The NS Mens Rights Thread

[Ostroeuropa]

Nothing you said does anything to undermine what I posted.
For one thing, this is a survey of actual people living in india, and it seems pretty decided.
All you've done is show that women also have issues in india, which was not contested by me or by the survey.

But I guess you'd like to go tell the Indians how their opinion of their own country and it's gender dynamics are wrong because it hurts your first world feminist feelings.

I might be wrong but there's a good change that the respondents might have a different interpretation of what they consider their right and how that right is being harmed.

Extreme example: one of them might see it as their right to have their way with a woman.

So any figures on "we need to protect our rights" are fairly meaningless if it is not specified as to which rights they're referring to, and I feel that this survey doesn't quite cover all its bases.

Very fair point, mustn't conclude too much from too little evidence and such. MRM groups in india are different from anglospheric ones. We don't tend to talk about eachothers issues and such, too much of a cultural barrier I think, there would be little point, except in the context of anglospheric MRAs discussing fair trade and such. Sometimes they are brought up by our detractors though.

[Gauthier]

Nothing you said does anything to undermine what I posted.
For one thing, this is a survey of actual people living in india, and it seems pretty decided.
All you've done is show that women also have issues in india, which was not contested by me or by the survey.

But I guess you'd like to go tell the Indians how their opinion of their own country and it's gender dynamics are wrong because it hurts your first world feminist feelings.

I might be wrong but there's a good change that the respondents might have a different interpretation of what they consider their right and how that right is being harmed.

Extreme example: one of them might see it as their right to have their way with a woman.

So any figures on "we need to protect our rights" are fairly meaningless if it is not specified as to which rights they're referring to, and I feel that this survey doesn't quite cover all its bases.

Because clearly a country where female offsprings are considered hand-me-downs to families to where female abortions and infanticides are fairly common, to where status of females are jack shit to where they're given away in marriages like gift samplers or are gangraped in public with near-impugnity is one where the feminists are overwhelmingly authoritarian.

[Esternial]

I might be wrong but there's a good change that the respondents might have a different interpretation of what they consider their right and how that right is being harmed.

Extreme example: one of them might see it as their right to have their way with a woman.

So any figures on "we need to protect our rights" are fairly meaningless if it is not specified as to which rights they're referring to, and I feel that this survey doesn't quite cover all its bases.

Because clearly a country where female offsprings are considered hand-me-downs to families to where female abortions and infanticides are fairly common, to where status of females are jack shit to where they're given away in marriages like gift samplers or are gangraped in public with near-impugnity is one where the feminists are overwhelmingly authoritarian.

Well, yes, that's the point. If you're used to being permitted to steal someone's cookies every day, that being taken away from you would be seen - from your viewpoint - as authoritarian and oppressive.

Naturally abuse always exists, but maybe what some consider "abuse" is "common sense" to the rest of the world.

[Ostroeuropa]

I might be wrong but there's a good change that the respondents might have a different interpretation of what they consider their right and how that right is being harmed.

Extreme example: one of them might see it as their right to have their way with a woman.

So any figures on "we need to protect our rights" are fairly meaningless if it is not specified as to which rights they're referring to, and I feel that this survey doesn't quite cover all its bases.

Because clearly a country where female offsprings are considered hand-me-downs to families to where female abortions and infanticides are fairly common, to where status of females are jack shit to where they're given away in marriages like gift samplers or are gangraped in public with near-impugnity is one where the feminists are overwhelmingly authoritarian.

Well just to play devils advocate here, but feminists being overwhelmingly sexist and authoritarian doesn't actually mean a better deal for women, just a worse one for men.

Example:
viewtopic.php?p=25710333#p25710333

Feminists in the USA and their authoritarian sexism on domestic violence leads to more domestic violence against women.

[Tahar Joblis]

http://www.mid-day.com/articles/men-too-are-victims-of-sexism-finds-survey/16472159

An interesting article.



Notably, 72% of the respondents (give or take) think there is a need for a mens rights group of some kind.

As well, 60% of respondents think the laws to protect women are misused to harm men.

(This is all in India, by the way.)

Oh yes, India. The world's paragon of women's rights.

India Police Say 2 Brothers Behead Sister for Alleged Affair

The point you are overlooking is that even in a relatively patriarchal country like India - and India is considerably more patriarchal culturally than, say, the US - men have real issues as men that should be addressed. Such as recognizing that men can be raped.

