Is there a men's rights movement now afoot?

[Neutraligon]

Me, personally, I take twelve month reports more reliably than lifetime ones.

So, your source is good, until it gives you data that defeats your point?

That was YOUR SOURCE dude.

Based on the numbers I had the source does not show the extreme the Galloism implied, however it does show that a majority of men are raped by women. We have to remember this was self reported data, which has severe limitations. I would actually think the more recent 12 month study might be less accurate due to how recent the event was, and the possibility of denial.

[Galloism]

Me, personally, I take twelve month reports more reliably than lifetime ones.

So, your source is good, until it gives you data that defeats your point?

That was YOUR SOURCE dude.

Unlike some people, I can recognize flaws in studies. They might be useful to show certain data, even if other data contained in the study is clearly flawed.

Do you have any other explanation for the reason that roughly 20% of all made to penetrate rapes against men - in their entire lifetimes mind you - occurred in 2010? I've given the ones that I consider reasonable.

Made my statement more clear.

[Neutraligon]

So, your source is good, until it gives you data that defeats your point?

That was YOUR SOURCE dude.

Unlike some people, I can recognize flaws in studies. They might be useful to show certain data, even if other data contained in the study is clearly flawed.

Do you have any other explanation for the reason that roughly 20% of all rapes against men - in their entire lifetimes mind you - occurred in 2010? I've given the ones that I consider reasonable.

This could simply be due to issues of reporting for either the lifetime or the 12 month sections.

Or me not reading the methodolgy correctly.

[Neo Art]

Do you have any other explanation for the reason that roughly 20% of all rapes against men - in their entire lifetimes mind you - occurred in 2010? I've given the ones that I consider reasonable.

That is not, in any sense, what your source says. What it says is, is that 20% of men who will be raped at some point in their lifetime were raped, at least once, in 2010. An unusual figure but no where NEAR as nonsensical as your erronious interpretation that 20% of ALL RAPES occcured in that time frame.

Those figures do not show the number of RAPES that will occur. They show the number of PEOPLE who will be raped.

Learn to read your own data. Because until you figure out how to read a simple data set, I'm not sure I trust your statistical analysis.

[Galloism]

Do you have any other explanation for the reason that roughly 20% of all rapes against men - in their entire lifetimes mind you - occurred in 2010? I've given the ones that I consider reasonable.

That is not, in any sense, what your source says. What it says is, is that 20% of men who will be raped at some point in their lifetime were raped, at least once, in 2010. An unusual figure but no where NEAR as nonsensical as your erronious interpretation that 20% of ALL RAPES occcured in that time frame.

Those figures do not show the number of RAPES that will occur. They show the number of PEOPLE who will be raped.

Learn to read your own data. Because until you figure out how to read a simple data set, I'm not sure I trust your statistical analysis.

Which means you think that there is a relatively small subset of men raped repeatedly? Ergo, one of the four explanations I presented?

[Galloism]

So, your source is good, until it gives you data that defeats your point?

That was YOUR SOURCE dude.

Based on the numbers I had the source does not show the extreme the Galloism implied, however it does show that a majority of men are raped by women. We have to remember this was self reported data, which has severe limitations. I would actually think the more recent 12 month study might be less accurate due to how recent the event was, and the possibility of denial.

I would think more accurate, due to continuing societal prejudice indicating that men cannot be victimized by women, especially sexually. It's amazing what a person can convince themselves of, given time and peer pressure.

This is why police attempt to interview witnesses early and get written statements. The story often changes over a long enough timeframe.

However, both of us are engaging in conjecture now.

[Neo Art]

Which means you think that there is a relatively small subset of men raped repeatedly? Ergo, one of the four explanations I presented?

Possibly, that's certainly a valid explanation of the data. Another explanation is that "made to penetrate" rapes against men are on the rise, skewing figures towards a more recent data trend. I'm not really entirely concerned with the exact concerns, primarily because I'm not the one who floated it as a source.

What I am interested in is, after it was pointed out that, based on your own source, even accepting your rejection fo the definition provided by, again, your own source, the math indicated that 5 times as many women will be raped by men, as men by women, you reject those figures because you don't find the data provided by (again, I'll remind you) your own source to be reliable.

Which is the definition of cherry picking data. What makes it more intellectually egredious is you did it with the very source YOU provided.

[Neo Art]

I would think more accurate, due to continuing societal prejudice indicating that men cannot be victimized by women, especially sexually. It's amazing what a person can convince themselves of, given time and peer pressure.

So. Provide a source for your conjecture, and when it's demonstrated that the data does not back up your hypothesis, claim that the reason the data doesn't match your claims is because of something you believe is happening, but which your own data doesn't actually support?

