Gamergate, Feminisim, and Journalistic Ethics

[New Edom]

It is nonsense.

I was thinking today about why I became an ant-feminist. Like many who used to support feminism but found chronic unfairness and bias in the movement, it began with a simple observation. As part of the fallout from the "Blurred Lines" controversy, I had noticed a large number of people posting on blogs and making vlogs stating that "we need to teach our men to treat women better." This was often specified as "we need to teach men not to rape" "...not to harass" "....not to objectify" "....to respect women" and so on. Women and girls needed to be encouraged, protected and helped.

Now this goes against my personal experience and that of some other men, so I objected. I pointed out that women do actually initiate sexual assault, do abuse and do blur the lines of consent, so perhaps while women may experience these bad things more often they still do happen enough where women are the cause that that needed to be addressed.

The responses I got were invariably one of the following:
1. It doesn't happen enough to be a concern.
2. Bringing up female abusers deflects the more important conversation about how badly females are treated
3. That while the public discourse may be focused on teaching men to be good and women to be supported, people 'know' that some men and boys get abused and that's good enough.

This is only one example, but really, I think it's enough. And as we saw in this thread here, not one feminist could point out an example of how the above is not the common response, or even acknowledge that it is a general tendency in the movement that ought to be addressed.

So for me, feminism is not an ideology or approach that even accepts my concerns or my experience, which are not theoretical. I am a survivor of childhood sexual abuse at the hands of a woman and further abuse that was emotional and physical at the hands of others. I do not appreciate my experience being treated as though it was like being struck by lightning.

[Hirota]

This shouldn't be hard to find the rate at which women are married to richer households, no? Studies, for example.

The dailymail has published a couple. I cannot verify the studies themselves, and I wouldn't trust a newspaper (especially the dailyfail), so I'd take with a considerable pinch of salt.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... finds.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... ldren.html

I am not obligated to prove anything as I didn't claim anything besides the fact feminists arguments tend to be fallacious and there are many undocumented claims of sexism from both feminists and the MRM.

That's probably about right.

[Natapoc]

It is nonsense.

I was thinking today about why I became an ant-feminist. Like many who used to support feminism but found chronic unfairness and bias in the movement, it began with a simple observation. As part of the fallout from the "Blurred Lines" controversy, I had noticed a large number of people posting on blogs and making vlogs stating that "we need to teach our men to treat women better." This was often specified as "we need to teach men not to rape" "...not to harass" "....not to objectify" "....to respect women" and so on. Women and girls needed to be encouraged, protected and helped.

Now this goes against my personal experience and that of some other men, so I objected. I pointed out that women do actually initiate sexual assault, do abuse and do blur the lines of consent, so perhaps while women may experience these bad things more often they still do happen enough where women are the cause that that needed to be addressed.

The responses I got were invariably one of the following:
1. It doesn't happen enough to be a concern.
2. Bringing up female abusers deflects the more important conversation about how badly females are treated
3. That while the public discourse may be focused on teaching men to be good and women to be supported, people 'know' that some men and boys get abused and that's good enough.

This is only one example, but really, I think it's enough. And as we saw in this thread here, not one feminist could point out an example of how the above is not the common response, or even acknowledge that it is a general tendency in the movement that ought to be addressed.

So for me, feminism is not an ideology or approach that even accepts my concerns or my experience, which are not theoretical. I am a survivor of childhood sexual abuse at the hands of a woman and further abuse that was emotional and physical at the hands of others. I do not appreciate my experience being treated as though it was like being struck by lightning.

So you are opposed to teaching boys about consent? Against teaching men that rape is bad?

In what way is that against your experience?

[Hirota]

So you are opposed to teaching boys about consent? Against teaching men that rape is bad?

In what way is that against your experience?

Your bias continues to show. Why just men? Lesbians apparently have a one in three chance of being sexually assaulted by another woman.

And why should all men be made to "taught" that rape is bad, when the fact is that (aside from a tiny, tiny, tiny minority of individuals) men already know that? This "rape culture" kool-aid orthodoxy you've been drinking is a lie.

[New Edom]

It is nonsense.

