The NS Mens Rights Thread

[Ostroeuropa]

I guess I have a better opinion of "the world" than you do. I suspect that most people would call such a crime rape, regardless of the official legal definition in the UK. Certainly most feminists I know would call it rape and allow bureaucrats to argue semantics.

Sure. The ones you know.

Meanwhile the ones in England are too busy focusing on making 50% of their parliament members women while they continue to ignore how unequal the rape laws are.
And then you have Indian feminists protesting against gender neutral rape laws.

You can keep repeating you people are a minority but it's so obvious you're not.
At most you'll say "well, no, this isn't okay" and you'll proceed to bury your head in the sand and do nothing about it, because women's issues.

AND
They'll go right back to using this legal discrimination against men to their advantage in order to spread misinformation about rape and demonize men, as well as to pretend it's a womens issue.

So they don't just do nothing.
They actively make shit worse.
It's pretty standard on mens issues for them frankly.

I guess I have a better opinion of "the world" than you do. I suspect that most people would call such a crime rape, regardless of the official legal definition in the UK. Certainly most feminists I know would call it rape and allow bureaucrats to argue semantics.

Well, the famous feminists (those influence policy) are generally either overwhelmingly silent on the issue, or actually work against recognizing the second (women raping a man) as rape. These are the ones controlling definitions for studies and influencing law.

I already posted this before, but here you go:

Although consideration of male victims is within the scope of the legal statutes, it is important to restrict the term rape to instances where male victims were penetrated by offenders. It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman.

Emphasis is mine.

This too. They're not an equality movement. The evidence is fucking overwhelming. They're a hate movement.

[Fartsniffage]

Eh, not really.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sent ... l/s1_rape/
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sent ... netration/

I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me here.

The maximums are pretty much proscribed by the sentencing guidelines. That means the guidelines are much more useful when comparing the various flavours of sexual nastiness people force on others from time to time.

[Natapoc]

I guess I have a better opinion of "the world" than you do. I suspect that most people would call such a crime rape, regardless of the official legal definition in the UK. Certainly most feminists I know would call it rape and allow bureaucrats to argue semantics.

Sure. The ones you know.

Meanwhile the ones in England are too busy focusing on making 50% of their parliament members women while they continue to ignore how unequal the rape laws are.
And then you have Indian feminists protesting against gender neutral rape laws.

You can keep repeating you people are a minority but it's so obvious you're not.
At most you'll say "well, no, this isn't okay" and you'll proceed to bury your head in the sand and do nothing about it, because women's issues.

I've found it's usually feminists who get upset and demand justice when boys and men are raped while mostly non feminist men make comments suggesting they wish it would happen to them.

[Ostroeuropa]

Sure. The ones you know.

Meanwhile the ones in England are too busy focusing on making 50% of their parliament members women while they continue to ignore how unequal the rape laws are.
And then you have Indian feminists protesting against gender neutral rape laws.

You can keep repeating you people are a minority but it's so obvious you're not.
At most you'll say "well, no, this isn't okay" and you'll proceed to bury your head in the sand and do nothing about it, because women's issues.

I've found it's usually feminists who get upset and demand justice when boys and men are raped while mostly non feminist men make comments suggesting they wish it would happen to them.

Yeh that's true about non feminist men.
You don't think that's extremely disturbing?
That men are so fucking devalued in their own minds, and so desperate for womens approval, they're saying they don't mind being raped?

Doesn't that suggest to you extreme fucking levels of brainwashing and abuse?

But yeh, it's true.

So what should we do?

Make them feminists who pretend women don't rape men unless you confront them on their dodgy stats?
Or make them MRAs who ACTUALLY give a fuck, and don't just pretend to when it's convenient?

[Fartsniffage]

Sure. The ones you know.

Meanwhile the ones in England are too busy focusing on making 50% of their parliament members women while they continue to ignore how unequal the rape laws are.
And then you have Indian feminists protesting against gender neutral rape laws.