We've gone way beyond cherry picking now. We're into full on double think.

[Galloism]

Which means you think that there is a relatively small subset of men raped repeatedly? Ergo, one of the four explanations I presented?

Possibly, that's certainly a valid explanation of the data. Another explanation is that "made to penetrate" rapes against men are on the rise, skewing figures towards a more recent data trend. I'm not really entirely concerned with the exact concerns, primarily because I'm not the one who floated it as a source.

What I am interested in is, after it was pointed out that, based on your own source, even accepting your rejection fo the definition provided by, again, your own source, the math indicated that 5 times as many women will be raped by men, as men by women, you reject those figures because you don't find the data provided by (again, I'll remind you) your own source to be reliable.

Which is the definition of cherry picking data. What makes it more intellectually egredious is you did it with the very source YOU provided.

I will provide you with a similar calculation when I get to sit down this evening with time and a spreadsheet program, but with twelve month numbers.

However, you must accept that either rapes against men are currently at levels similar to women, in which case Ail's original statement to the effect that rape is a problem because he's a man is demonstrably sexist and false, or that there is a systemic pattern of repeat victimization, which means male rape victims need extra counseling/advice/help to avoid repeating the pattern.

In any case, marginalizing and failing to recognize male rape victims, as Ail did, is sexist and wrong.

And I did not cherry pick data. I pointed out a notable flaw in my own source, have possible explanations, and discussed it, rather than dismissing clear and present flaws like most people do.

[Neo Art]

However, you must accept that either rapes against men are currently at levels similar to women

Incorrect, and nothing in your source compells me to reach that conclusion. All the source allows me to conclude, accepting those figures as valid is that, given your expanded definition of rape, the number of male victims of rape by a woman is roughly equivalent to the number of female victims of rape by a man, in 2010.

Your source also allows me to conclude, accepting those figures as valid that, given your expanded definition of rape, the number of female victims of rape by a man is roughly five times the number of male victims of rape by a man, over the course of their lives.

Whatever the reason for that discrepancy is subject to interpretation.

But you're asking me to accept things your own source does not even slightly suggest. This again forces me to conclude that you're either knowingly trying to put forth a false premise, or you aren't very good at statistical analysis.

[Galloism]

However, you must accept that either rapes against men are currently at levels similar to women

Incorrect, and nothing in your source compells me to reach that conclusion. All the source allows me to conclude, accepting those figures as valid is that, given your expanded definition of rape, the number of male victims of rape by a woman is roughly equivalent to the number of female victims of rape by a man, in 2010.

Your source also allows me to conclude, accepting those figures as valid that, given your expanded definition of rape, the number of female victims of rape by a man is roughly five times the number of male victims of rape by a man, over the course of their lives.

Whatever the reason for that discrepancy is subject to interpretation.

But you're asking me to accept things your own source does not even slightly suggest. This again forces me to conclude that you're either knowingly trying to put forth a false premise, or you aren't very good at statistical analysis.

Do you realize that, in order for far more rapes to occur to women than men, while the number of victims is so close to equal it's statistically insignificant, the women of the study would have to be raped multiple times, while men must be raped only a single time (or fewer times than the women in the study).

Meanwhile, you've also floated that the reason the men's lifetime numbers are low, while yearly numbers are high, could be that the average male rape victim is raped multiple times, while women typically or not (or, a fewer number of times).

This leaves us in the odd position of theorizing that men get raped once per year on average, while women are victimized repeatedly in only one or only a couple years.

What an odd theory.

[Tahar Joblis]

Male elementary school teachers.

Most of what I've heard on that end relate to social acceptability of accepting such a job and the lower pay in elementary settings.

Pedophile panic.

I don't follow how this is a gender issue.

Boys falling behind in the educational system; men falling behind in college and graduate school.

Because men tend to take courses offering fewer credits and having a lower GPA, this is an issue that feminism needs to resolve?

Sentencing bias as visible as the black-white bias.

Refusal to recognize male victims of domestic violence and rape, in particular when such happens at the hands of women.

You think feminists ignore that?

Male disposability.

I have no idea what you mean here.

Treatment of men as success objects.

Success objects?

Demonization of male sexuality.

Here in the 'states it's still very much celebrated on a societal level.

Persistent virgin-shaming of men.

Prejudice against virgins hits men and women, believe it or not.

New slut-shaming of men.

I have to admit, I have seen this to some degree, but I generally attribute it to a more gender-equal perception of sexuality in the younger generation.

Male nurses.

The number of male nurses have been increasing over the years. What of it?

Discrimination against men in custody disputes./quote]
Questionable.

Certainly not an issue of any single gender, but of both.