I was thinking today about why I became an ant-feminist. Like many who used to support feminism but found chronic unfairness and bias in the movement, it began with a simple observation. As part of the fallout from the "Blurred Lines" controversy, I had noticed a large number of people posting on blogs and making vlogs stating that "we need to teach our men to treat women better." This was often specified as "we need to teach men not to rape" "...not to harass" "....not to objectify" "....to respect women" and so on. Women and girls needed to be encouraged, protected and helped.

Now this goes against my personal experience and that of some other men, so I objected. I pointed out that women do actually initiate sexual assault, do abuse and do blur the lines of consent, so perhaps while women may experience these bad things more often they still do happen enough where women are the cause that that needed to be addressed.

The responses I got were invariably one of the following:
1. It doesn't happen enough to be a concern.
2. Bringing up female abusers deflects the more important conversation about how badly females are treated
3. That while the public discourse may be focused on teaching men to be good and women to be supported, people 'know' that some men and boys get abused and that's good enough.

This is only one example, but really, I think it's enough. And as we saw in this thread here, not one feminist could point out an example of how the above is not the common response, or even acknowledge that it is a general tendency in the movement that ought to be addressed.

So for me, feminism is not an ideology or approach that even accepts my concerns or my experience, which are not theoretical. I am a survivor of childhood sexual abuse at the hands of a woman and further abuse that was emotional and physical at the hands of others. I do not appreciate my experience being treated as though it was like being struck by lightning.

So you are opposed to teaching boys about consent? Against teaching men that rape is bad?

In what way is that against your experience?

I want EVERYONE taught about consent and that nonconsent is bad. I do not want boys and men ALONE targeted as subjects for this teaching. I do not believe that ONLY women and girls need to be taught to have a sense of healthy boundaries. And evidence that I have seen says that feminists ONLY want to teach men and boys how to approach sex in a consent driven way and ONLY want to teach women and girls confidence and to have a sense of their own healthy boundaries.

[New Edom]

So you are opposed to teaching boys about consent? Against teaching men that rape is bad?

In what way is that against your experience?

Your bias continues to show. Why just men? Lesbians apparently have a one in three chance of being sexually assaulted by another woman.

There have also been barely discussed issues of abuse within women's shelters, abuse of the elderly and abuse of children. Now, a movement generally teaching and led by people with integrity would encourage such things to be dealt with ethically and there would be transparency. it would not be seen as somehow removing any legitimacy from good causes it espouses.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

The best way to fix this situation for both men and women is malicious faux-compliance.

As an example, When a woman asks a man to carry her things, he should agree, and then purposefully break them. If enough men do this kind of shit, women will stop asking.
Applied broadly across all of womens demands of men, this will eventually result in women doing more for themselves, striving more, and eventually lead to them being represented at the higher eschelons of society.

Ostro, I don't think this is a good strategy, either on ethical grounds, legal grounds, or sociopolitical grounds.

Ethically and legally it is destroying someone else's property under false pretenses, which legally would make you responsible for their destruction while they are in your care and ethically means essentially breaking the spirit of your word.

Sociopolitically this sort of action is incredibly likely to lead to harmful misconceptions. Either the woman involved is going to gain a perception of men as incompetent, or she is going to interpret it as a malicious act against her, which will probably make her feel harassed and oppressed by what she likely perceives as the person who has the power in this situation.

So all in all if you want to increase the amount of misandry in the world it would be a great plan.

[Hirota]

Your bias continues to show. Why just men? Lesbians apparently have a one in three chance of being sexually assaulted by another woman.

There have also been barely discussed issues of abuse within women's shelters, abuse of the elderly and abuse of children. Now, a movement generally teaching and led by people with integrity would encourage such things to be dealt with ethically and there would be transparency. it would not be seen as somehow removing any legitimacy from good causes it espouses.

