The NationStates Feminist Thread

[Italios]

Women have no power in society? What is this, the eighteenth century?

Apparently we all live in Saudi Arabia.

Can't vote, can't own anything, can't drive.... Sounds about right.

[Val Halla]

Apparently we all live in Saudi Arabia.

Can't vote, can't own anything, can't drive.... Sounds about right.

I can't drive. Legally.

[Galloism]

Convention of Istanbul is about domestic violence and gender violence: it defines gender violence as a thing perpetrated by males against women.
It doesn't show an imaginary power of Feminism, it's just a first, little, step to narrow the gap of power between males and women.

It defines it that way because feminist organizations are an officially recognized group with insider status in the Council of Europe on matters relating to gendered violence. As such, their priorities in definition had an agenda setting power. This agenda setting power helps to explain why the Convention of Istanbul contains an incomplete conception of gendered violence that does not manage to encompass all cases.

Which is a perfect example of power + prejudice in action - there is a prejudice against recognizing male victims of domestic violence and rape by feminists in a position of power.

[Italios]

Can't vote, can't own anything, can't drive.... Sounds about right.

I can't drive. Legally.

I'm assuming that's because of your age. But the point is, women do have power in society.

[Val Halla]

I can't drive. Legally.

I'm assuming that's because of your age. But the point is, women do have power in society.

I was joking.

Simple answer. Germany. There.

[Galloism]

Opposing feminism doesn't mean a demand to return to old gender roles. In fact, in your article, the author (in his hack piece) complains that the two people in question are trying to tear down gender roles and that we should hate them because those particular gender roles are unimportant to fix.

Seriously - this person is trying to fix gender roles, and the author is saying that they're fine. Your complaint is that the first is anti-feminist. He also does so regarding a piece where there is no claim that the author is an MRA, and therefore concludes that an article which may or may not be from an MRA that is attempting to address gender roles and get rid of them is a bad reflection on MRAs.

He should apply for the mental olympics. He's a shoe-in.



I gotta admit, I don't like the MRM for much the same reason as I am growing to loathe feminism.

They are both guilty of shaping an incorrect narrative in a deliberate effort to suppress and oppress people. The target is just different. The only vast difference between the MRM and feminism is the level of institutional power - feminism, with its large institutional power, has managed to reinforce gendered norms of victim and perpetrator, result in gendered differences in prosecution and sentencing, effectively silence male victims of rape and domestic violence, and lend support to female rapists and domestic abusers.

The MRM hasn't done any of these things in reverse because they lack the institutional power to do so. I have very little faith that they would not do such things if they gained institutional power.



Except they support people who deliberately attempt to suppress and minimize male victims of rape and domestic violence, and do nothing to curb the rampant sexism in the justice system, even going so far as to fight against it by saying women have it worse when by any objective measure that is a complete falsehood.



It doesn't matter who caused it. I don't think I can stress that enough. Gender stereotypes only get broken down by direct action against them. You've just shown you're willing to fight against actions to break down gendered stereotypes regarding males. Are you an anti-feminist, or is feminism against breaking down of gendered stereotypes?

Decisions, decisions.

I think the crucial difference with institutional power and the MRM, is that the MRM is not seeking a monopoly on institutional power.
That should prevent the excesses we've seen from feminism.

What about the MRM narrative is false, and how are we trying to suppress and oppress people, by the way?
I'd like to know.

Well, for one, the immensely odd focus on false rape accusations in the context of criminal law is approximately equivalent to tilting at a windmill. It is far far more important to start recognizing male victims of rape than to front a narrative of "women are lying bitches" from a policy standpoint.

The presumptions of the legal system - innocent until proven guilty - are sufficient in almost all cases.

[Val Halla]

A lot of the time people accused of rape get treated guilty until proven innocent, which is kinda scary in false accusations.

[Cesatar]

A lot of the time people accused of rape get treated guilty until proven innocent, which is kinda scary in false accusations.