You can keep repeating you people are a minority but it's so obvious you're not.
At most you'll say "well, no, this isn't okay" and you'll proceed to bury your head in the sand and do nothing about it, because women's issues.

I've found it's usually feminists who get upset and demand justice when boys and men are raped while mostly non feminist men make comments suggesting they wish it would happen to them.

So where were they in 2003 when the Sexual Offences Act 2003 was being crafted?

[Galloism]

Sure. The ones you know.

Meanwhile the ones in England are too busy focusing on making 50% of their parliament members women while they continue to ignore how unequal the rape laws are.
And then you have Indian feminists protesting against gender neutral rape laws.

You can keep repeating you people are a minority but it's so obvious you're not.
At most you'll say "well, no, this isn't okay" and you'll proceed to bury your head in the sand and do nothing about it, because women's issues.

I've found it's usually feminists who get upset and demand justice when boys and men are raped while mostly non feminist men make comments suggesting they wish it would happen to them.

The rape of males in India is commonly reported; some claim that this prevalence means this form of rape cannot be an anomaly.[53] The view is opposed by some Indian feminists such as Flavia Agnes who has stated, "I oppose proposal to make rape laws gender-neutral. We had opposed it when the government made child rape laws gender-neutral. After the feminist wave of the 1980s, many countries in the West made rape laws gender-neutral. But, they have realized these laws are harming women more than men. There is physicality in the definition of rape, there is use of power and the victim has a stigma attached to her. If made gender-neutral, rape laws will not have the deterrence value and it will make it more complicated for judges in court." Delhi advocate Vrinda Grover said that there are no instances of women raping men, and women are more likely than men to face serious sexual violence, considering the brutality and intensity of sexual violence against women.[54]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_males#India

By the way, Vrinda Grover, by any reasonable definition, is a famous Indian feminist.

[Valystria]

Sure. The ones you know.

Meanwhile the ones in England are too busy focusing on making 50% of their parliament members women while they continue to ignore how unequal the rape laws are.
And then you have Indian feminists protesting against gender neutral rape laws.

You can keep repeating you people are a minority but it's so obvious you're not.
At most you'll say "well, no, this isn't okay" and you'll proceed to bury your head in the sand and do nothing about it, because women's issues.

AND
They'll go right back to using this legal discrimination against men to their advantage in order to spread misinformation about rape and demonize men, as well as to pretend it's a womens issue.

So they don't just do nothing.
They actively make shit worse.
It's pretty standard on mens issues for them frankly.

My mistake. I overlooked how dishonest these people are.
Yeah, you're right. By doing nothing they are actively making it worse through distorting the statistics to fit their narrative of women's issues being more important.

Sure. The ones you know.

Meanwhile the ones in England are too busy focusing on making 50% of their parliament members women while they continue to ignore how unequal the rape laws are.
And then you have Indian feminists protesting against gender neutral rape laws.

You can keep repeating you people are a minority but it's so obvious you're not.
At most you'll say "well, no, this isn't okay" and you'll proceed to bury your head in the sand and do nothing about it, because women's issues.

I've found it's usually feminists who get upset and demand justice when boys and men are raped while mostly non feminist men make comments suggesting they wish it would happen to them.

Okay this must be why England's feminists are too busy focusing on parliament quotas and why India's feminists are too busy protesting against gender neutral rape laws.
And why Japan's feminists are too busy segregating public transportation.

[Ostroeuropa]

I've found it's usually feminists who get upset and demand justice when boys and men are raped while mostly non feminist men make comments suggesting they wish it would happen to them.

So where were they in 2003 when the Sexual Offences Act 2003 was being crafted?

They were off demanding women become even more of a majority in universities, like they still do.

[Ostroeuropa]

AND
They'll go right back to using this legal discrimination against men to their advantage in order to spread misinformation about rape and demonize men, as well as to pretend it's a womens issue.

So they don't just do nothing.
They actively make shit worse.
It's pretty standard on mens issues for them frankly.

My mistake. I overlooked how dishonest these people are.
Yeah, you're right. By doing nothing they are actively making it worse through distorting the statistics to fit their narrative of women's issues being more important.