We should add female teachers to that as well. Statutory rape after all.
http://www.inforum.com/news/crime/36717 ... photo-case
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/r ... -1.1816500
http://www.wnd.com/2014/03/woman-has-in ... -and-gets/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... court.html
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/loc ... c=obinsite
http://www.wwltv.com/story/news/2015/04 ... /25519993/
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/femal ... 13hlz.html
http://www.thenewstribune.com/2014/02/2 ... enced.html
http://www.ijreview.com/2015/01/230241- ... e-student/
http://netloid.com/news/teacher-brianne ... 3-students
http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/crime-l ... k_2014_sfp
http://www.myfoxchicago.com/story/28812 ... th-selfie#
http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?secti ... id=8940022
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/loc ... 07871.html
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/nj- ... ar-BBhIlct
http://femalesexoffenders.com/fso2/2014 ... -sex-case/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-26927378
http://ohianews.com/lancaster-mother-se ... eds-teens/

Etc etc etc

And apparently mothers:
http://oilcitywyo.com/2015/05/12/natron ... dangering/
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_18617884
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... bled=false

But maybe we should be teaching women not to beat up their kids? After all, women are more likely to abuse their children than men. (From this report)

[Teutonic Germany (Ancient)]

The best way to fix this situation for both men and women is malicious faux-compliance.

As an example, When a woman asks a man to carry her things, he should agree, and then purposefully break them. If enough men do this kind of shit, women will stop asking.
Applied broadly across all of womens demands of men, this will eventually result in women doing more for themselves, striving more, and eventually lead to them being represented at the higher eschelons of society.

Ostro, I don't think this is a good strategy, either on ethical grounds, legal grounds, or sociopolitical grounds.

Ethically and legally it is destroying someone else's property under false pretenses, which legally would make you responsible for their destruction while they are in your care and ethically means essentially breaking the spirit of your word.

Sociopolitically this sort of action is incredibly likely to lead to harmful misconceptions. Either the woman involved is going to gain a perception of men as incompetent, or she is going to interpret it as a malicious act against her, which will probably make her feel harassed and oppressed by what she likely perceives as the person who has the power in this situation.

So all in all if you want to increase the amount of misandry in the world it would be a great plan.

Not to mention it would be a dereliction of duty to another. I say I will help you, I bound to help you. Anything less is betrayal.

[Shaggai]

https://thingofthings.wordpress.com/2015/03/19/privilege-vs-forces/

It's generally quite a good blog for that sort of thing. If you look through the archives, there are other similar posts.

What in that blog post addressed my questions? There is nothing specific stated there that addresses anything bad women ever do.

Ah, wrong post. Sorry. This better? Like, it's not a full treatment of the subject, but it's about one issue. Maybe this one?

#3 is why we had the whole Zoe Quinn scandal in the first place: Faced with an account of abuse by a woman, feminists fell over themselves to declare her victim a non-victim.

Her victim? I'm not sure what she is alleged to have done but I google searched her name and came up with all sorts of articles: http://www.businessinsider.com/zoe-quin ... elf-2015-3

It sounds like she was the victim of a severe online harassment and bulling campaign. Did she do something worse than sending rape and death threats to people?

Since I'm looking through the archives anyway, here. You can decide the answer to your question.

[Haktiva]

It is nonsense.

I was thinking today about why I became an ant-feminist. Like many who used to support feminism but found chronic unfairness and bias in the movement, it began with a simple observation. As part of the fallout from the "Blurred Lines" controversy, I had noticed a large number of people posting on blogs and making vlogs stating that "we need to teach our men to treat women better." This was often specified as "we need to teach men not to rape" "...not to harass" "....not to objectify" "....to respect women" and so on. Women and girls needed to be encouraged, protected and helped.

Now this goes against my personal experience and that of some other men, so I objected. I pointed out that women do actually initiate sexual assault, do abuse and do blur the lines of consent, so perhaps while women may experience these bad things more often they still do happen enough where women are the cause that that needed to be addressed.

The responses I got were invariably one of the following:
1. It doesn't happen enough to be a concern.
2. Bringing up female abusers deflects the more important conversation about how badly females are treated
3. That while the public discourse may be focused on teaching men to be good and women to be supported, people 'know' that some men and boys get abused and that's good enough.

This is only one example, but really, I think it's enough. And as we saw in this thread here, not one feminist could point out an example of how the above is not the common response, or even acknowledge that it is a general tendency in the movement that ought to be addressed.

So for me, feminism is not an ideology or approach that even accepts my concerns or my experience, which are not theoretical. I am a survivor of childhood sexual abuse at the hands of a woman and further abuse that was emotional and physical at the hands of others. I do not appreciate my experience being treated as though it was like being struck by lightning.

I'm curious, have you heard of Erin Pizzey? You sound like someone who would appreciate her work.