It's not just scary, it's downright terrifying. The presumption of innocence is quite literally a human right, and the basis of many justice systems. If you get rid of the presumption of innocence, you might as well be completely screwed.

[Val Halla]

A lot of the time people accused of rape get treated guilty until proven innocent, which is kinda scary in false accusations.

It's not just scary, it's downright terrifying. The presumption of innocence is quite literally a human right, and the basis of many justice systems. If you get rid of the presumption of innocence, you might as well be completely screwed.

There was some thing in the local news a few years ago about some guy who was accused of rape, and because of this, he was attacked, and left in a coma for a few days, and was later found innocent

[Jute]

A lot of the time people accused of rape get treated guilty until proven innocent, which is kinda scary in false accusations.

It's not just scary, it's downright terrifying. The presumption of innocence is quite literally a human right, and the basis of many justice systems. If you get rid of the presumption of innocence, you might as well be completely screwed.

In Germany someone got compensations for biased reporting on allegations that turned out to be wrong, so the system is not completely broken, at least.

[Ostroeuropa]

I think the crucial difference with institutional power and the MRM, is that the MRM is not seeking a monopoly on institutional power.
That should prevent the excesses we've seen from feminism.

What about the MRM narrative is false, and how are we trying to suppress and oppress people, by the way?
I'd like to know.

Well, for one, the immensely odd focus on false rape accusations in the context of criminal law is approximately equivalent to tilting at a windmill. It is far far more important to start recognizing male victims of rape than to front a narrative of "women are lying bitches" from a policy standpoint.

The presumptions of the legal system - innocent until proven guilty - are sufficient in almost all cases.

I dunno. There's a lot of talk about rape victims as well. It's also men expressing their fear, I think. Men are incredibly pressured into viewing status as important for a number of reasons. I think a lot of men genuinely fear being considered a rapist more than being raped. That could be because they have personal experience of loss of status and not one of loss of control, so it seems abstract to them, or could be tied into larger problems with how men are raised by society.

Remember, this is the gender conditioned to devalue their own lives and view themselves as expendable. It does make a level of sense that they are more afraid of people thinking badly of them, than of something bad happening to them. It's in fact, typical of mens issues.

The MRM is not immune to being victims of sexism against men. Most of them are still working through deconditioning themselves and such.

I think also, the point about rape victims is so undeniable, and so right, that they pretty much just have to point out the facts. There isn't much debate to be had.
With false accusations, there is more of an argument, and thus, more posts on it. (Though i'm not sure its focused on more than rape victims. I do agree that it's talked about disproportionately.)

I do realize this amounts to saying "Internalized misandry." but I figured i'd be less intellectually lazy and actually talk about how and why that might be the case.

[Galloism]

Jute, why are you so afraid of people critiquing your arguments?

The "MRM" has often been associated with opposition to feminism, and with that, a demand to return to old gender roles.

Opposing feminism doesn't mean a demand to return to old gender roles. In fact, in your article, the author (in his hack piece) complains that the two people in question are trying to tear down gender roles and that we should hate them because those particular gender roles are unimportant to fix.

Seriously - this person is trying to fix gender roles, and the author is saying that they're fine. Your complaint is that the first is anti-feminist. He also does so regarding a piece where there is no claim that the author is an MRA, and therefore concludes that an article which may or may not be from an MRA that is attempting to address gender roles and get rid of them is a bad reflection on MRAs.

He should apply for the mental olympics. He's a shoe-in.

This isn't just something set forth by feminists, it's coming from independent sources and men themselves. (That site has had a lot of Gamergate supporters, so it's not like it could have a "SJW" bias or anything like that).

I gotta admit, I don't like the MRM for much the same reason as I am growing to loathe feminism.

They are both guilty of shaping an incorrect narrative in a deliberate effort to suppress and oppress people. The target is just different. The only vast difference between the MRM and feminism is the level of institutional power - feminism, with its large institutional power, has managed to reinforce gendered norms of victim and perpetrator, result in gendered differences in prosecution and sentencing, effectively silence male victims of rape and domestic violence, and lend support to female rapists and domestic abusers.