I've found it's usually feminists who get upset and demand justice when boys and men are raped while mostly non feminist men make comments suggesting they wish it would happen to them.

Okay this must be why England's feminists are too busy focusing on parliament quotas and why India's feminists are too busy protesting against gender neutral rape laws.
And why Japan's feminists are too busy segregating public transportation.

BUT RAPE APOLOGY IS A SERIOUS ISSUE GUYZ!
FOR REALZ!
WE GIVE A SHIT!

Feminism is the biggest lobby for rapists and domestic abusers in history.

[Galloism]

I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me here.

The maximums are pretty much proscribed by the sentencing guidelines. That means the guidelines are much more useful when comparing the various flavours of sexual nastiness people force on others from time to time.

But the maximums are proscribed by law, which is what I was talking about.

Incidentally, you linked "rape" and "sexual assault by penetration", neither of which covers the situation I described in the post you quoted, where the man was made to penetrate.

[Natapoc]

I guess I have a better opinion of "the world" than you do. I suspect that most people would call such a crime rape, regardless of the official legal definition in the UK. Certainly most feminists I know would call it rape and allow bureaucrats to argue semantics.

Well, the famous feminists (those influence policy) are generally either overwhelmingly silent on the issue, or actually work against recognizing the second (women raping a man) as rape. These are the ones controlling definitions for studies and influencing law.

I already posted this before, but here you go:

Although consideration of male victims is within the scope of the legal statutes, it is important to restrict the term rape to instances where male victims were penetrated by offenders. It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman.

Emphasis is mine.

I don't know the context of the quote or any reasoning behind it but if you are accurately portraying Mary Koss's view than she is clearly wrong. She seems to be an older lady and her understanding of rape is probably a product of the era she grew up in (where here definition would have been nearly universal).

[Italios]

Well, the famous feminists (those influence policy) are generally either overwhelmingly silent on the issue, or actually work against recognizing the second (women raping a man) as rape. These are the ones controlling definitions for studies and influencing law.

I already posted this before, but here you go:



Emphasis is mine.

I don't know the context of the quote or any reasoning behind it but if you are accurately portraying Mary Koss's view than she is clearly wrong. She seems to be an older lady and her understanding of rape is probably a product of the era she grew up in (where here definition would have been nearly universal).

Welcome to 2015, where you can literally google today's meaning of rape and not be in the dark. Mind. Blown! Mary Koss needs to get with the times. Not staying updated isn't a proper excuse.

[Fartsniffage]

The maximums are pretty much proscribed by the sentencing guidelines. That means the guidelines are much more useful when comparing the various flavours of sexual nastiness people force on others from time to time.

But the maximums are proscribed by law, which is what I was talking about.

Incidentally, you linked "rape" and "sexual assault by penetration", neither of which covers the situation I described in the post you quoted, where the man was made to penetrate.

You don't want to see the guidelines for sexual assault....

[Galloism]

Well, the famous feminists (those influence policy) are generally either overwhelmingly silent on the issue, or actually work against recognizing the second (women raping a man) as rape. These are the ones controlling definitions for studies and influencing law.

I already posted this before, but here you go:



Emphasis is mine.

I don't know the context of the quote or any reasoning behind it but if you are accurately portraying Mary Koss's view than she is clearly wrong. She seems to be an older lady and her understanding of rape is probably a product of the era she grew up in (where here definition would have been nearly universal).

She was actually responding to (and cited) a 1991 study from Struckman-Johnson which showed 16% (just slightly less than 1/6) men in college were made to penetrate a woman on a date without their consent, and carefully and deliberately concluded that they should not be considered rape victims because they weren't the ones penetrated.

Deliberately attempting to erase male victims of rape.

Here's the conext - several pages around it if you want to read.

[Galloism]

I don't know the context of the quote or any reasoning behind it but if you are accurately portraying Mary Koss's view than she is clearly wrong. She seems to be an older lady and her understanding of rape is probably a product of the era she grew up in (where here definition would have been nearly universal).

