Feminists sabotage yet another talk on men's equality

[Frisivisia]

You're so egalitarian.

Aren't you?

Definition of Egalitarian: Of, relating to, or believing in the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.

I am.

[Ostroeuropa]

I've also made my own points, but I only get noticed when I agree with Ost.

The only points that count are points that make any sense and are logical.

You've made exactly none of those.

I don't know what to make of this post.

You need to realize the irony of this.

MRA's are receiving no funding mostly because the public at large doesn't care.

This male-dominated, Republican-rising America of ours doesn't care about men's rights because men are macho and cannot be raped, and if they are, they deserved it because they're weak.

Ideas perpetrated by men backfiring on men.

But, I agree MRA's are fucked up and should probably rethink their priorities.

Male rape is a serious issue.

The focus on the perpetrator is a feminist stance.
I don't care what gender the person being sexist is. Just that they are being sexist. I'd give precisely as many fucks if it was women doing it, and you wouldn't see me arguing that they are doing it because matriarchy.
Ideas perpetrated by bigots are causing sexism to effect men.
Like I said earlier, feminism is a vengeance ideology.

[Frisivisia]

The only points that count are points that make any sense and are logical.

You've made exactly none of those.



You need to realize the irony of this.

MRA's are receiving no funding mostly because the public at large doesn't care.

This male-dominated, Republican-rising America of ours doesn't care about men's rights because men are macho and cannot be raped, and if they are, they deserved it because they're weak.

Ideas perpetrated by men backfiring on men.

But, I agree MRA's are fucked up and should probably rethink their priorities.

Male rape is a serious issue.

The focus on the perpetrator is a feminist stance.
I don't care what gender the person being sexist is. Just that they are being sexist. I'd give precisely as many fucks if it was women doing it, and you wouldn't see me arguing that they are doing it because matriarchy.
Ideas perpetrated by bigots are causing sexism to effect men.
Like I said earlier, feminism is a vengeance ideology.

lolnope.

[Ostroeuropa]

The focus on the perpetrator is a feminist stance.
I don't care what gender the person being sexist is. Just that they are being sexist. I'd give precisely as many fucks if it was women doing it, and you wouldn't see me arguing that they are doing it because matriarchy.
Ideas perpetrated by bigots are causing sexism to effect men.
Like I said earlier, feminism is a vengeance ideology.

lolnope.

Cool argument bro. You're really contributing.

[Nailed to the Perch]

I'm having a "can't look away from the train wreck" moment.

On the one hand, your ideas about laws that have "gone too far," "protect women [but] don't afford any protection for men," and are "obviously sexist...[and] discriminate against men" are likely to make my head hurt. On the other, they're also likely to be pretty funny.

Aw, fuck it, into the train wreck I go. Please cite specific examples of the aforementioned laws.

Ok

I already mentioned the UK's Sexual Offences Act, which fails to recognise that there are cases of women committing rape against men, by defining rape in a more narrow way. I think it's sexist that a law doesn't cover genuine aspects which should be covered. There is also a pilot scheme in the UK, which may well be brought-into law, whereby a man accused of domestic violence can be barred from entering his own home for up to 28 days. If he genuinely did commit the crime, than fair enough. However, what about the men who didn't? Is it ok to force the possibilities of homelessness and suicide upon them? No, it isn't. And what about women who batter their husbands- can they be thrown out too? Nope. Why? The possible law here is incredibly one-sided. Granted though, it is not yet a law.

Okay, the fact that it isn't actually a law REALLY undermines your argument, as you must realize.

(That said, I absolutely agree with the idea that someone accused of violence can be ordered to stay away from the people they allegedly attacked, even if those people share a home. Restraining orders are a very, very good thing, and they save lives. They should quite obviously be gender-neutral, and if this suggested law is not, then that's patently stupid, but I seriously doubt such a version would ever make it into law. I'd rather like to see a source on its lack of gender neutrality, though, because that's pretty bizarre.)

Then there is the Draft law in the US. Women can enter active military service now like men. But women are exempt from the draft, should one ever be implemented. I understand there are also inequalities over registering for draft, whereby men have to sign-up or face severe penalties, but women are not obliged to sign-up. If women did not serve combat roles in the military, this wouldn't be an issue. However, since they now do, the draft law is sexist. I can offer more examples, if you like. I would like to prove to you that sexism against men is genuine, and needs to be addressed.