The MRM hasn't done any of these things in reverse because they lack the institutional power to do so. I have very little faith that they would not do such things if they gained institutional power.

Obviously it is, many feminists support them, even in this thread. It's actually the normalcy.

Except they support people who deliberately attempt to suppress and minimize male victims of rape and domestic violence, and do nothing to curb the rampant sexism in the justice system, even going so far as to fight against it by saying women have it worse when by any objective measure that is a complete falsehood.

Aside from the "radical" feminists, all feminists also support male causes.

It doesn't matter who caused it. I don't think I can stress that enough. Gender stereotypes only get broken down by direct action against them. You've just shown you're willing to fight against actions to break down gendered stereotypes regarding males. Are you an anti-feminist, or is feminism against breaking down of gendered stereotypes?

Decisions, decisions.

[Val Halla]

Rape=bad

I don't get how people find this hard to understand.

[Ostroeuropa]

also gallo, i'm not aware of how the false accusation stuff constitutes a false narrative. I'm not aware of any MRA claims about frequency of false accusations compared to male victims.

False accusations do happen and such.

It isn't a false narrative, it's just one with a really weird chapter halfway through the book where they go into huge detail about something not as important to the story as the book seems to think it is. I do agree with you that it is focused on disproportionately though. It's a legitimate criticism of the MRM, but it's one I think is explicable, and ultimately, easy enough to fix by just focusing more on rape victims. Harm hasn't been caused by it.

[Galloism]

also gallo, i'm not aware of how the false accusation stuff constitutes a false narrative. I'm not aware of any MRA claims about frequency of false accusations compared to male victims.

False accusations do happen and such.

It isn't a false narrative, it's just one with a really weird chapter halfway through the book where they go into huge detail about something not as important to the story as the book seems to think it is. I do agree with you that it is focused on disproportionately though. It's a legitimate criticism of the MRM, but it's one I think is explicable, and ultimately, easy enough to fix by just focusing more on rape victims. Harm hasn't been caused by it.

Try reading this thread on the MRM page.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/com ... what_does/

Where people start claiming that 90% of rape accusations are false because those didn't go to trial, and another citing an article (that is quite frankly nauseating) claiming that 40-50% are probably false.

[Galloism]

Rape=bad

I don't get how people find this hard to understand.

It seems really quite simple, don't it?

But, let's keep in mind there has been a vested interest in trying to exclude men from the definition of rape victims - unless it is done by other men. This is because we must reinforced the gendered narrative that men = bad and women = good, for the sake of equality.

Uh... or something.

[Val Halla]

Rape=bad

I don't get how people find this hard to understand.

It seems really quite simple, don't it?

But, let's keep in mind there has been a vested interest in trying to exclude men from the definition of rape victims - unless it is done by other men. This is because we must reinforced the gendered narrative that men = bad and women = good, for the sake of equality.

Uh... or something.

I wonder what it's like for genderqueer folk.

It's only cis women... If they are a guy or trans... Yeah...

[Jute]

Rape=bad

I don't get how people find this hard to understand.

It seems really quite simple, don't it?

But, let's keep in mind there has been a vested interest in trying to exclude men from the definition of rape victims - unless it is done by other men. This is because we must reinforced the gendered narrative that men = bad and women = good, for the sake of equality.

Uh... or something.

Wait, who says that? Some radical "feminists" who exploit a relative position of power they were trusted to not to abuse?

Jute, why are you so afraid of people critiquing your arguments?

Opposing feminism doesn't mean a demand to return to old gender roles. In fact, in your article, the author (in his hack piece) complains that the two people in question are trying to tear down gender roles and that we should hate them because those particular gender roles are unimportant to fix.

Seriously - this person is trying to fix gender roles, and the author is saying that they're fine. Your complaint is that the first is anti-feminist. He also does so regarding a piece where there is no claim that the author is an MRA, and therefore concludes that an article which may or may not be from an MRA that is attempting to address gender roles and get rid of them is a bad reflection on MRAs.

