Feminists sabotage yet another talk on men's equality

[The New Sea Territory]

Good. Give up your pointless argument. Now move on to things that actually matter.

Go tell that to victims of sexual violence.

Ah. That trick. Did you know that sexual violence is way less common than, oh I don't know....crime? IE Organized or unorganized. Non-sexual. All that. Yeah. Those matter more.

[Agymnum]

Go tell that to victims of sexual violence.

Ah. That trick. Did you know that sexual violence is way less common than, oh I don't know....crime? IE Organized or unorganized. Non-sexual. All that. Yeah. Those matter more.

That doesn't mean that sexual violence doesn't matter.

That's like saying we should've ignored civil rights during the 1960s since we had the whole Cold War to worry about.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Go tell that to victims of sexual violence.

Ah. That trick. Did you know that sexual violence is way less common than, oh I don't know....crime? IE Organized or unorganized. Non-sexual. All that. Yeah. Those matter more.

1 in 5 women are raped.

It's reasonably close to that for men too, though still less.

[Freelanderness]

Ah. That trick. Did you know that sexual violence is way less common than, oh I don't know....crime? IE Organized or unorganized. Non-sexual. All that. Yeah. Those matter more.

1 in 5 women are raped.

It's reasonably close to that for men too, though still less.

1 in 3 women experience sexual violence and 1 in 5 men. So it's really common.

[Natapoc]

The rich, as a class, have never been oppressed.

Of course, there's also the simple point that he is making shit up when he brings up "lets call ourselves victims" as if we haven't made it a part of our core being to raise awareness and do more by spreading the message and trying to educate people and include them in the broader conversation.

Of course. And I do hope people pay more attention to this post of yours than they do to my quick one liner reply.

But even if he was correct, it's not about the ability to claim "victim" title, as the strawman goes. Our goal is to eliminate oppression regardless of who.

[The Lone Alliance]

Of course, there's also the simple point that he is making shit up when he brings up "lets call ourselves victims" as if we haven't made it a part of our core being to raise awareness and do more by spreading the message and trying to educate people and include them in the broader conversation.

Good for you, but it depends on if the awareness works in the right way, in the wrong way you're just preaching to the Choir or trying to argue with a hostile crowd.
Some people here seem to think that they could shame or insult others into supporting them.

Of course. And I do hope people pay more attention to this post of yours than they do to my quick one liner reply.

But even if he was correct, it's not about the ability to claim "victim" title, as the strawman goes. Our goal is to eliminate oppression regardless of who.

That seems rather almost impossible.
You talked that patriarchy theory.
Did you perhaps think that you put the chicken before the egg?

Or do you actually believe that if all the people at the top were women we wouldn't have a reverse version of the same type of oppression.

Even though power always corrupts?

I don't know, some of the content of this thread really says some things, and they aren't good things.

[The Horror Channel]

Go tell that to victims of sexual violence.

Ah. That trick. Did you know that sexual violence is way less common than, oh I don't know....crime? IE Organized or unorganized. Non-sexual. All that. Yeah. Those matter more.

Sexual violence and assault are more important than most regular crimes. If someone steals something of mine, I can replace it and put it behind me. If I were raped, i'd carry that baggage for the rest of my life.

In summation, people > stuff

[Redenstaat]

"I've got problems too buddy..."

Is the essential problem when analyzing systems of privilege, because when these systems are brought up, it is often interpreted as "Your life is perfect and you should feel bad!" rather than "There is inherent bias in the system." Unfortunately, even more problems arise because the usual answer back rings of "You may have problems, but MINE are worse!" Or some kind of cold analytical discussion of the true meaning of certain terms or some garbage like that. "Well yes crimes against males happen BUT..." Does there even need to be a discussion on whether the nature of the system of privilege is male hate or female hate oriented? What matters is that there's a system of privilege that is based on some kind of perverted Darwinism - that all females and males are bound by a ridiculous notion of masculinity or (feminity?). Often this nonsense goes hand in hand with the bunk "females are left brain" or whatever pseudoscience is used to justify it.