[Natapoc]

So you are opposed to teaching boys about consent? Against teaching men that rape is bad?

In what way is that against your experience?

I want EVERYONE taught about consent and that nonconsent is bad. I do not want boys and men ALONE targeted as subjects for this teaching. I do not believe that ONLY women and girls need to be taught to have a sense of healthy boundaries. And evidence that I have seen says that feminists ONLY want to teach men and boys how to approach sex in a consent driven way and ONLY want to teach women and girls confidence and to have a sense of their own healthy boundaries.

Wait what? So when you hear someone say "Boys need to be taught about consent"

You somehow interpret that to mean that the speaker thinks girls don't also need to be taught about consent?

If you are for teaching everyone about consent then you should be in favor of the "teach men not to rape" idea.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

Wait what? So when you hear someone say "Boys need to be taught about consent"

You somehow interpret that to mean that the speaker thinks girls don't also need to be taught about consent?

If you are for teaching everyone about consent then you should be in favor of the "teach men not to rape" idea.

I'm curious, do you have a similar lack of assumptions about the motives of the speaker when you hear "We need to teach blacks to earn an honest day's living"?

[Kelinfort]

This shouldn't be hard to find the rate at which women are married to richer households, no? Studies, for example.

The dailymail has published a couple. I cannot verify the studies themselves, and I wouldn't trust a newspaper (especially the dailyfail), so I'd take with a considerable pinch of salt.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... finds.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... ldren.html

I am not obligated to prove anything as I didn't claim anything besides the fact feminists arguments tend to be fallacious and there are many undocumented claims of sexism from both feminists and the MRM.

That's probably about right.

He said that women marry at or around 30 and primarily wealthy men because they, "hit the panic switch." Unlike other claims of sexism here, this is pure, unfettered misogyny. I don't think people here would take kindly to a laissez faire capitalist saying they were poor because they didn't take responsibility and never helped themselves.

But with Ostro, women can't move up because they're entitled bitches.

[New Edom]

I want EVERYONE taught about consent and that nonconsent is bad. I do not want boys and men ALONE targeted as subjects for this teaching. I do not believe that ONLY women and girls need to be taught to have a sense of healthy boundaries. And evidence that I have seen says that feminists ONLY want to teach men and boys how to approach sex in a consent driven way and ONLY want to teach women and girls confidence and to have a sense of their own healthy boundaries.

Wait what? So when you hear someone say "Boys need to be taught about consent"

You somehow interpret that to mean that the speaker thinks girls don't also need to be taught about consent?

If you are for teaching everyone about consent then you should be in favor of the "teach men not to rape" idea.

There is no other way to interpret it. If you say "we need to license dogs" we don't also take that to mean "we need to license cats". Furthermore, this is typical feminist hypocrisy. if I said "I want to encourage boys to enjoy sports" I'm sure that most feminists would be offended and wonder why I'm not wanting to encourage girls to enjoy sports as well. This is after all a movement that has attacked the idea of using mostly the male pronoun to talk about the average person in a career. You can't have it both ways.

Furthermore, you rather conveniently glossed over when I pointed out that a number of feminists deny that it is even of importance or significance whether women or girls can be abusive. And I will invite you again to demonstrate to me if any feminists that you can quote or mention prove your point. I am aware that you according to a previous post find this an onerous duty, but I'd like to suggest that if you're doing to disagree with me vehemently that you ought to back it up or I will assume that you cannot.

[New Edom]

It is nonsense.

I was thinking today about why I became an ant-feminist. Like many who used to support feminism but found chronic unfairness and bias in the movement, it began with a simple observation. As part of the fallout from the "Blurred Lines" controversy, I had noticed a large number of people posting on blogs and making vlogs stating that "we need to teach our men to treat women better." This was often specified as "we need to teach men not to rape" "...not to harass" "....not to objectify" "....to respect women" and so on. Women and girls needed to be encouraged, protected and helped.

Now this goes against my personal experience and that of some other men, so I objected. I pointed out that women do actually initiate sexual assault, do abuse and do blur the lines of consent, so perhaps while women may experience these bad things more often they still do happen enough where women are the cause that that needed to be addressed.

The responses I got were invariably one of the following:
1. It doesn't happen enough to be a concern.
2. Bringing up female abusers deflects the more important conversation about how badly females are treated
3. That while the public discourse may be focused on teaching men to be good and women to be supported, people 'know' that some men and boys get abused and that's good enough.