Feminism as an ideology may lack a unified front; but feminism as a political movement is highly effective, as was exhibited in the last election cycle.

[Neo Art]

I could see how you might think that, but roughly 80% of men raped are raped by women.

... We have gender segregated prisons.

Also I wanted to reflect back at this to point something out, once again, your statistic is explicitly cherry picked.

The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey is an ongoing, nationally representative random digit dial (RDD) telephone survey that collects information about experiences of sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence among non-institutionalized English and/or Spanish-speaking women and men aged 18 or older in the United States.

Your citation explicitly and specifically deals with a very clearly identified population grouping. Your attempt to extrapolate those claims to the general population are poor and unfounded.

I'm beginning to think you didn't even read your own source, or, at best, skimmed through something you found until it appeared, on face value, to have a specific dataset that supported your proposition, and wave it around as saying something that it doesn't.

I am not saying you're right, I'm not saying your wrong, I'm saying your claims are based on a single datapoint while ignoring the comprehensive study. That is, definitionally, cherry picking.

The fact that you've then tried to justify this by coming up with some half cocked explanation of "the fact that the data doesn't support my conclusion when viewed in the aggregate just proves how right I am!" nonsense just furthers the sin.

Again, I'm not saying you're right. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying your methodology was intellectually sloppy. Whether it was done out of duplicity or ignorance I can't say, but it still doesn't change that fact.

[Neo Art]

Do you realize that, in order for far more rapes to occur to women than men

*sigh* you clearly don't even understand the words I'm saying.

At this point I"m not entirely certain you understand the difference between the number of victims and the number of occurances.

Sloppy sloppy methodology.

[Seriong]

Male elementary school teachers.

(1)Most of what I've heard on that end relate to social acceptability of accepting such a job and the lower pay in elementary settings.

Pedophile panic.

(2)I don't follow how this is a gender issue.

(3)You think feminists ignore that?

(4)I have no idea what you mean here.

(5)Success objects?

(6)Here in the 'states it's still very much celebrated on a societal level.

(7)Prejudice against virgins hits men and women, believe it or not.

(8)I have to admit, I have seen this to some degree, but I generally attribute it to a more gender-equal perception of sexuality in the younger generation.

Discrimination against men in custody disputes./quote]
(9)Questionable.
[/quote]
Gendered asymmetry in the assignment of parental rights and obligations.
[/quote]
(10)Certainly not an issue of any single gender, but of both.
[quote]
I'm going to try to clear some things up here. I omitted a few things, that I either had no idea about, or thought you were correct on.
2) Places like airlines forbidding adult men from sitting nexxt to children, because of this mentality of men being pedophiles.
3) Yes, in fact the majority of people (Including feminists) don't acknolwedge the ability of women to rape men.
4) "Save the women and children!" Not the men. And he's probably going to bring up the draft only including men.
5) I do not know. Maybe he's going to bring up it being socially acceptable for a woman to marry a rich man in order to not work? I really don't know wat he's saying here.
6) Is that why many men who sleep with many women are called "Pigs" or similar?
7) So, women are shamed both for being virgins and not virgins? (See: Slut shaming). Besides, the main complaint people have with feminism, is that it doesn't do anything about how these issues affect men.
(8) " Besides, the main complaint people have with feminism, is that it doesn't do anything about how these issues affect men."
9) http://www.attorneys.com/child-custody/ ... y-battles/. "Some of these factors have a natural bias that favors mothers over fathers." Mothers win over fathers, it's true.
10) No. Mothers are often the parent people go to for the child. (In fact, some schools have had a line for the signature of mothers, not parent.) Ask some single fathers about their experience with schools.

[Avenio]

No, not really. At least, not in any form that would actually forward the causes most 'mens' rights' movements purport to support in any meaningful manner.

[AiliailiA]

Possibly, that's certainly a valid explanation of the data. Another explanation is that "made to penetrate" rapes against men are on the rise, skewing figures towards a more recent data trend. I'm not really entirely concerned with the exact concerns, primarily because I'm not the one who floated it as a source.

What I am interested in is, after it was pointed out that, based on your own source, even accepting your rejection fo the definition provided by, again, your own source, the math indicated that 5 times as many women will be raped by men, as men by women, you reject those figures because you don't find the data provided by (again, I'll remind you) your own source to be reliable.

Which is the definition of cherry picking data. What makes it more intellectually egredious is you did it with the very source YOU provided.

I will provide you with a similar calculation when I get to sit down this evening with time and a spreadsheet program, but with twelve month numbers.

That would be good.