He should apply for the mental olympics. He's a shoe-in.



I gotta admit, I don't like the MRM for much the same reason as I am growing to loathe feminism.

They are both guilty of shaping an incorrect narrative in a deliberate effort to suppress and oppress people. The target is just different. The only vast difference between the MRM and feminism is the level of institutional power - feminism, with its large institutional power, has managed to reinforce gendered norms of victim and perpetrator, result in gendered differences in prosecution and sentencing, effectively silence male victims of rape and domestic violence, and lend support to female rapists and domestic abusers.

The MRM hasn't done any of these things in reverse because they lack the institutional power to do so. I have very little faith that they would not do such things if they gained institutional power.



Except they support people who deliberately attempt to suppress and minimize male victims of rape and domestic violence, and do nothing to curb the rampant sexism in the justice system, even going so far as to fight against it by saying women have it worse when by any objective measure that is a complete falsehood.



It doesn't matter who caused it. I don't think I can stress that enough. Gender stereotypes only get broken down by direct action against them. You've just shown you're willing to fight against actions to break down gendered stereotypes regarding males. Are you an anti-feminist, or is feminism against breaking down of gendered stereotypes?

Decisions, decisions.

I'm not afraid, just don't like lengthy arguments, sorry. I've made my point, they answered, more back and fro probably isn't going to change much. Don't know why I even came back to this thread.

[Ostroeuropa]

also gallo, i'm not aware of how the false accusation stuff constitutes a false narrative. I'm not aware of any MRA claims about frequency of false accusations compared to male victims.

False accusations do happen and such.

It isn't a false narrative, it's just one with a really weird chapter halfway through the book where they go into huge detail about something not as important to the story as the book seems to think it is. I do agree with you that it is focused on disproportionately though. It's a legitimate criticism of the MRM, but it's one I think is explicable, and ultimately, easy enough to fix by just focusing more on rape victims. Harm hasn't been caused by it.

Try reading this thread on the MRM page.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/com ... what_does/

Where people start claiming that 90% of rape accusations are false because those didn't go to trial, and another citing an article (that is quite frankly nauseating) claiming that 40-50% are probably false.

It's one person. And i'm arguing with him now. We can come back and see how the upvotes go. Does that strike you as a fair test?

[Galloism]

It seems really quite simple, don't it?

But, let's keep in mind there has been a vested interest in trying to exclude men from the definition of rape victims - unless it is done by other men. This is because we must reinforced the gendered narrative that men = bad and women = good, for the sake of equality.

Uh... or something.

I wonder what it's like for genderqueer folk.

It's only cis women... If they are a guy or trans... Yeah...

Well, largely because the sexism of Mary Koss, the victim must be penetrated to be considered a rape victim in most cases.

So a man forced to penetrate someone's vagina with his dick is not raped.

A man who is penetrated up the anus is raped.

[Galloism]

Try reading this thread on the MRM page.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/com ... what_does/

Where people start claiming that 90% of rape accusations are false because those didn't go to trial, and another citing an article (that is quite frankly nauseating) claiming that 40-50% are probably false.

It's one person. And i'm arguing with him now. We can come back and see how the upvotes go. Does that strike you as a fair test?

thrway_1000's hateful article claiming that 40-50% are probably false is also problematic.

Good on you, by the way, for actually trying to kill that shit.

And I'm not really in it to "test".

[Val Halla]

I wonder what it's like for genderqueer folk.

It's only cis women... If they are a guy or trans... Yeah...

Well, largely because the sexism of Mary Koss, the victim must be penetrated to be considered a rape victim in most cases.

So a man forced to penetrate someone's vagina with his dick is not raped.

A man who is penetrated up the anus is raped.

So men can only be raped by men by her logic,,, Women can only rape women...

What a stupid ideal.

[Valystria]

Jute, why are you so afraid of people critiquing your arguments?

I'm not afraid, just don't like lengthy arguments. Don't know why I even came back to this thread, there's nothing but this here...