I think what bugs me about these kind of discussions are that they tend to get bent into an argument over terms, who's what label, or who's at "fault" (If John teases Sara and Sara then commits suicide, it is neither John nor Sara's "fault" in the sense that either side always argues. John used no force to kill Sara, but is still a prick, and Sara is the one who killed herself, but is not "weak willed").

That being said, any love of equality the original poster of this tried to convey is bunk, because just labeling those who caused a ruckus there "feminists," as if all feminists are like this, as if this is the face of feminism itself, and because of saying "Men's Equality" (is this different than regular equality somehow?).

My grammar is awful and my thoughts hard to follow, and I apologize.

[Benuty]

This thread has gone to hell in a handbasket, Freud would be proud XD. Of-course this thread was doomed to be murphy'd from the start.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Go tell that to victims of sexual violence.

Ah. That trick. Did you know that sexual violence is way less common than, oh I don't know....crime? IE Organized or unorganized. Non-sexual. All that. Yeah. Those matter more.

You know nothing about criminal justice now do you?

Rape is quite common, but is WAY underreported, which is why you see small stats on rape.

Rape falls under crime, so I don't see the point you are trying to make, and you sound like an apologist.

[Nailed to the Perch]

Go tell that to victims of sexual violence.

Ah. That trick. Did you know that sexual violence is way less common than, oh I don't know....crime? IE Organized or unorganized. Non-sexual. All that. Yeah. Those matter more.

Wow, that's an amazing revelation. Did you all know that a specific type of crime is less common than all crime, combined? Whoa! On top of that, I just realized, there are way more fruits of all kinds in the world than there are apples! AND there are way more books of all kinds in the world than there are science fiction novels! MIND = BLOWN.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Ah. That trick. Did you know that sexual violence is way less common than, oh I don't know....crime? IE Organized or unorganized. Non-sexual. All that. Yeah. Those matter more.

Wow, that's an amazing revelation. Did you all know that a specific type of crime is less common than all crime, combined? Whoa! On top of that, I just realized, there are way more fruits of all kinds in the world than there are apples! AND there are way more books of all kinds in the world than there are science fiction novels! MIND = BLOWN.

[Kvatchdom]

Ah. That trick. Did you know that sexual violence is way less common than, oh I don't know....crime? IE Organized or unorganized. Non-sexual. All that. Yeah. Those matter more.

1 in 5 women are raped.

It's reasonably close to that for men too, though still less.

Not sure if sarcasm or a very odd fact.

[The Steel Magnolia]

1 in 5 women are raped.

It's reasonably close to that for men too, though still less.

Not sure if sarcasm or a very odd fact.

Odd?

Appalling, more like.

"I've got problems too buddy..."

Is the essential problem when analyzing systems of privilege, because when these systems are brought up, it is often interpreted as "Your life is perfect and you should feel bad!" rather than "There is inherent bias in the system." Unfortunately, even more problems arise because the usual answer back rings of "You may have problems, but MINE are worse!" Or some kind of cold analytical discussion of the true meaning of certain terms or some garbage like that. "Well yes crimes against males happen BUT..." Does there even need to be a discussion on whether the nature of the system of privilege is male hate or female hate oriented?

Yes, quite frankly. We need to target our efforts and spend resources where they are most required. Right now, that's on the female side of the spectrum.

What matters is that there's a system of privilege that is based on some kind of perverted Darwinism - that all females and males are bound by a ridiculous notion of masculinity or (feminity?). Often this nonsense goes hand in hand with the bunk "females are left brain" or whatever pseudoscience is used to justify it.

In the end it comes down to a hatred of femininity.

