Feminists sabotage yet another talk on men's equality

[Ostroeuropa]

It's invisible for other reasons. The campaigning done by feminist organizations however, contributes to it's invisibility by it's choice of language and poster campaigns.

Barely.

They're mostly fucking themselves over.

And when women refuse to report their husbands is that them fucking themselves over?
I'm genuinely asking. Because I too like to use language like that, and provided you are consistent I actually don't object to what you're saying here.
Yes. They are causing a problem for themselves. That doesn't mean we shouldn't help, especially when that problem is as a result of societal pressure.

[Frisivisia]

Of course men can be raped, no one is denying that. However, saying that violence against women doesn't have different facets and makes violence against men invisible is insane.

We've never said that violence against women makes violence against men invisible. We've said that giving so much attetion to violence against women and giving no attention to violence against men is making violence against men invisible.

Poor wording on my part. The fact that you can grab onto poor wording and attempt to make an argument doesn't do anything for your reputation for being bad at arguing.

[Ostroeuropa]

Yes, that's why it's invisible. But the feminist campaign is contributing to the problem.

Hardly. Saying it's feminism is grasping at straws.

If I were to do mass-campaigns about starving individuals in the western world to the point of overloading the public sphere with it and nothing else, would I be contributing to starvation in africa. I would argue that yes, yes I would be.
I realize that in the case of female violence victims VS male violence victims it's more of an equal issue than starving in africa VS starving in the west, but i'm asking to see if you accept the principle

[Ora Amaris]

We've never said that violence against women makes violence against men invisible. We've said that giving so much attetion to violence against women and giving no attention to violence against men is making violence against men invisible.

Not you again...

[The Rich Port]

Barely.

They're mostly fucking themselves over.

And when women refuse to report their husbands is that them fucking themselves over?
I'm genuinely asking. Because I too like to use language like that, and provided you are consistent I actually don't object to what you're saying here.
Yes. They are causing a problem for themselves. That doesn't mean we shouldn't help, especially when that problem is as a result of societal pressure.

A little bit, but you can't blame them for it.

I don't blame men for it either, but you can't blame feminists for bringing light to it.

I wasn't referring to men in general; I was referring to MRA's fucking themselves over.

[Frisivisia]

Hardly. Saying it's feminism is grasping at straws.

If I were to do mass-campaigns about starving individuals in the western world to the point of overloading the public sphere with it and nothing else, would I be contributing to starvation in africa.

No, and that's hardly what's being done with violence against women. Fighting poverty in Africa does not contribute to poverty in Asia. Focusing on problems does not make other problems invisible. That's bullshit.

[Ostroeuropa]

If I were to do mass-campaigns about starving individuals in the western world to the point of overloading the public sphere with it and nothing else, would I be contributing to starvation in africa.

No, and that's hardly what's being done with violence against women. Fighting poverty in Africa does not contribute to poverty in Asia. Focusing on problems does not make other problems invisible. That's bullshit.

It does if few people are even aware of poverty in africa, and you spend your entire campaign implying asia is the only continent suffering poverty. Usually with posters of Asian businessmen exploiting africans etc.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

If I were to do mass-campaigns about starving individuals in the western world to the point of overloading the public sphere with it and nothing else, would I be contributing to starvation in africa.

No, and that's hardly what's being done with violence against women. Fighting poverty in Africa does not contribute to poverty in Asia. Focusing on problems does not make other problems invisible. That's bullshit.

^ This

Plus the fact there are so many things to advocate about not everything is focused on African poverty, there also exist people who don't care about Africa and instead turn their eye to Asia.

[Frisivisia]

No, and that's hardly what's being done with violence against women. Fighting poverty in Africa does not contribute to poverty in Asia. Focusing on problems does not make other problems invisible. That's bullshit.

It does if few people are even aware of poverty in africa, and you spend your entire campaign implying asia is the only continent suffering poverty.

Are you implying that feminists say that men are not suffering violence? Wow. You... wow.

[Ostroeuropa]

It does if few people are even aware of poverty in africa, and you spend your entire campaign implying asia is the only continent suffering poverty.

