge of your fire department should have the self confidence to hold fast and say: "No. This is the wrong way of doing things, let's make advertisements aimed at women, recruitment drives, but we're not going to pad out statistics by handing out token jobs."

However on the bright side, if the physical standards are lowered slightly, more people get through this stage and therefore there is a greater pool of candidates which can be filtered by other requirements. Perhaps since your fire department had more men and women to choose from, they were able to pick only the smart ones.

Slightly? The physics are out there: some of them cannot hold the fire hose because they are too light for the water pressure but because the government here is sympathetic to women right claims without reality checks, the fire departments had no choice to go on with the 'equal numbers' policy. For the sake of this example, I want the fire workers to be strong, massive, fit and smart, not just smart. I don't care about gender, race or whatever else.

To branch back with the main topic, I keep asking myself: is there a way to have people feel more confident when it comes to cohabit with their own kind?

Edit: I am going to bed. I may not come back on this thread.

[Des-Bal]

Or you know, we should just have them given forty lashes in the centre of town, and have them wear burqhas for the rest of their life.

How dare they oppose the natural order?





_(Satire)

The problem with that satire is that it's either irrelevant or you're saying that vandalism is totally okay.

[Tahar Joblis]

TJ is still pretending like a letter and two opinion pieces are evidence of a massive feminist conspiracy while continuing to repeated the unsubstantiated claim that Bobbit is somehow a folk hero (three opinion pieces don't make someone a folk hero), and Des-Bal is pretending like men are oppressed by big bad women.

Choronzon, you have misrepresented me. Again.

See, in my first reply, I provided - requoted from an older thread - the following as evidence that penis-chopping provokes a measure of approval and/or presumption that the man did something to justify it, either by directly expressing that opinion or objecting to that opinion being expressed:

• One contemporary letter to the editor published in the New York Times, which as a general policy picks the best representative letters out of the enormous number they get.
• Two contemporary op-ed pieces published, again, in the New York Times. Again, not exactly a random partisan rag here.
• Detailed comment-by-comment analysis of a discussion thread on cafemom.com on a more recent case - a perfectly mainstream venue of discussion online, populated mainly by women.
• A video clip showing the women of "The Talk" almost all - with one exception - treating that same more recent case with hilarity.

You then said "Oh, you just posted three crazy whackjob op-eds." I then supplied:

• Another contemporary op-ed from another newspaper [Baltimore Sun, also a perfectly normal newspaper]
• A contemporary piece from a magazine interviewing Bobbitt [Vanity Fair, not exactly a political rag that you would expect to fabricate the existence of a controversy]
• A contemporary journal article from a feminist philosopher
• A recent discussion of the Bobbitt case on a feminist blog.

You now just claimed again that I only supplied three op-eds/letters from the NYT. At this point, you are clearly, and most likely deliberately, misrepresenting what I'm saying in order to try to make me look bad. I have supplied a great deal more than that. I can supply yet more evidence [for the record, and for the peanut gallery's sake, here's all the evidence Choronzon has supplied: "Because I, Choronzon, mighty denier of claims, have SAID SO!!11!ONE!"], but I don't think it's needed.

There is such a vast array of evidence in favor of Lorena Bobbitt's "folk hero" status that in order to conclude that Lorena Bobbitt was not received as a "folk hero" in some quarters, you must conclude there was a massive conspiracy among a wide array of media sources to misrepresent the case and the public reaction thereto. The only room for debate is how widely she was received as a folk hero - by a relatively narrow but vocal segment of the population, or by a broad segment of the population?

As the journal article exhibits, a conspiracy that extended all the way into feminist philosophers in academia. And a conspiracy which has been actively at work in the modern age in dealing with the coverage of more recent cases. And has managed to gull Wikipedia's editors for years on end. And ... see where this is going?

This is one of those chains that ends with you huddled in the basement, chanting about how the whole world is filled with evil liars and you, only you, and a handful of other TRUE BELIEVERS, know the REAL TRUTH.

Aaaaand this thread is now like all the other worthless threads Hairballs and his cabal infest.

I have a cabal now? Does that mean I can file for tax benefits of some kind?

Shame, there was actually decent discussion going on for a bit.

EDIT: Seriously Hairballs, the fact that you can say with a straight face that a letter to the editor makes the claim that a majority of feminists see Bobbit as a hero "debatable"

Do you understand what the word "debatable" means? Have you read any of my lengthy diatribes about the problematic nature of defining "true feminists"? Are you aware that there is a lack of credible polling of feminists making use of a universally accepted definition of "feminist" on the topic of whether or not Lorena Bobbitt [a] should be considered a criminal or [b] should be considered a hero or [c] neither?

And did you also look over my analysis of the comments on cafemom.com concluding that a majority of women appear to presume that an act of penis-chopping must have been somehow justified by misbehavior by the man? And that many of those claimed that infidelity was a sufficient justification?