The draft is real, at least, although the two big problems with it as a support for your argument are very, very big - especially problem #1, which is that the draft has not actually been used in a very long time. The only reason there hasn't been a lot of really loud, public, overwhelming opposition to the gendered draft is that there is roughly 0 chance that anyone registered for the draft is going to be drafted. The US is doing just fine with an all-volunteer military, and that's unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. Problem #2, of course, is that while the draft is sexist, it's something of a stretch to claim it's sexist against men, seeing as the reason women aren't drafted is that up until this year, women weren't (officially) allowed to serve in combat. It's a better example of how discrimination against women can often end up harming men, too. If you want to oppose the gendered draft - and you should, because it's stupid - the people in your corner will be feminists, who have been fighting hard for decades for women to be permitted to serve equally.

[Desperate Measures]

I've come to realize most of my rights as a man by becoming a feminist. Joint custody of my kid for example which also means joint responsibility. I mean take from it what you will but feminism has served me just fine as someone with a penis.

[Frisivisia]

lolnope.

Cool argument bro. You're really contributing.

Your argument is so ridiculously false, I don't know where to begin. Maybe the idea that feminism is a "vengeance ideology", which is patently untrue. Maybe the idea that feminists only care when the perpetrator of sexism is male, which is also patently untrue.

[Ostroeuropa]

Cool argument bro. You're really contributing.

Your argument is so ridiculously false, I don't know where to begin. Maybe the idea that feminism is a "vengeance ideology", which is patently untrue. Maybe the idea that feminists only care when the perpetrator of sexism is male, which is also patently untrue.

I never said they only care when the perpetrator of sexism is male.
You've won your own award again.

[The Rich Port]

The only points that count are points that make any sense and are logical.

You've made exactly none of those.



You need to realize the irony of this.

MRA's are receiving no funding mostly because the public at large doesn't care.

This male-dominated, Republican-rising America of ours doesn't care about men's rights because men are macho and cannot be raped, and if they are, they deserved it because they're weak.

Ideas perpetrated by men backfiring on men.

But, I agree MRA's are fucked up and should probably rethink their priorities.

Male rape is a serious issue.

The focus on the perpetrator is a feminist stance.
I don't care what gender the person being sexist is. Just that they are being sexist. I'd give precisely as many fucks if it was women doing it, and you wouldn't see me arguing that they are doing it because matriarchy.
Ideas perpetrated by bigots are causing sexism to effect men.
Like I said earlier, feminism is a vengeance ideology.

... No, no it's not. Would you rather focus on the victim?

That's the irony. The irony is that men are sexist towards men AND women.

Yes, and those bigots are men.

Feminism in general is NOT a vengeance ideology.

If anything, MRA's should align themselves with feminist groups. But they're not because they're a part of the problem.

[Frisivisia]

Your argument is so ridiculously false, I don't know where to begin. Maybe the idea that feminism is a "vengeance ideology", which is patently untrue. Maybe the idea that feminists only care when the perpetrator of sexism is male, which is also patently untrue.

I never said they only care when the perpetrator of sexism is male.
You've won your own award again.

Um... yes you did. Does, "The focus on the perpetrator is a feminist stance." jog your memory?

[Ostroeuropa]

I never said they only care when the perpetrator of sexism is male.
You've won your own award again.

Um... yes you did. Does, "The focus on the perpetrator is a feminist stance." jog your memory?

Yeh.
What about that says they only care when the perpetrator is male?

[Ora Amaris]

I still think the whole men's rights cause is ridiculous. Don't think I've been living under a rock or anything, but in my entire 21 years of life, being a male has given me nothing but advantages and good fortune. Having a significant less chance of being raped has been pretty awesome, not being objectified by everyone every day of my life has also been ace. I've never knocked a girl up so I don't worry about all these child support and custody issues and I think if I ever did knock up a girl I should be grateful I'm not the one whose reproductive freedom is under attack by the state and that I'm not forced to have an invasive transvaginal ultrasound as an arbitrary prerequisite for abortion, and be fortunate enough too to not have my health care provider assassinated by domestic terrorists or the clinic I'm in getting bombed.

Inclined to agree with the pissed off feminists, much as I'd be inclined to agree with pissed off people of color who'd disrupt a "white issues" conference or pissed off queer folk who'd disrupt a hetero-pride thing, cause, you know, all of those things are stupid anyway.

I'm sure as hell not going through 40 pages of this stuff, but looking through a couple, this is exactly what I was thinking. "Reverse sexism" is caused by the patriarchy, through gender policing. Why do you think MtF trans individuals face much more discrimination than FtM?