However, you must accept that either rapes against men are currently at levels similar to women, in which case Ail's original statement to the effect that rape is a problem because he's a man is demonstrably sexist and false, or that there is a systemic pattern of repeat victimization, which means male rape victims need extra counseling/advice/help to avoid repeating the pattern.

In any case, marginalizing and failing to recognize male rape victims, as Ail did, is sexist and wrong.

The context in which I did it was PERSONAL. I explained (I thought) that my own circumstances and life choices make me less likely than other men to suffer rape (by any definition). But I'm guessing you stopped reading somewhere in the second paragraph and decided I was sexist and wrong.

Be careful how you interpret that CDC study in future.

You and Tahar Joblis both try to use it to create a false equivalence ... that men are just as likely to be raped by women as women are by men ... that it simply does not support.

Neo Art found about 5:1 disparity, or to put it another way 17% of rapes (wide definition) are of men while the remainder are of women. There is just no way of spinning that as "just as likely".

Actually, NA used raw numbers and right up front in the report we see that there were fewer male respondents to the interviews than female.

(I agree with you AND Neo Art that "forced to penetrate" should be included in rape figures, CDC for some reason keeping to a legal definition in which only men can rape. I think we all agree that the legal definition SHOULD be gender neutral.)

[Aethelstania]

'mens' rights fundamentally wrong as are 'womens' rights, there are just human rights and they are for everyone. The world is unfriendly to men just as it is unfriendly to women but this materializes in different ways.

[Neo Art]

The world is unfriendly to men just as it is unfriendly to women but this materializes in different ways.

Let us rid ourselves of this intellectual hipster laziness that suggests that all candidates are equal, all plights are the same.

No it's fucking not.

[Blouman Empire]

But there are scores upon scores of more men in power than there are women. To be perfectly honest, we face almost no problems. Lets face it, think of how many women there. Now think of how many women out there actually spew out the whole 'every man's a Stalinist' spiel. We are in no immediate danger of anything.

There are still issues that need to be addressed. Though I feel they all fall under the umbrella of feminism, personally, since feminism is about equal rights and treatment for the sexes.

I raised this with a feminist once, she said no feminism only concerns about women and why would it or should it worry about any instances where men are at a disadvantage.

[Aethelstania]

The world is unfriendly to men just as it is unfriendly to women but this materializes in different ways.

Let us rid ourselves of this intellectual hipster laziness that suggests that all candidates are equal, all plights are the same.

No it's fucking not.

Well whilst the suffering is different the consequences are the same. Think about discrimination about gender, race, dissability ETC and how they still exist even when governments legislate against them. The only way you can resolve issues is by changing peoples attitudes and separating movements of into groups that are "for men" "for women" makes them seem exclusive; or the property of the said groups who are fighting for equal rights. Also if you express a preference then your also suggesting that some candidates plights are more important you then trivialize others. Yes its argubaly a bit of a lazy soundbite to say "rights for humanity" and be pro 'personhood' but that doesnt mean that its actually the right approach to take.

[Celestial Divinities]

This is moronic on multiple levels because we really don't need one. We've been the privileged sex for several millenia now. Unless we get invaded by matriarchal aliens, there's hardly a point.

You may have all your rights, but I'd support a movement targeting the overly masculine portrayal of men in the media and the standards is creates from a young age to be a manly man, hide emotions, get ladies etc. etc.

[Potlimitomaha]

Most of these "- rights" movements exist only on ze Internet anyway.

[Vulpae]

Personally I understand guys being pissed off at many of the stereotypes they run into in some places, most certainly in service industries. For example, I was unable to get a job at a bank as a teller, I had the qualifications, but discover a month later I was passed over for an all female staff.
7 girls to work up front.

I don't think they were biased, but my gut reaction was being angry that they only hired older ladies (40+) and young girls (20-) because they made people feel "safe" when handling money.

I know better, but how do you think guys react when you now work at a gas station earning $8.25 per hour, and lady less qualified beat you out for a $12 per hour with benefits because she has a more friendly face & voice?

[Blouman Empire]

The problem with MRA is that they get the whole demonization of "They are just wanting to push women back down again" even if they aren't doing that. The fact that men have "had it so good for so long" is the reason why MRA will never win anything. Does it matter if boys are falling further behind in school then girls? It probably should be looked at but because these boys forefathers had it so good and it was the girls that were falling behind, it is deemed sexist to want to bring the boys back up to the same level as the girls along with the silly notion that because their forefathers had it better then these boys deserve it as though punishing children for their parents crimes is right.

What MRA need to do is not say it's about men but rather come up with a new group and promote that new group as being discriminated against and the privileged few are stepping on them. Only then will people be supporting them to bring this downtrodden group up and make them equal with everyone else.