I think what bugs me about these kind of discussions are that they tend to get bent into an argument over terms, who's what label, or who's at "fault" (If John teases Sara and Sara then commits suicide, it is neither John nor Sara's "fault" in the sense that either side always argues. John used no force to kill Sara, but is still a prick, and Sara is the one who killed herself, but is not "weak willed").

Nah it's John's fault if he bullies Sara into killing herself. In fact, it is entirely.

That being said, any love of equality the original poster of this tried to convey is bunk, because just labeling those who caused a ruckus there "feminists," as if all feminists are like this, as if this is the face of feminism itself, and because of saying "Men's Equality" (is this different than regular equality somehow?).

My grammar is awful and my thoughts hard to follow, and I apologize.

Men's Equality is a lie is how it's different from regular equality.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

Ah. That trick. Did you know that sexual violence is way less common than, oh I don't know....crime? IE Organized or unorganized. Non-sexual. All that. Yeah. Those matter more.

Wow, that's an amazing revelation. Did you all know that a specific type of crime is less common than all crime, combined? Whoa! On top of that, I just realized, there are way more fruits of all kinds in the world than there are apples! AND there are way more books of all kinds in the world than there are science fiction novels! MIND = BLOWN.

Stop it! You and your man-hating facts!

[Freelanderness]

"I've got problems too buddy..."

Is the essential problem when analyzing systems of privilege, because when these systems are brought up, it is often interpreted as "Your life is perfect and you should feel bad!" rather than "There is inherent bias in the system." Unfortunately, even more problems arise because the usual answer back rings of "You may have problems, but MINE are worse!" Or some kind of cold analytical discussion of the true meaning of certain terms or some garbage like that. "Well yes crimes against males happen BUT..." Does there even need to be a discussion on whether the nature of the system of privilege is male hate or female hate oriented? What matters is that there's a system of privilege that is based on some kind of perverted Darwinism - that all females and males are bound by a ridiculous notion of masculinity or (feminity?). Often this nonsense goes hand in hand with the bunk "females are left brain" or whatever pseudoscience is used to justify it.

I think what bugs me about these kind of discussions are that they tend to get bent into an argument over terms, who's what label, or who's at "fault" (If John teases Sara and Sara then commits suicide, it is neither John nor Sara's "fault" in the sense that either side always argues. John used no force to kill Sara, but is still a prick, and Sara is the one who killed herself, but is not "weak willed").

That being said, any love of equality the original poster of this tried to convey is bunk, because just labeling those who caused a ruckus there "feminists," as if all feminists are like this, as if this is the face of feminism itself, and because of saying "Men's Equality" (is this different than regular equality somehow?).

My grammar is awful and my thoughts hard to follow, and I apologize.

You are making a good point here, especially the first part I've bolded. This is so very important to remember in discussion about oppression. Thank you.

[Freelanderness]

1 in 5 women are raped.

It's reasonably close to that for men too, though still less.

Not sure if sarcasm or a very odd fact.

http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims

Keeping in mind that they do not take into account rape that happens to those under the ages of 12 (which is sadly a significant portion of sexual violence)

also more stats here: Sexual Assault Statistics

You can verify those with google. So yeah, rape and sexual violence are extremely common.

[Natapoc]

Of course, there's also the simple point that he is making shit up when he brings up "lets call ourselves victims" as if we haven't made it a part of our core being to raise awareness and do more by spreading the message and trying to educate people and include them in the broader conversation.

Good for you, but it depends on if the awareness works in the right way, in the wrong way you're just preaching to the Choir or trying to argue with a hostile crowd.
Some people here seem to think that they could shame or insult others into supporting them.

Of course. And I do hope people pay more attention to this post of yours than they do to my quick one liner reply.

But even if he was correct, it's not about the ability to claim "victim" title, as the strawman goes. Our goal is to eliminate oppression regardless of who.

That seems rather almost impossible.
You talked that patriarchy theory.
Did you perhaps think that you put the chicken before the egg?

Or do you actually believe that if all the people at the top were women we wouldn't have a reverse version of the same type of oppression.