This is only one example, but really, I think it's enough. And as we saw in this thread here, not one feminist could point out an example of how the above is not the common response, or even acknowledge that it is a general tendency in the movement that ought to be addressed.

So for me, feminism is not an ideology or approach that even accepts my concerns or my experience, which are not theoretical. I am a survivor of childhood sexual abuse at the hands of a woman and further abuse that was emotional and physical at the hands of others. I do not appreciate my experience being treated as though it was like being struck by lightning.

I'm curious, have you heard of Erin Pizzey? You sound like someone who would appreciate her work.

I have, yes. I have a lot of respect for her.

[Hirota]

Wait what? So when you hear someone say "Boys need to be taught about consent"

You somehow interpret that to mean that the speaker thinks girls don't also need to be taught about consent?

If you are for teaching everyone about consent then you should be in favor of the "teach men not to rape" idea.

You said what you said. If you meant something different you should do a better job of expressing yourself. That's your problem, not Edom's, not mine, not anyone elses.

[Hirota]

I don't think there's real feminism outside Radical Feminism.

"I don't think theres real Islam outside fundamentalist Islam"

No-one would never make that claim without being accused of bigotry, yet here we have someone making a similar claim above.

It's a yet another example of the SJW authoritarian ethos that has leanings in fascism.

[Chessmistress]

I want EVERYONE taught about consent and that nonconsent is bad. I do not want boys and men ALONE targeted as subjects for this teaching. I do not believe that ONLY women and girls need to be taught to have a sense of healthy boundaries. And evidence that I have seen says that feminists ONLY want to teach men and boys how to approach sex in a consent driven way and ONLY want to teach women and girls confidence and to have a sense of their own healthy boundaries.

Wait what? So when you hear someone say "Boys need to be taught about consent"

You somehow interpret that to mean that the speaker thinks girls don't also need to be taught about consent?

If you are for teaching everyone about consent then you should be in favor of the "teach men not to rape" idea.

Teaching everyone to not rape and teaching men to not rape is the same, because 98.1% rapes on women are performed by males (please note: I'm accepting Galloism datas, that's not 99% I previously stated).

Now this goes against my personal experience and that of some other men, so I objected. I pointed out that women do actually initiate sexual assault, do abuse and do blur the lines of consent, so perhaps while women may experience these bad things more often they still do happen enough where women are the cause that that needed to be addressed.

The responses I got were invariably one of the following:
1. It doesn't happen enough to be a concern.
2. Bringing up female abusers deflects the more important conversation about how badly females are treated
3. That while the public discourse may be focused on teaching men to be good and women to be supported, people 'know' that some men and boys get abused and that's good enough.

This is only one example, but really, I think it's enough. And as we saw in this thread here, not one feminist could point out an example of how the above is not the common response, or even acknowledge that it is a general tendency in the movement that ought to be addressed.

So for me, feminism is not an ideology or approach that even accepts my concerns or my experience, which are not theoretical. I am a survivor of childhood sexual abuse at the hands of a woman and further abuse that was emotional and physical at the hands of others. I do not appreciate my experience being treated as though it was like being struck by lightning.

I'm sorry for your personal experience, really, but still it's anectodal.
In fact the responses you get were right:
1. It doesn't happen enough to be a concern. TRUE.
2. Bringing up female abusers deflects the more important conversation about how badly females are treated. EVEN MORE TRUE - it's a tactic used by misogynists to deflect the main problem, that women are the primary victims and the primary targets of rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment, domestic violence and sexism - the thing is so pervasive that these behaviors have been historically used to keep women in a subordinate position

I will use passages of Convention of Istanbul, already signed by 18 European countries, to explain all the things.
I want use Convention of Istanbul because I don't want my words to be dismissed as "personal thoughts": these are official policies within 18 countries! And these policies are basically Radical Feminist thoughts!

http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetti ... nglish.pdf

Recognising that violence against women is a manifestation of historically unequal
power relations between women and men, which have led to domination over, and
discrimination against, women by men and to the prevention of the full advancement of
women;

Recognising the structural nature of violence against women as gender‐based violence,
and that violence against women is one of the crucial social mechanisms by which
women are forced into a subordinate position compared with men;