Welcome to 2015, where you can literally google today's meaning of rape and not be in the dark. Mind. Blown! Mary Koss needs to get with the times. Not staying updated isn't a proper excuse.

Well, it WAS published in 1993, which was a different time... we didn't have cars and space ships and airplanes or studies showing massive numbers of men were made to penetrate women without their consent...

Oh wait, yes we had all that shit. She even cited one of the studies.

[Natapoc]

I don't know the context of the quote or any reasoning behind it but if you are accurately portraying Mary Koss's view than she is clearly wrong. She seems to be an older lady and her understanding of rape is probably a product of the era she grew up in (where here definition would have been nearly universal).

She was actually responding to (and cited) a 1991 study from Struckman-Johnson which showed 16% (just slightly less than 1/6) men in college were made to penetrate a woman on a date without their consent, and carefully and deliberately concluded that they should not be considered rape victims because they weren't the ones penetrated.

Deliberately attempting to erase male victims of rape.

Here's the conext - several pages around it if you want to read.

As I said, she's clearly in the wrong and was likely using an outdated legal definition. I offer no excuse for her statement.

[Ostroeuropa]

She was actually responding to (and cited) a 1991 study from Struckman-Johnson which showed 16% (just slightly less than 1/6) men in college were made to penetrate a woman on a date without their consent, and carefully and deliberately concluded that they should not be considered rape victims because they weren't the ones penetrated.

Deliberately attempting to erase male victims of rape.

Here's the conext - several pages around it if you want to read.

As I said, she's clearly in the wrong and was likely using an outdated legal definition. I offer no excuse for her statement.

Then why do feminists continue to use her definition of rape in their statistics?
You're basically admitting feminists are clearly in the wrong.
I agree with you.

Whenever they throw out that women are raped more than men stats, this is usually why. They do it because they don't fucking care about mens issues enough to check this shit, or because they're actively sexist themselves.
Either malice or apathy.

The apathy would be fine if they would back the hell off and let the MRM do its thing and then shut up about mens issues, they're no good at them. Instead they suppress the MRM and demonize it. I think it's because they're aware just how badly their movement has fucked up and that if the MRMs information on them gets out, feminism will be reviled in the history books as the biggest lobby for rapists and domestic abusers in history.
The problem is, it's now too late for them to just say they fucked up and it was a mistake. They've been actively suppressing the MRM trying to bring attention to this problem. As a result, it's no longer a fuck up. It has to be malice. They seem to care more about their movement, it's worldview, and it's reputation than they do about gender equality. As a result, their movement will die, and it's reputation will wither.

[Natapoc]

As I said, she's clearly in the wrong and was likely using an outdated legal definition. I offer no excuse for her statement.

Then why do feminists continue to use her definition of rape in their statistics?
You're basically admitting feminists are clearly in the wrong.
I agree with you.

Whenever they throw out that women are raped more than men stats, this is usually why. They do it because they don't fucking care about mens issues enough to check this shit, or because they're actively sexist themselves.
Either malice or apathy.

The apathy would be fine if they would back the hell off and let the MRM do its thing and then shut up about mens issues, they're no good at them. Instead they suppress the MRM and demonize it. I think it's because they're aware just how badly their movement has fucked up and that if the MRMs information on them gets out, feminism will be reviled in the history books as the biggest lobby for rapists and domestic abusers in history.

I don't agree that apathy about rape victims (male or female) is "fine".

Yes feminists have accomplished much and continue to have much to do and not all feminists agree with eachother. Some still have viewpoints dated in a time before feminism accomplished so much and before feminists managed to push a better definition of rape that includes any consensual sexual acts.

[Ostroeuropa]

http://www.ryersonian.ca/rsu-rejects-me ... t-say-why/

More suppression of mens issues. Even distancing yourself from the MRM is insufficient, proving once and for all that these people are disingenuous. They simply don't want to acknowledge mens issues need to be worked on.

(These people being, the RSU officials. They've rejected this group a few times.)