India, in fact, has a number of the same men's problems that are present in the West. Rape of men being defined out of existence is a real problem in the West as well (see the extensive discussion of "made to penetrate"). India just happens, coincidentally, to have some women's problems that aren't present in the US, which in no way eliminates the existence of genuine men's issues; nor does it change the fact that feminists are more likely to oppose addressing those issues than help address them.

[Ostroeuropa]

Oh yes, India. The world's paragon of women's rights.

India Police Say 2 Brothers Behead Sister for Alleged Affair

The point you are overlooking is that even in a relatively patriarchal country like India - and India is considerably more patriarchal culturally than, say, the US - men have real issues as men that should be addressed. Such as recognizing that men can be raped.

India, in fact, has a number of the same men's problems that are present in the West. Rape of men being defined out of existence is a real problem in the West as well (see the extensive discussion of "made to penetrate"). India just happens, coincidentally, to have some women's problems that aren't present in the US, which in no way eliminates the existence of genuine men's issues; nor does it change the fact that feminists are more likely to oppose addressing those issues than help address them.

Pretty much. But I bet you they'd tell the men that feminism will fix their issues too.
At which point the men will look at the west, where most womens issues are fixed and mens are basically the same as theirs, and say
"You're liars."

It could well be that one of the major roadblocks to patriarchal nations adopting feminism is men see through the lie that feminism peddles about mens issues in the west. That's obviously bad for everyone involved.

Fixing mens issues in the west would alleviate this problem. So would mens rights groups shutting up about their rights being violated, but fuck that, these are legitimate issues.

[Esternial]

Oh yes, India. The world's paragon of women's rights.

India Police Say 2 Brothers Behead Sister for Alleged Affair

The point you are overlooking is that even in a relatively patriarchal country like India - and India is considerably more patriarchal culturally than, say, the US - men have real issues as men that should be addressed. Such as recognizing that men can be raped.

India, in fact, has a number of the same men's problems that are present in the West. Rape of men being defined out of existence is a real problem in the West as well (see the extensive discussion of "made to penetrate"). India just happens, coincidentally, to have some women's problems that aren't present in the US, which in no way eliminates the existence of genuine men's issues; nor does it change the fact that feminists are more likely to oppose addressing those issues than help address them.

Sure, but the figures from that survey don't say very much. As I said, I could be wrong, but I believe they account for people that have legitimate concerns (as in, from our point-of-view, relating to men being raped and such) but also account for men that don't want their privileged rights to be taken away (extreme example again - the right to have their way with a woman).

So yes, India has a number of same problems, but on top of those it has "men's problems" that, to us, aren't really problems at all - sometimes quite the opposite.

Using India in any context related to the U.S. (or the West in general) results in a very vague image. It's like comparing the Rockies with the Himalayas and saying "jup, both mountains".

[Ostroeuropa]

The point you are overlooking is that even in a relatively patriarchal country like India - and India is considerably more patriarchal culturally than, say, the US - men have real issues as men that should be addressed. Such as recognizing that men can be raped.

India, in fact, has a number of the same men's problems that are present in the West. Rape of men being defined out of existence is a real problem in the West as well (see the extensive discussion of "made to penetrate"). India just happens, coincidentally, to have some women's problems that aren't present in the US, which in no way eliminates the existence of genuine men's issues; nor does it change the fact that feminists are more likely to oppose addressing those issues than help address them.

Sure, but the figures from that survey don't say very much. As I said, I could be wrong, but I believe they account for people that have legitimate concerns (as in, from our point-of-view, relating to men being raped and such) but also account for men that don't want their privileged rights to be taken away (extreme example again - the right to have their way with a woman).

So yes, India has a number of same problems, but on top of those it has "men's problems" that, to us, aren't really problems at all - sometimes quite the opposite.

I'm not really sure what I think about this.
I'm willing to accept it's possible, and that it's a reason not to trust the data, but i'm also skeptical of it, because that's the kind of shit that gets thrown at the MRM with no basis in reality, but rather, as a way to derail the conversation about mens issues, so you can see why i'm not keen to believe it about others.