[Nailed to the Perch]

I disagree, and I really doubt an awful lot of male victims of violence would agree. Violence against anyone is a problem, obviously, but gendered violence is a specific issue within that larger problem. I don't think "end prison rape" ignores the existence of rape outside of prison - I think it recognizes that prison rape is a distinct issue with causes unique to itself, and that simply lumping it in under "end rape" does not adequately address those unique circumstances. The idea that we better address a problem by ignoring significant causative factors in a major subset of cases just doesn't make any sense at all.

End Gendered violence is a compromise. It's one you won't see feminist organizations take.
Also, it isn't equivalent to end prison rape. Thats a specific problem.
It's equivalent to end prison rape of half the inmates who suffer it while conspicuously ignoring the other half.

No, it's absolutely not. Pretending that violence against women is not specifically a gendered issue but just one of "sometimes, people are violent to other people who just coincidentally happen to be female" is nonsense. The idea that, for example, female bodies are communal property is a specific and critical issue relevant to violence against women and not to violence against men. Not addressing it does nothing but deliberately underserve victims of gendered violence.

[Frisivisia]

Um... yes you did. Does, "The focus on the perpetrator is a feminist stance." jog your memory?

Yeh.
What about that says they only care when the perpetrator is male?

Nothing, I misread and made assumptions. Are you happy?

[Ostroeuropa]

End Gendered violence is a compromise. It's one you won't see feminist organizations take.
Also, it isn't equivalent to end prison rape. Thats a specific problem.
It's equivalent to end prison rape of half the inmates who suffer it while conspicuously ignoring the other half.

No, it's absolutely not. Pretending that violence against women is not specifically a gendered issue but just one of "sometimes, people are violent to other people who just coincidentally happen to be female" is nonsense. The idea that, for example, female bodies are communal property is a specific and critical issue relevant to violence against women and not to violence against men. Not addressing it does nothing but deliberately underserve victims of gendered violence.

I specifically said "End gendered violence."
Are you denying that men are also victimized for their gender? I'd remind you of the prevalent mentality that women can strike men and they aren't allowed to defend themselves.

[Ostroeuropa]

Yeh.
What about that says they only care when the perpetrator is male?

Nothing, I misread and made assumptions. Are you happy?

edit:
thankyou.

I have the flu and snapped at you in this post previously. sorry.

[Frisivisia]

Nothing, I misread and made assumptions. Are you happy?

edit:
thankyou.

I have the flu and snapped at you in this post previously. sorry.

No problem, understandable.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

No, it's absolutely not. Pretending that violence against women is not specifically a gendered issue but just one of "sometimes, people are violent to other people who just coincidentally happen to be female" is nonsense. The idea that, for example, female bodies are communal property is a specific and critical issue relevant to violence against women and not to violence against men. Not addressing it does nothing but deliberately underserve victims of gendered violence.

Men can also be victims of abuse by women.

Men can also be raped by women.

Men are also often times sought jus because we got dicks as well as men look oftentimes for women just because they have vaginas.

I fail to see whether you are in denial or you are just trying to make a point, which has come up horribly wrong.

[Frisivisia]

No, it's absolutely not. Pretending that violence against women is not specifically a gendered issue but just one of "sometimes, people are violent to other people who just coincidentally happen to be female" is nonsense. The idea that, for example, female bodies are communal property is a specific and critical issue relevant to violence against women and not to violence against men. Not addressing it does nothing but deliberately underserve victims of gendered violence.

Men can also be victims of abuse by women.

Men can also be raped by women.

I fail to see whether you are in denial or you are just trying to make a point, which has come up horribly wrong.

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.

[Ostroeuropa]

Men can also be victims of abuse by women.

Men can also be raped by women.

I fail to see whether you are in denial or you are just trying to make a point, which has come up horribly wrong.

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.

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.

[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.

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.

It's invisible because of the bigotry in our culture that men are macho and should be able to stop rape, not the evil feminists.

[The Rich Port]

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.

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.

[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.

It's invisible because of the bigotry in our culture that men are macho and should be able to stop rape, not the evil feminists.

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

[Cosara]

Men can also be victims of abuse by women.

Men can also be raped by women.

I fail to see whether you are in denial or you are just trying to make a point, which has come up horribly wrong.

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.

[Frisivisia]

It's invisible because of the bigotry in our culture that men are macho and should be able to stop rape, not the evil feminists.

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.