Recognising, with grave concern, that women and girls are often exposed to serious
forms of violence such as domestic violence, sexual harassment, rape, forced marriage,
crimes committed in the name of so‐called “honour” and genital mutilation, which
constitute a serious violation of the human rights of women and girls and a major
obstacle to the achievement of equality between women and men;

Recognising that women and girls are exposed to a higher risk of gender‐based violence
than men;

Recognising that domestic violence affects women disproportionately, and that men may also be victims of domestic violence;

Due patriarchy, gender-based violence, in fact, affects just only women, and the Convention fully recognise it:

“gender‐based violence against women” shall mean violence that is directed
against a woman because she is a woman or that affects women
disproportionately;

So, it's just not only that "it doesn't happen enough to be a concern" but also, it must be pointed out that social effects of violence against women are far worse than the social effects of violence against men.

"Victims" are WOMEN:

d   “gender‐based violence against women” shall mean violence that is directed
against a woman because she is a woman or that affects women
disproportionately;
e   “victim” shall mean any natural person who is subject to the conduct specified
in points a and b;

Indeed point a is:

a   “violence against women” is understood as a violation of human rights and a
form of discrimination against women and shall mean all acts of gender‐based
violence that result in, or are likely to result in, physical, sexual, psychological or
economic harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or
arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or in private life;

That's why the Convention is all about violence against women, violence against men is not enough relevant, and mainly (if nopt almost always) perpetrated by other men.
It's not just only Chessmistress who said so, it's Convention of Istanbul, signed by 18 countries.

I'm curious, do you have a similar lack of assumptions about the motives of the speaker when you hear "We need to teach blacks to earn an honest day's living"?

Blacks were historically discriminated and are still discriminated in many ways, just like women.
Men were historically dominant and still are dominanted in many ways.
You just miss the whole concept of substantive equality.
In order to achieve equality women must be empowered, and men will be a little hurted in the process, as collateral effect: losing privileges is hurting, you know?

Women and men are NOT equal nowadays and that's why according the Convention

  Special measures that are necessary to prevent and protect women from gender‐based
violence shall not be considered discrimination under the terms of this Convention.

Substantive equality!

That's why it's about "teaching MEN" even in the Convention

Parties shall take, where appropriate, the necessary steps to include teaching material
on issues such as equality between women and men, non‐stereotyped gender roles,
mutual respect, non‐violent conflict resolution in interpersonal relationships, gender‐
based violence against women and the right to personal integrity, adapted to the
evolving capacity of learners, in formal curricula and at all levels of education.

Parties shall take the necessary measures to encourage all members of society,
especially men and boys, to contribute actively to preventing all forms of violence
covered by the scope of this Convention.

See? It's "gender-based violence against women", there's no such thing as "gender-based violence against men"!

Feminism is about empowering women, and that MUST be done from a female perspective, that's the way to achieve equality - Convention explain it very well

Parties shall undertake to include a gender perspective in the implementation and evaluation of the impact of the provisions of this Convention and to promote and
effectively implement policies of equality between women and men and the
empowerment of women.

Parties shall take the necessary measures to promote programmes and activities for
the empowerment of women.

Recognising that the realisation of de jure and de facto equality between women and men
is a key element in the prevention of violence against women;

The phenomenon is so pervasive that every form of sexual harassment must be and will be treated as a very serious crime

Article 40 – Sexual harassment
Parties shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to ensure that any form of
unwanted verbal, non‐verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature with the purpose or
effect of violating the dignity of a person, in particular when creating an intimidating,
hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment, is subject to criminal or other
legal sanction

And

  Parties shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to prohibit mandatory
alternative dispute resolution processes, including mediation and conciliation, in relation
to all forms of violence covered by the scope of this Convention.

It MUST be treated as a crime, otherwise it doesn't work.

Also: "yes-means-yes law" and "affirmative ongoing consent" will be the law in Europe: verbally expressed and sober consent, renewed for each further step, otherwise it's always rape.

Consent must be given voluntarily as the result of the person’s free will assessed in the
context of the surrounding circumstances.