Nice excuse.

"I'll argue until it's painfully apparent I'm wrong and that I'm only digging myself in deeper each time I say more. No, I can't be wrong. I just don't like lengthy arguments I started. Yeah, that's gotta be it."

Anyway, feel free to reply when it's convenient.

Do you even attempt to understand the view or are you just trying to ridicule it? Why do you think I specifically said that it's not men who are blamed for men, but the views of a society that still often rewards "macho" behavior, as evidenced by how "sissies" and "feminine" boys and males are looked down upon.

You continue refusing to address anything said. You can start by admitting you were wrong to falsely conflate being against feminism is being in support of gender roles. Once you've done that, you can recognize how either you are refusing to acknowledge what patriarchy is or you're being intentionally dishonest.
I've showed you what the word patriarchy means. It didn't matter to you in the slightest. Instead you proceeded to present patriarchy theory, a belief system which blames men for everything. A belief system which says men are the oppressors who oppress women and men too. Conveniently, women can't be a part of the problem. Only men. And yet you deny patriarchy theory is a convoluted way to blame men for everything.

Feminism has dishonestly redefined the meaning of words and you're defending that practice. Sexism, no, that's not discrimination based on one's sex. It's prejudice + power = sexism. Conveniently crafted in a way so as to mean it's impossible for women to ever be sexist. Only men can be sexist.
Patriarchy? No, it's not about a system in which women are excluded from positions of authority. Patriarchy now means a society which values masculinity and looks down upon femininity. Or a system in which men oppress women and men too. I guess it depends on which feminist you ask. Either way your patriarchy theory is a belief system crafted to fit your narrative.

You have refused to drop the false equivalency of implying feminism is for everyone's equality despite it being a movement exclusively focused on making women's rights equal with men's which does nothing for men no matter how many times you say "machoism" or "feminine men are looked down upon". Great way of getting everyone to ignore actual problems. You have yet to say how feminism does anything to help with the lack of domestic violence shelters for men or how male rape victims are continuously ignored. Or how female on male rape is ignored by feminists who redefine rape to exclude female on male rape from being possible. Your movement has a habit of redefining words and concepts to match the narrative of men masculinity being bad, bad, bad and women being the victims. Of men. Right then, patriarchy is the source of all problems.

It's simplistic black and white thinking and blatantly wrong. What do you get out of it?

[Galloism]

It seems really quite simple, don't it?

But, let's keep in mind there has been a vested interest in trying to exclude men from the definition of rape victims - unless it is done by other men. This is because we must reinforced the gendered narrative that men = bad and women = good, for the sake of equality.

Uh... or something.

Wait, who says that? Some radical "feminists" who exploit a relative position of power they were trusted to not to abuse?

Not usually outright, but I've already cited Koss's successful gambit to protect female rapists and minimize and render invisible male victims of rape. That bit of sexism continues to this day.

I've also cited collective efforts by many feminists in positions of authority to suppress the actual data regarding domestic violence and the mutuality of most of it in easy-to-read format.

#notallfeminists and all that, but there is a significant and bona fide effort by key players in the feminist movement to suppress and minimize violence engaged in by women, and violence suffered by men.

I'm not sure what other evidence you need.

I'm not afraid, just don't like lengthy arguments, sorry. I've made my point, they answered, more back and fro probably isn't going to change much. Don't know why I even came back to this thread.

Well then let's keep it simple.

Why do you support people who are opposed to undoing gender roles, and how does supporting people who oppose the fighting of gender roles advance the cause of feminsim?

[Galloism]

Well, largely because the sexism of Mary Koss, the victim must be penetrated to be considered a rape victim in most cases.

So a man forced to penetrate someone's vagina with his dick is not raped.

A man who is penetrated up the anus is raped.

So men can only be raped by men by her logic,,, Women can only rape women...

What a stupid ideal.

You misunderstand her logic.

Men can rape women.
Men can rape men.
Women can rape women only if they use some kind of tool to do so.
Women can't really rape men.