Are you implying that feminists say that men are not suffering violence? Wow. You... wow.

No. I'm saying their campaign implies it. It's a terrible miscommunication on their part. The end violence against women campaigns have uniformly resulted in plastering subways and such with posters of men hitting women and the women looking meek and timid and the men looking violent.
I argue that this miscommunication and others like it stem from feminist theory and the focus on one gender.
The campaigns perpetuate women = victim and male = perpetrator mentalities, and the phrase has become associated with those images. To the point where, even in nations where domestic violence is gender-balanced, the words "Domestic violence" conjure up images of men hitting women in most people.

[Geilinor]

Can't men even talk about things that concern them? I support equal gender rights, but not gender war.

[Frisivisia]

Are you implying that feminists say that men are not suffering violence? Wow. You... wow.

No. I'm saying their campaign implies it. It's a terrible miscommunication on their part. The end violence against women campaigns have uniformly resulted in plastering subways and such with posters of men hitting women and the women looking meek and timid and the men looking violent.
I argue that this miscommunication and others like it stem from feminist theory and the focus on one gender.

And anti-smoking ads villainize smokers. Of course ads against things won't be accurate to reality.

[Ostroeuropa]

No. I'm saying their campaign implies it. It's a terrible miscommunication on their part. The end violence against women campaigns have uniformly resulted in plastering subways and such with posters of men hitting women and the women looking meek and timid and the men looking violent.
I argue that this miscommunication and others like it stem from feminist theory and the focus on one gender.

And anti-smoking ads villainize smokers. Of course ads against things won't be accurate to reality.

An end gendered violence campaign would have been far more effective and lost it's terrible baggage. If an anti-smoking advert conveyed something like "Only smokers die of lung cancer." wouldn't you be furious with it? I would be. I despise misinformation from authority sources.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

No. I'm saying their campaign implies it. It's a terrible miscommunication on their part. The end violence against women campaigns have uniformly resulted in plastering subways and such with posters of men hitting women and the women looking meek and timid and the men looking violent.
I argue that this miscommunication and others like it stem from feminist theory and the focus on one gender.

And anti-smoking ads villainize smokers. Of course ads against things won't be accurate to reality.

Which is why I hate advertising

I prefer getting my ideas talking with other people about it, not through silly ads.

[Frisivisia]

And anti-smoking ads villainize smokers. Of course ads against things won't be accurate to reality.

An end gendered violence campaign would have been far more effective and lost it's terrible baggage. If an anti-smoking advert conveyed something like "Only smokers die of lung cancer." wouldn't you be furious with it? I would be. I despise misinformation from authority sources.

But violence against women DOES NOT SAY that violence only happens to women. AT ALL. You do not seem to understand it.

[Ostroeuropa]

An end gendered violence campaign would have been far more effective and lost it's terrible baggage. If an anti-smoking advert conveyed something like "Only smokers die of lung cancer." wouldn't you be furious with it? I would be. I despise misinformation from authority sources.

But violence against women DOES NOT SAY that violence only happens to women. AT ALL. You do not seem to understand it.

No, but it implies it, and so do it's posters.
I didn't say it says it.

[Frisivisia]

But violence against women DOES NOT SAY that violence only happens to women. AT ALL. You do not seem to understand it.

No, but it implies it, and so do it's posters.
I didn't say it says it.

It doesn't imply it. At all. Ever. That's bullshit.

[Ostroeuropa]

No, but it implies it, and so do it's posters.
I didn't say it says it.

It doesn't imply it. At all. Ever. That's bullshit.

How do you explain the utter lack of an impact it's had on male domestic abuse victims coming forward?
Or in societal perceptions to male domestic abuse victims?
I'd argue that the prevelance of imagery and statements over and over that reinforce the stereotypical gender roles of woman = victim, man = perpetrator, are incredibly damaging to both sexes, and these campaigns and that phrase are a big part of it.
I wouldn't be suprized if the situation for male victims has gotten worse since they started.