Even though power always corrupts?

I don't know, some of the content of this thread really says some things, and they aren't good things.

You really don't understand at all do you.

Okay so when I showed that the vast majority 80% or higher, of positions of leadership and power in this country are taken by men and that, men can thus be said to rule I was speaking a fact and showing the existence of patriarchy to someone who claimed to doubt it.

No, I don't think we should "reverse" it, IE have a country where being a male president is something that's never even happened before or being a male in the senate or house means everything you say reflects on all males because there are so few men...

I do not believe in our current system of government, but if I did I'd say the numbers should be about equal (since males and females make roughly an equal percent of the population). Out of 100 senators I'd expect the year to year average to be around 50 men to 50 women with all political parties having about the same percent of women in both leadership and membership.

But yes, of course power corrupts and in my preferred form of "government" everyone would be a "leader" and share equally in power.

But say we did reverse it... How would it make you feel to know that, as a male you had no chance of getting into a leadership or rule making position and that the people above you would always be women?

What do you think that would say about societies beliefs about men? That men make bad decisions? Perhaps that men are unable to serve in leadership roles? That men are better servants than leaders?
Men are not competent?

Something else?

There are female supremisists out there, but they are very rare and usually make it very clear that they are not feminists because feminists don't want a world ruled by women. They want a world where women are treated equally.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Definitely (and sure, this will probably cause some of you to ask if I really just found that out. Yes, I did) academic feminism is way different from political feminism.

[Euroslavia]

That will totally calm them down.

I kind of feel angry women are like whiny dogs. They will be the loudest around you until you actually show a threat. Then they quickly become submissive.

*** Warned for Trolling ***
There's no excuse for such a statement. Knock it off.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Definitely (and sure, this will probably cause some of you to ask if I really just found that out. Yes, I did) academic feminism is way different from political feminism.

^This, exactly this is what most people don't get.

Kinda like politicians and political science. They are different even though you can assume they are basically the same by name.

And to make a better comparison: Historians who are outside of academia and historians who are in the ivory tower are different. I think you can guess who is the more arrogant of the two.

[Gravlen]

THIS x1000
You put it perfectly, Maritimes.


If you believe that men are getting fucked over, then you'd be right, because not every man can conform to the perfect alpha male standard. And I agree that women don't look at this in feminism enough, much in the same way that the second wave didn't look at women of colour or transwomen. So, while feminists do think these issues warrant attention, they pay more attention to issues that directly affect women, such as the rape culture and pay gap.

THIS is why feminism (imo) needs to have a male perspective in order to carry forward, because the issues that men face in society when it comes to issues relating to gender come directly from the fact that men can't conform to the perfect alpha male standard.

While you definitely should be upset that you were discriminated in your domestic abuse case, instead of shunning feminism you should be the one to go up to them and say "This is why you need me."

The focus on women is inherent to feminism and feminist theory. It won't stop, so the only alternative is a gender egalitarian or gender abolitionist movement.

...and with a gender equality movement the focus will still mainly be on women.

[The Steel Magnolia]

The focus on women is inherent to feminism and feminist theory. It won't stop, so the only alternative is a gender egalitarian or gender abolitionist movement.

...and with a gender equality movement the focus will still mainly be on women.

I mean it's not like we have just a teensy bit more to deal with.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Definitely (and sure, this will probably cause some of you to ask if I really just found that out. Yes, I did) academic feminism is way different from political feminism.

^This, exactly this is what most people don't get.

Kinda like politicians and political science. They are different even though you can assume they are basically the same by name.

And to make a better comparison: Historians who are outside of academia and historians who are in the ivory tower are different. I think you can guess who is the more arrogant of the two.

There's a marked difference between the two. However, political feminism seems to be far more active in effecting change than academic feminism.

[The Godly Nations]

But...men are already equal. In fact, they are more than equal. But, wouldn't mind having good ol' fashion Patriarchy back, though.