[Ostroeuropa]

Then why do feminists continue to use her definition of rape in their statistics?
You're basically admitting feminists are clearly in the wrong.
I agree with you.

Whenever they throw out that women are raped more than men stats, this is usually why. They do it because they don't fucking care about mens issues enough to check this shit, or because they're actively sexist themselves.
Either malice or apathy.

The apathy would be fine if they would back the hell off and let the MRM do its thing and then shut up about mens issues, they're no good at them. Instead they suppress the MRM and demonize it. I think it's because they're aware just how badly their movement has fucked up and that if the MRMs information on them gets out, feminism will be reviled in the history books as the biggest lobby for rapists and domestic abusers in history.

I don't agree that apathy about rape victims (male or female) is "fine".

Yes feminists have accomplished much and continue to have much to do and not all feminists agree with eachother. Some still have viewpoints dated in a time before feminism accomplished so much and before feminists managed to push a better definition of rape that includes any consensual sexual acts.

So i'm sure you'll start calling out feminists whenever they claim women are raped more than men now?
After all, they're demonstrating they're too apathetic to fucking fact check something.

[Galloism]

She was actually responding to (and cited) a 1991 study from Struckman-Johnson which showed 16% (just slightly less than 1/6) men in college were made to penetrate a woman on a date without their consent, and carefully and deliberately concluded that they should not be considered rape victims because they weren't the ones penetrated.

Deliberately attempting to erase male victims of rape.

Here's the conext - several pages around it if you want to read.

As I said, she's clearly in the wrong and was likely using an outdated legal definition. I offer no excuse for her statement.

Actually, she was objecting to men being treated equally when they become victims of rape.

I mean, this is the problem with female on male rape. The radfem movers and shakers are actually opposed to men who are made to have sex with women being treated as rape victims, because that would imply that women are actually capable of crimes and commit some of them at rates not that disparate with men.

Coincidentally, tradcons want to make sure men are held responsible for every fucking thing, so they object to men being treated as rape victims because men are supposed to be in control of the situation.

This unholy alliance of radfems and tradcons has held back recognition of male victims of rape. The only ones talking about male victims of rape, sadly, are MRAs. Feminism, as a movement, either completely ignores it, minimizes it, or tries to suppress the evidence of it. Tradcons do the same thing for their own reasons.

Are there good feminists? Sure. #notallfeminists and all that.

But they are not in positions of power. They are not in a position to actually DO something about this. The radfems are, and those radfems want to make sure that equality is never achieved.

[Ostroeuropa]

As I said, she's clearly in the wrong and was likely using an outdated legal definition. I offer no excuse for her statement.

Actually, she was objecting to men being treated equally when they become victims of rape.

I mean, this is the problem with female on male rape. The radfem movers and shakers are actually opposed to men who are made to have sex with women being treated as rape victims, because that would imply that women are actually capable of crimes and commit some of them at rates not that disparate with men.

Coincidentally, tradcons want to make sure men are held responsible for every fucking thing, so they object to men being treated as rape victims because men are supposed to be in control of the situation.

This unholy alliance of radfems and tradcons has held back recognition of male victims of rape. The only ones talking about male victims of rape, sadly, are MRAs. Feminism, as a movement, either completely ignores it, minimizes it, or tries to suppress the evidence of it. Tradcons do the same thing for their own reasons.

Are there good feminists? Sure. #notallfeminists and all that.

But they are not in positions of power. They are not in a position to actually DO something about this. The radfems are, and those radfems want to make sure that equality is never achieved.

The difference between a racist political party, and a political party with racists in it.
This is why calling yourself a feminist is a bad idea. It's like joining the BNP because you want a debate on immigration.

This is why whining that the MRM is no different doesn't hold any water.

[Galloism]

Actually, she was objecting to men being treated equally when they become victims of rape.

I mean, this is the problem with female on male rape. The radfem movers and shakers are actually opposed to men who are made to have sex with women being treated as rape victims, because that would imply that women are actually capable of crimes and commit some of them at rates not that disparate with men.