[Tahar Joblis]

The point you are overlooking is that even in a relatively patriarchal country like India - and India is considerably more patriarchal culturally than, say, the US - men have real issues as men that should be addressed. Such as recognizing that men can be raped.

India, in fact, has a number of the same men's problems that are present in the West. Rape of men being defined out of existence is a real problem in the West as well (see the extensive discussion of "made to penetrate"). India just happens, coincidentally, to have some women's problems that aren't present in the US, which in no way eliminates the existence of genuine men's issues; nor does it change the fact that feminists are more likely to oppose addressing those issues than help address them.

Pretty much. But I bet you they'd tell the men that feminism will fix their issues too.
At which point the men will look at the west, where most womens issues are fixed and mens are basically the same as theirs, and say
"You're liars."

It could well be that one of the major roadblocks to patriarchal nations adopting feminism is men see through the lie that feminism peddles about mens issues in the west. That's obviously bad for everyone involved.

Fixing mens issues in the west would alleviate this problem.

They don't have to look to the West. They can (and have) watched in their own country as feminist lobbies attacked an initiative that reformed the definition of rape, and actively stripped protection away from men.

The fact that women have genuine problems in a country does not mean that feminists won't fight against men's rights in that country.

[Esternial]

Sure, but the figures from that survey don't say very much. As I said, I could be wrong, but I believe they account for people that have legitimate concerns (as in, from our point-of-view, relating to men being raped and such) but also account for men that don't want their privileged rights to be taken away (extreme example again - the right to have their way with a woman).

So yes, India has a number of same problems, but on top of those it has "men's problems" that, to us, aren't really problems at all - sometimes quite the opposite.

I'm not really sure what I think about this.
I'm willing to accept it's possible, and that it's a reason not to trust the data, but i'm also skeptical of it, because that's the kind of shit that gets thrown at the MRM with no basis in reality, but rather, as a way to derail the conversation about mens issues, so you can see why i'm not keen to believe it about others.

If you're unable to distinguish what - at least to me - seems like rational skepticism from petty warmongering, I guess I can understand that.

If I were a hardcore feminist I'd understand your apparently dis-proportionally high willingness to accept this skepticism for what it is - skepticism - because obviously there would be a sizable change that my comment would be heavily biased. In my case, I looked at that data, considered what little I know of India and thought "hold on 'ere". So from where I'm sitting it seems your skepticism of my skepticism is slightly biased, considering I know your aversion to feminism.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm not really sure what I think about this.
I'm willing to accept it's possible, and that it's a reason not to trust the data, but i'm also skeptical of it, because that's the kind of shit that gets thrown at the MRM with no basis in reality, but rather, as a way to derail the conversation about mens issues, so you can see why i'm not keen to believe it about others.

If you're unable to distinguish what - at least to me - seems like rational skepticism from petty warmongering, I guess I can understand that.

If I were a hardcore feminist I'd understand your apparently dis-proportionally high willingness to accept this skepticism for what it is - skepticism - because obviously there would be a sizable change that my comment would be heavily biased. In my case, I looked at that data, considered what little I know of India and thought "hold on 'ere". So from where I'm sitting it seems your skepticism of my skepticism is slightly biased, considering I know your aversion to feminism.

I'm not skeptical of your skepticism, certainly not.
I think it's warranted, and I agree with it. I'm just also skeptical the other way too.
I don't deny that it easily could be the case that a number of the respondents are confusing mens rights with sexist privileges and thinking they should be defended, i'm just not accepting that as the actual truth, but merely, as a reason the data cannot be relied upon.
I'm not keen to assume it's the case, because it's something that always gets thrown our way, and it's not true about us, so I know from personal experience that the perception that this is or could be the case is not always accurate.

I'd say you're right on the money with why the data can't be trusted.

My unease in saying what you said is probably true as opposed to possibly true very well could be an issue of bias due to my personal experiences, you're right there too.

[Tahar Joblis]

The point you are overlooking is that even in a relatively patriarchal country like India - and India is considerably more patriarchal culturally than, say, the US - men have real issues as men that should be addressed. Such as recognizing that men can be raped.

India, in fact, has a number of the same men's problems that are present in the West. Rape of men being defined out of existence is a real problem in the West as well (see the extensive discussion of "made to penetrate"). India just happens, coincidentally, to have some women's problems that aren't present in the US, which in no way eliminates the existence of genuine men's issues; nor does it change the fact that feminists are more likely to oppose addressing those issues than help address them.