[Cosara]

We've never said that violence against women makes violence against men invisible. We've said that giving so much attetion to violence against women and giving no attention to violence against men is making violence against men invisible.

Not you again...

Yes...me again!!!

[Galloism]

No, but it implies it, and so do it's posters.
I didn't say it says it.

It doesn't imply it. At all. Ever. That's bullshit.

So, if I were to only post in threads regarding violence against men, male rape victims, post links to female perpetrators, and trot out statistics which only refer to male victims, you would see no implication that I find male victims more important, worthy, or greater in number than female victims?

You inference nothing regarding the lack?

[New Edom]

While there's a certain amount of truth in this, it's unhelpful when feminists start screaming at the ones who are more moderate or thoughtful. As the saying goes "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don't rule out malice."

For example: Warren Farrell. Warren Farrell in essence poses questions about men's traditional roles in our society and how we can live successfully in a more egalitarian world. Some have heaped venom on him for things that were said in the 70s, which I find ironic. Feminists have told me that they feel no difficulty in sifting through the works of feminist writers and taking the gems out, as it were, but apparently cannot compare the entire body of a man's work to things that they haven't even read in context.

Sometime have a listen to the guy, follow an entire lecture, read one of his books. He's one of the least menacing people I can think of today, yet he's accused of being a rape apologist? Even though he has on numerous occasions qualified his statements and said "rape is a crime"? I mean you can't be more clear than that, to say "rape is a crime".

Sure you can. You can not ALSO say that a man should never be imprisoned for continuing to fuck a woman who explicitly says "no," provided the man says he thought she looked like she wanted it. You can not ALSO suggest that fathers raping their daughters isn't really so bad, because many of the rapist fathers reported enjoying it (and imply, while you're at it, that the daughters are lying when they say they didn't enjoy being raped).

If Warren Farrell is your idea of a moderate, I shudder at the thought of what a radical looks like.

This is the full quote of one of the things you're referring to.

""If a man ignoring a woman's verbal 'no' is committing date rape, then a woman who says `no' with her verbal language but 'yes' with her body language is committing date fraud. And a woman who continues to be sexual even after she says 'no' is committing date lying.

"Do women still do this? Two feminists found the answer is yes. Nearly 40 percent of college women acknowledged they had said "no" to sex even "when they meant yes." In my own work with over 150,000 men and women - about half of whom are single - the answer is also yes. Almost all single women acknowledge they have agreed to go back to a guy's place "just to talk" but were nevertheless responsive to his first kiss. Almost all acknowledge they've recently said something like "That's far enough for now," even as her lips are still kissing and her tongue is still touching his.

"We have forgotten that before we called this date rape and date fraud, we called it exciting. Somehow, women's romance novels are not titled He Stopped When I Said "No". They are, though, titled Sweet Savage Love, in which the woman rejects the hand of her gentler lover who saves her from the rapist and marries the man who repeatedly and savagely rapes her. It is this "marry the rapist" theme that not only turned Sweet Savage Love into a best-seller but also into one of women's most enduring romance novels. And it is Rhett Butler, carrying the kicking and screaming Scarlett O'Hara to bed, who is a hero to females - not to males - in Gone With the Wind (the best selling romance novel of all time - to women). It is important that a woman's "noes" be respected and her "yeses" be respected. And it is also important when her nonverbal "yeses" (tongues still touching) conflict with those verbal "noes" that the man not be put in jail for choosing the "yes" over the "no."

There's been a lot of talk about these passages, and it is assumed by a number of feminists--most particularly those who were protesting the University of Toronto events--that he means that date rape is okay. That is merely an interpretation. What he's actually saying is that there is some confusion going on there. So really, in the above examples, when feminists say that it is the responsibility of the guy or woman who is hearing the 'no' to stop, it should also be the responsibility of the person saying no to back it up with their actions. Now seriously, bear this in mind a moment: he's referencing popular novels almost entirely purchased by women that depict a cultural meme. This doesn't come out of nowhere; it's not like this is something men imagine alone. It is a popular sexual fantasy depicted in novels and in films. Calling it rape apologism isn't sufficient in dealing with this when he simply points out that it's part of our culture. If you don't like that part of the culture, the women's part of the fantasy needs to be dealt with too.