Coincidentally, tradcons want to make sure men are held responsible for every fucking thing, so they object to men being treated as rape victims because men are supposed to be in control of the situation.

This unholy alliance of radfems and tradcons has held back recognition of male victims of rape. The only ones talking about male victims of rape, sadly, are MRAs. Feminism, as a movement, either completely ignores it, minimizes it, or tries to suppress the evidence of it. Tradcons do the same thing for their own reasons.

Are there good feminists? Sure. #notallfeminists and all that.

But they are not in positions of power. They are not in a position to actually DO something about this. The radfems are, and those radfems want to make sure that equality is never achieved.

The difference between a racist political party, and a political party with racists in it.
This is why calling yourself a feminist is a bad idea. It's like joining the BNP because you want a debate on immigration.

This is why whining that the MRM is no different doesn't hold any water.

Yes yes, and Carthage Must Be Destroyed.


Here's the thing: feminism is nowhere near the same league as the BNP. It has some serious problems, and of this there is no doubt. The amazing infighting regarding statutory rape laws being gender neutral is both evidence of rampant problems within feminism and a lot of undercurrent truly seeking equality.

I still think the undercurrent seeking equality can win, but only if they actually rise up and say that all this radfem business of trying to undermine equality is NOT ok.

[Ostroeuropa]

The difference between a racist political party, and a political party with racists in it.
This is why calling yourself a feminist is a bad idea. It's like joining the BNP because you want a debate on immigration.

This is why whining that the MRM is no different doesn't hold any water.

Yes yes, and Carthage Must Be Destroyed.


Here's the thing: feminism is nowhere near the same league as the BNP. It has some serious problems, and of this there is no doubt. The amazing infighting regarding statutory rape laws being gender neutral is both evidence of rampant problems within feminism and a lot of undercurrent truly seeking equality.

I still think the undercurrent seeking equality can win, but only if they actually rise up and say that all this radfem business of trying to undermine equality is NOT ok.

It won't happen unless they start demanding the MRMs narrative is included in their movement, so it won't happen.

The best we can hope for if you want feminism to stick around is for them to only deal with womens issues and accept the MRM as a counterbalance and share institutional power with them. Over time, there might be a merger.

I don't think that's going to be possible unless we aim for destroying the movement and making it social suicide to identify as a feminist.
Once they realize they are in danger of becoming demonized by history as monsters and run out of the halls of power, they'll cave to our demands, or they won't.
I don't care which at this point.

The ones seeking actual equality don't seem able to accept that the feminist narrative is fundamentally broken and flawed, and cannot deliver gender equality without a patch giving it an androcentric counterweight. That's why these problems emerge all the time from their movement.

Not only that, they routinely misdiagnose the sources of mens problems and misunderstand mens motivations in general and such. It's not a matter of the egalitarian ones running out the radicals and everything will be ok.
They'll still be incapable of dealing with mens issues. Their frame of understanding makes them incapable of it.

The only ones who can manage it are also MRAs. (Even if they are in denial over where they got their extra bits of narrative from.)

[Valystria]

My mistake. I overlooked how dishonest these people are.
Yeah, you're right. By doing nothing they are actively making it worse through distorting the statistics to fit their narrative of women's issues being more important.


Okay this must be why England's feminists are too busy focusing on parliament quotas and why India's feminists are too busy protesting against gender neutral rape laws.
And why Japan's feminists are too busy segregating public transportation.

BUT RAPE APOLOGY IS A SERIOUS ISSUE GUYZ!
FOR REALZ!
WE GIVE A SHIT!

Feminism is the biggest lobby for rapists and domestic abusers in history.

Do you have a vagina? Are you a domestic abuser or rapist? If you answered yes to both those questions, we are on your side. For only $1 a day your contribution will go towards lobbying against gender neutral rape laws, erasing male victims of DV and rape, funding feminist research designed to prove women are the real victims, and passing Violence Against Women legislation to defend YOUR rights as a woman.
Supporting feminism starts today with your donation.