I want to end this already too long post with a quote

“Masculine desire is as much an offence as it is a compliment; in so far as she feels herself responsible for her charm, or feels she is exerting it of her own accord, she is much pleased with her conquests, but to the extent that her face, her figure, her flesh are facts she must bear with, she wants to hide them from this independent stranger who lusts after them.” ― Simone de Beauvoir, from "The Second Sex"

[New Edom]

Just because politicians and activists say things doesn't mak them true. It was not true for instance that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So why should we believe these claims based on an ideology's activism? No, I do not accept the above. No I do not accept these facile arguments which show contempt for survivors of abuse. No I do not accept this ideology, this religion called feminism's claims of moral superiority. Nor should any thinking person. It must still be the right and responsibility of free people to disagree with ideologies and ideas which they find any cause for doubt in. The very fact that feminists generally insist that they are beyond any doubt should be considered highly suspicious.

Furthermore, liberals and socialists who support them should be questioned as well, and doubted as well, for having just as knee jerk a response to an ideology as they say conservatives do. There needs to be some serious look at the beams in the eyes of people standing on their moral high horses.

[Donut section]

Ah Chess
I'm sorry for your personal experience, really, but still it's anectodal.
In fact the responses you get were right:
1. It doesn't happen enough to be a concern. TRUE.

If it happens at all it is a concern. That you don't be it is a concern shows a lack of empathy and regard for basic human dignity.

2. Bringing up female abusers deflects the more important conversation about how badly females are treated.
How does it deflect? It's not one gender vs the other.
EVEN MORE TRUE - it's a tactic used by misogynists to deflect the main problem, that women are the primary victims and the primary targets of rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment, domestic violence and sexism - the thing is so pervasive that these behaviors have been historically used to keep women in a subordinate position

While the preponderance of abusers are male, the focus of any equality movement dealing with sexual crime should be on the crime and its prevention. To dismiss that both genders abuse, not only sexualy, to keep individuals in subordinate positions. Is pure sexism. Any other claim is a lie.

[New Edom]

Ah Chess
I'm sorry for your personal experience, really, but still it's anectodal.
In fact the responses you get were right:
1. It doesn't happen enough to be a concern. TRUE.

If it happens at all it is a concern. That you don't be it is a concern shows a lack of empathy and regard for basic human dignity.

2. Bringing up female abusers deflects the more important conversation about how badly females are treated.
How does it deflect? It's not one gender vs the other.
EVEN MORE TRUE - it's a tactic used by misogynists to deflect the main problem, that women are the primary victims and the primary targets of rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment, domestic violence and sexism - the thing is so pervasive that these behaviors have been historically used to keep women in a subordinate position

While the preponderance of abusers are male, the focus of any equality movement dealing with sexual crime should be on the crime and its prevention. To dismiss that both genders abuse, not only sexualy, to keep individuals in subordinate positions. Is pure sexism. Any other claim is a lie.

As far as I can tell, the overwhelming majority of feminists think like Chessmistress expressed. I have rarely seen evidence otherwise. This is why I think the percentages and figures they throw around are there.

I don't think percentages shouldn't matter as much as empathy does when it comes to compassion. Three whales, one little girl, one village can arouse the world's compassion. One bear mauling can terrify a district; one life saved can inspire people. Three cases of SARS, one case of Ebola can terrify. So you don't need per se to have 1 in 5 or 1 in 3 figures for something to be important.

i think that humanism needs to be what people put in the place of feminism for those who don't really accept the ideology per se but want to encourage equality and meritocracy among people, for those who have a healthy skepticism of just being told what to do and want to think about it, who want to make choices as free people.

[Donut section]

Ah Chess
I'm sorry for your personal experience, really, but still it's anectodal.
In fact the responses you get were right:
1. It doesn't happen enough to be a concern. TRUE.

If it happens at all it is a concern. That you don't be it is a concern shows a lack of empathy and regard for basic human dignity.

2. Bringing up female abusers deflects the more important conversation about how badly females are treated.
How does it deflect? It's not one gender vs the other.
EVEN MORE TRUE - it's a tactic used by misogynists to deflect the main problem, that women are the primary victims and the primary targets of rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment, domestic violence and sexism - the thing is so pervasive that these behaviors have been historically used to keep women in a subordinate position

While the preponderance of abusers are male, the focus of any equality movement dealing with sexual crime should be on the crime and its prevention. To dismiss that both genders abuse, not only sexualy, to keep individuals in subordinate positions. Is pure sexism. Any other claim is a lie.