As for the second thing you referred to:

The father-daughter scene, ineluctably complicated by feelings of dominance and control, is not nearly so sanguine. Despite some advertisements, calling explicitly for positive female experiences, Farrell discovered that 85 percent of the daughters admitted to having negative attitudes toward their incest. Only 15 percent felt positive about the experience. On the other hand, statistics from the vantage of the fathers involved were almost the reverse — 60 percent positive 10 percent mixed, and 20 percent negative. “Either men see these relationships differently,” comments Farrell, “or I am getting selective reporting from women.”

I don't see how this is referring to how these figures represent 'many'. It looks more like he found that many daughters had negative attitudes.

[Natapoc]

Which "organization" do you mean, to be clear?

http://equalitycanada.com/

Equality Canada does a great job at hiding their Misogyny at first glance. Digging deeper it becomes clear their agenda is the same as the other pro rape, anti female groups out there who have the agenda of trivializing issues that effect women. They attract and are supported by the EXACT same people, they support the exact same viewpoints (although equalitycanada does a great job at not sounding ultra offensive to public at first glance)

I looked at the speakers and read their books and also at the talks they tend to give.

They misrepresent figures and claims made by studies.

I don't have the time to write in detail but if you're honestly curious I found a blog where someone mentions some of the issues: http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/michael ... pus-based-

Or you could always look at their reading list to see their agenda clearly: http://equalitycanada.com/reading-list/

Anyone educated about the issues should be able to read that list and see at once what sort of group this is.

[Technocratic Corporate Entities]

This video is a nice compilation of the various goings on with regards to men's issues and feminist opposing their discussion in Canada recently:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkspPmm-WVI

Idk, looked up the organization the feminists (who were very unladylike) were protesting and they started on about "rape farming".

I can admit that any organization can and will see oppression even as it declines or becomes less prominent; but these are usually the extremists and most can see when it has become so.

[Ostroeuropa]

http://equalitycanada.com/

Equality Canada does a great job at hiding their Misogyny at first glance. Digging deeper it becomes clear their agenda is the same as the other pro rape, anti female groups out there who have the agenda of trivializing issues that effect women. They attract and are supported by the EXACT same people, they support the exact same viewpoints (although equalitycanada does a great job at not sounding ultra offensive to public at first glance)

I looked at the speakers and read their books and also at the talks they tend to give.

They misrepresent figures and claims made by studies.

I don't have the time to write in detail but if you're honestly curious I found a blog where someone mentions some of the issues: http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/michael ... pus-based-

Or you could always look at their reading list to see their agenda clearly: http://equalitycanada.com/reading-list/

Anyone educated about the issues should be able to read that list and see at once what sort of group this is.

I'm unaware of the books on the reading list, so I can't comment on that. Can you pick out a particular example (One would do.) that has a sexist bent?
As for the blog post, it's incredibly bias and written from a perspective already out to denounce them. He also makes the hilarious case for anita sarkeesian, which immediately shows what an idiot he is.
"I got trolled. On the internet! FUCKING PATRIARCHY!"
Her entire shtick about that episode makes me burst out laughing whenever I see her, or anyone defends her. Once you've said something like that, I don't see how you can expect anyone to take what you say about where sexism exists seriously again.
She's also where I decided to start using the phrase "Professional victim."

[Natapoc]

For those wondering why some of the protesters may have been trying to hide their identity: Anti feminist groups associated with Canadian Association For Equality have been threatening violence against feminist activists on campus and have gone so far as to publish personal information about them to punish them on "a voice for men" "They include derogatory personal comments, photographs of the women in question, and threatening language. They seem to be adding female U of T activists to this front page almost daily"

http://feministcurrent.com/6928/the-men ... f-toronto/

When the person you are protesting against is known for advocating on behalf or violent rapists, trying to hide your identity when publicly opposing them is a sensible precaution.

It's also a sensible precaution to do anything necessary to remove such violent people from your campus.