So we're talking about the majority opinion of a poorly-defined group, mostly drawn from a group that tends to jump to the conclusion that [a] is false. [I think - but am not sure - that men are slower to jump to the conclusion that penis-chopping is justified; however, we can very reasonably conclude, based on "The Talk," cafemom.com's posters, and the range of pieces describing the public reaction of women to the Bobbitt case, that it is at least true of women.]

shows just how intellectually bereft your posts and your claims are. You managed to produce a journal article, too. Good for you. I can produce journal articles saying that the Holocaust never happened. Yes, I am saying your claim is as intellectually respectable as Holocaust denial. Thats how much I respect you.

A journal article from a feminist philosopher saying that feminists are divided on the topic and ending with the position that keeping Lorena Bobbitt out of jail was a good thing establishes the existence of Bobbitt-apologism pretty authoritatively - just like a journal article saying the Holocaust wasn't really a holocaust and saying that other people think it didn't exist at all pretty damn well establishes the existence of Holocaust denial.

I'm talking about public reactions here and public expressions of opinion. It's pretty easy to establish that a certain opinion has non-trivial public representation when it's something that lots of people talk about; and the very general case that if a woman inflicts violence on a man, he must have done something to deserve it is pretty clearly a common opinion.

Approval of Lorena Bobbitt is simply one of the more extreme examples of that; but it's generically one of the reasons why we don't pay much attention to domestic violence applied to men, and why we need awareness campaigns addressing the issue of violence against men.

[Great Yorkshire]

For the sake of this example, I want the fire workers to be strong, massive, fit and smart, not just smart. I don't care about gender, race or whatever else.

I quite agree with you there mate, I was just trying to look on the bright side.

Slightly? The physics are out there: some of them cannot hold the fire hose because they are too light for the water pressure but because the government here is sympathetic to women right claims without reality checks, the fire departments had no choice to go on with the 'equal numbers' policy.

There's a literal equal numbers policy? That's moronic, where is this?

[Merriwhether]

what about tv fathers?

yeah, how come TV fathers are always played by men?

good point.

Now we're going from equal rights to homosexuality.

[Saint Jade IV]

"Men are more often victims of violence than women; therefore violence against men is a bigger problem than violence against women" is pretty much the textbook definition of intellectual dishonesty.

You see, when people talk about "violence against women," they're not referring to acts of violence where the victim merely happens to be a woman. Instead, what they mean is acts of violence committed upon women specifically or primarily because the victim is a woman--i.e. the simple fact of the victim's being a woman is the cause for the act of violence.

If you are a woman beating a man. You are virtually certain to get away with it, you have been socialized by every arm of the media to believe that it is fine, or at least not so bad, so you do it... Sounds to me like an act of violence commited against a man because he is a man.

I'm not saying one societal problem is worse than another. But this isn't a competition. And denying the existence of one does no one any favours except for abusers.

It's neither. Violence experienced by women, and violence experienced by men are worlds apart in terms of cause, effect, and intended results.

Here in Australia, MRA's bitch and whinge constantly that "There's no campaigns about violence against men." Yet we have "Real men walk away", "One Punch Can Kill" and "Don't Turn a Night Out Into a Nightmare" to name 3.

These are all targeted at the group of men most likely to perpetrate or become victims of violence, and the circumstances in which it is most likely to occur.

Similarly campaigns against domestic violence, rape prevention etc. target women because women are statistically more likely to be victims of this kind of violence. If men want to change domestic violence campaigns to recognise their suffering too, then they need to rally, and to advocate and push in the same way that women did in earlier decades. Not bitch and whine that they shouldn't have to do the same hard yards that women did.

[SaintB]

Misandrists are not feminists. They are more like racists only its about your plumbing and not your skin.

I see no evidence that it is feminists tearing down the posters but plenty of evidence for misandry.

[Tahar Joblis]

Similarly campaigns against domestic violence, rape prevention etc. target women because women are statistically more likely to be victims of this kind of violence.

Except that they aren't. Not unless you want to ignore all the data putting them at parity or near-parity. We have very real biases that aren't controlled for in many studies; and so the figures available range from parity to lopsided, with the most lopsided figures clearly the product of bias.

And then we should think about the point of an awareness campaign. Maybe men suffer only forty percent of all serious domestic abuse once we control for everything, but we are already aware of male-on-female abuse.

A much higher percentage of abusers of women know they are committing abuse. A much higher percentage of female victims know they are victims. The compelling need at present is to address the systemic bias against male victims that prevents male victims from being recognized.

Literally, we clearly need to raise awareness of male victims. Nobody with half a brain and awareness of the data will dispute that we are socially less likely to label a male as abused or a woman as an abuser even when it's the same exact scenario. We are already aware of the male-on-female abuse that exists; we need to become aware of and recognize the female-on-male abuse that we presently almost completely ignore.

If men want to change domestic violence campaigns to recognise their suffering too, then they need to rally, and to advocate and push in the same way that women did in earlier decades. Not bitch and whine that they shouldn't have to do the same hard yards that women did.

Like, oh, starting with putting up posters to raise awareness of their cause?

[Harrietharmman]

Like, oh, starting with putting up posters to raise awareness of their cause?

Best comment of the thread by far.

[AiliailiA]

"Men are more often victims of violence than women; therefore violence against men is a bigger problem than violence against women" is pretty much the textbook definition of intellectual dishonesty.