As far as I can tell, the overwhelming majority of feminists think like Chessmistress expressed. I have rarely seen evidence otherwise. This is why I think the percentages and figures they throw around are there.

I don't think percentages shouldn't matter as much as empathy does when it comes to compassion. Three whales, one little girl, one villaige can arouse the world's compassion. One bear mauling can terrify a district; one life saved can inspire people. Three cases of SARS, one case of Ebola can terrify. So you don't need per se to have 1 in 5 or 1 in 3 figures for something to be important.

i think that humanism needs to be what people put in the place of feminism for those who don't really accept the ideology per se but want to encourage equality and meritocracy among people, for those who have a healthy skepticism of just being told what to do and want to think about it, who want to make choices as free people.

I would agree that humanism seems to be a more constructive ideology than feminism. Even though my contact with modern feminism has largely been limited to the last forty pages of this thread. So perhaps it's adherents are not doing a good job of explaining.

Or, it could just be me. I could be wrong, I often am.

[Galloism]

Wait what? So when you hear someone say "Boys need to be taught about consent"

You somehow interpret that to mean that the speaker thinks girls don't also need to be taught about consent?

If you are for teaching everyone about consent then you should be in favor of the "teach men not to rape" idea.

Teaching everyone to not rape and teaching men to not rape is the same, because 98.1% rapes on women are performed by males (please note: I'm accepting Galloism datas, that's not 99% I previously stated).

Because only rape of women really matters, and the fact that approximately the same number of men as women are raped (when talking about adults), and 80% of male rape victims report only women attackers is irrelevant because male victims don't matter. This is the point you keep driving home when you deliberately avoid talking about male victims and focus only on females (likely, because it undercuts your mantra of "only men are the scary boogiemen!").

But even worse, thoughts and words like yours, which are not uncommon by the way, are one of the primary reasons that men who are raped (most of whom are raped by women) cannot get justice. You empower rapists by making them invisible and insisting, loudly and publicly, that they are as common as a unicorn, when actually they're not uncommon at all. You are supporting rapists. You are empowering rapists. You are a supporter of rape culture, and as a self-proclaimed feminist, you should be ashamed.


... I'm starting to warm up to Ostro's term of "gynocentrism". It seems appropriate in certain contexts - like this one.

[Hirota]

Due patriarchy, gender-based violence, in fact, affects just only women, and the Convention fully recognise it:

More lies. From the convention, and what you quoted.

Recognising that women and girls are exposed to a higher risk of gender‐based violence than men;

"Higher risk" does not equal affecting only women.

"Victims" are WOMEN: ....That's why the Convention is all about violence against women, violence against men is not enough relevant,

Your rightly quote section A of the the defintions used for the purposes of the convention to define a victim. You miss point B

b   “domestic violence” shall mean all acts of physical, sexual, psychological or economic violence that occur within the family or domestic unit or between
former or current spouses or partners, whether or not the perpetrator shares or has shared the same residence with the victim

Absolutely nothing is specified about gender. Domestic violence against men is as relevant in the convention as women. This is the second Lie you tried to peddle.

That's why it's about "teaching MEN" even in the Convention

You tried to merge two separate clauses to push an agenda. The two clauses are separate. One is listed under Article 14 titled "Education". The second one is under Article 12 titled "General Obligations." The two are only linked by being in the same document. Third lie.

See? It's "gender-based violence against women", there's no such thing as "gender-based violence against men"!

Lets look at one of the two you quoted.

Parties shall take, where appropriate, the necessary steps to include teaching material on issues such as equality between women and men, non‐stereotyped gender roles, mutual respect, non‐violent conflict resolution in interpersonal relationships, gender‐ based violence against women and the right to personal integrity, adapted to the evolving capacity of learners, in formal curricula and at all levels of education.

Given that we've already proven that point b, Article 3 already defined domestic violence without gender as a condition. Add to that this particular clause I have quoted above calls for "mutual respect" and we can establish this is your fourth lie.

Mind if I add my own quotation?

"quotation is a handy thing to have about, saving one the trouble of thinking for oneself, always a laborious business."
-- A.A Milne