You see, when people talk about "violence against women," they're not referring to acts of violence where the victim merely happens to be a woman. Instead, what they mean is acts of violence committed upon women specifically or primarily because the victim is a woman--i.e. the simple fact of the victim's being a woman is the cause for the act of violence.

Gee, you know what? Nearly every time I've been threatened with violence, or actually attacked, it was by a man. And pretty much every time it felt to me like I was being threatened or attacked specifically because I'm a man.

And I'm not even gay. If I were, I'd probably have experienced more threats and more violence. By men.

I think a more correct rebuttal of "Men are more often victims of violence than women; therefore violence against men is a bigger problem than violence against women" is ... "men causing violence is a bigger problem than women causing violence, because they do it more".

(Here's where Tahar Joblis tries to interest me in a self-selected study of men claiming high rates of violence against them by women, and brushes aside crime report figures as "men are ashamed to report violence by women".)

[AiliailiA]

If you are a woman beating a man. You are virtually certain to get away with it, you have been socialized by every arm of the media to believe that it is fine, or at least not so bad, so you do it... Sounds to me like an act of violence commited against a man because he is a man.

I'm not saying one societal problem is worse than another. But this isn't a competition. And denying the existence of one does no one any favours except for abusers.

It's neither. Violence experienced by women, and violence experienced by men are worlds apart in terms of cause, effect, and intended results.

Here in Australia, MRA's bitch and whinge constantly that "There's no campaigns about violence against men." Yet we have "Real men walk away", "One Punch Can Kill" and "Don't Turn a Night Out Into a Nightmare" to name 3.

These are all targeted at the group of men most likely to perpetrate or become victims of violence, and the circumstances in which it is most likely to occur.

Good then.

Personally if I was designing such an ad campaign I'd make one of five (or two of five, or whatever the suspected incidence is) of the ads about violence by women against men.

I don't honestly believe it happens as much as the other way around but it does happen and there is a shame problem there very much like the shame of rape.

Similarly campaigns against domestic violence, rape prevention etc. target women because women are statistically more likely to be victims of this kind of violence. If men want to change domestic violence campaigns to recognise their suffering too, then they need to rally, and to advocate and push in the same way that women did in earlier decades. Not bitch and whine that they shouldn't have to do the same hard yards that women did.

The distinction between "rallying and advocating" and "bitching and whining" isn't all that clear to me.

Where does putting up a poster in public fall on that scale?

[SanctusEmpire]

Thats it! back in the kitchen for these trollups! barefoot, pregnant and damn well obedient!!

[Des-Bal]

Like, oh, starting with putting up posters to raise awareness of their cause?

You don't often get a setup like that, bro-fist.

[Tahar Joblis]

(Here's where Tahar Joblis tries to interest me in a self-selected study of men claiming high rates of violence against them by women, and brushes aside crime report figures as "men are ashamed to report violence by women".)

Oh, I'm not going to claim that men aren't the primary perpetrators of anti-male violence. It's not generically true over the bloody history of humanity, and it doesn't look like it's locally true right now.

If you take crime report figures at their flat value, men being attacked by other men, mainly outside of intimate relationships, is the primary mode of interpersonal violence, followed by women being attacked by men, then men being attacked by women, then women being attacked by women, the middle two modes happening mainly inside of intimate relationships.

If you adjust for the fact that men tend to underreport victimization by women... that doesn't change the figures nearly enough. All I'm saying is that those last three categories are actually a lot closer together than they seem from crime reports; I also see the nature of the problem as different. Recognizing and acknowledging abuse as being abuse goes a long way towards stopping it.

[Choronzon]

TJ is still pretending like a letter and two opinion pieces are evidence of a massive feminist conspiracy while continuing to repeated the unsubstantiated claim that Bobbit is somehow a folk hero (three opinion pieces don't make someone a folk hero), and Des-Bal is pretending like men are oppressed by big bad women.

Aaaaand this thread is now like all the other worthless threads Hairballs and his cabal infest.

Shame, there was actually decent discussion going on for a bit.

EDIT: Seriously Hairballs, the fact that you can say with a straight face that a letter to the editor makes the claim that a majority of feminists see Bobbit as a hero "debatable" shows just how intellectually bereft your posts and your claims are. You managed to produce a journal article, too. Good for you. I can produce journal articles saying that the Holocaust never happened. Yes, I am saying your claim is as intellectually respectable as Holocaust denial. Thats how much I respect you.

You seem to have a short memory, I'm a feminist. I'm not saying men are being oppressed by women I'm saying that inequality is harmful regardless of who it happen to. You have on several occasions accused me of being misogynist: This is me calling you out, point out a specific time this has happened or shut your mouth.

Well, the fact that you agree with anything Hairballs says, for starters.

[Des-Bal]

Well, the fact that you agree with anything Hairballs says, for starters.

Hitler ate sugar. Try again.

[Choronzon]

Well, the fact that you agree with anything Hairballs says, for starters.

Hitler ate sugar. Try again.

Right, totally agreeing with what TJ says doesn't actually mean you agree with what TJ says.