Sure, but the figures from that survey don't say very much. As I said, I could be wrong, but I believe they account for people that have legitimate concerns (as in, from our point-of-view, relating to men being raped and such) but also account for men that don't want their privileged rights to be taken away (extreme example again - the right to have their way with a woman).

So yes, India has a number of same problems, but on top of those it has "men's problems" that, to us, aren't really problems at all - sometimes quite the opposite.

Using India in any context related to the U.S. (or the West in general) results in a very vague image. It's like comparing the Rockies with the Himalayas and saying "jup, both mountains".

Both the Rockies and the Himalayas are mountains.

Are there perhaps some things that Indian men believe to be rights that are, in fact, special privileges they have held that women lack? Quite possible. That is, however, up to you to demonstrate. I certainly won't argue on their behalf for the restoration of any special privileges over women. In the mean time, however, it's quite clear that there are very real legal protections that men, in India, lack; which women, in India, have; and which present serious violations of the principles of gender equality.

The survey demonstrates several things - one of which is that most residents of Mumbai believe that there are serious abuses of laws that provide special protections to women, with such laws being used as weapons by women to attack men; another of which is that most residents of Mumbai believe there is now a real need to address men's issues; a third of which is that there are a significant number of persons who believe that discrimination against men isn't even sexism.

Are there issues with the survey? Yes. For one thing, it was carried out entirely by young women, which seems likely to skew responses (if not in a pro-MRA direction). To the degree that the survey results are reliable, however, they speak to a very serious need for the development of a movement in India that will address problems of inequality on behalf of men; and they speak to a fairly alarming level of disconnect between popular awareness and legislative behavior in a purportedly democratic country.

(For those in the peanut gallery who may have lost track, here's an article discussing the survey in question. I haven't located a more direct presentation of source data, it may very well not exist.)

[Esternial]

Sure, but the figures from that survey don't say very much. As I said, I could be wrong, but I believe they account for people that have legitimate concerns (as in, from our point-of-view, relating to men being raped and such) but also account for men that don't want their privileged rights to be taken away (extreme example again - the right to have their way with a woman).

So yes, India has a number of same problems, but on top of those it has "men's problems" that, to us, aren't really problems at all - sometimes quite the opposite.

Using India in any context related to the U.S. (or the West in general) results in a very vague image. It's like comparing the Rockies with the Himalayas and saying "jup, both mountains".

Both the Rockies and the Himalayas are mountains.

Are there perhaps some things that Indian men believe to be rights that are, in fact, special privileges they have held that women lack? Quite possible. That is, however, up to you to demonstrate. I certainly won't argue on their behalf for the restoration of any special privileges over women. In the mean time, however, it's quite clear that there are very real legal protections that men, in India, lack; which women, in India, have; and which present serious violations of the principles of gender equality.

The survey demonstrates several things - one of which is that most residents of Mumbai believe that there are serious abuses of laws that provide special protections to women, with such laws being used as weapons by women to attack men; another of which is that most residents of Mumbai believe there is now a real need to address men's issues; a third of which is that there are a significant number of persons who believe that discrimination against men isn't even sexism.

Are there issues with the survey? Yes. For one thing, it was carried out entirely by young women, which seems likely to skew responses (if not in a pro-MRA direction). To the degree that the survey results are reliable, however, they speak to a very serious need for the development of a movement in India that will address problems of inequality on behalf of men; and they speak to a fairly alarming level of disconnect between popular awareness and legislative behavior in a purportedly democratic country.

(For those in the peanut gallery who may have lost track, here's an article discussing the survey in question. I haven't located a more direct presentation of source data, it may very well not exist.)

I never argued otherwise so I don't particularly see any new points being raised here.

For my analogy, it seems you've sort of missed a very relevant point, which I'll explain in the next paragraph. For the analogy itself, yes, both are mountains. Both are similar, but different in their own way. There are characteristics that vary that make climbing one mountain harder than the other, climate being one of them.

I just raised a point of skepticism about approaching statistics from India with a Western viewpoint, which has the risk of people ignoring some very relevant cultural and ideological difference. The cultural, political and ideological climate is different. It's a matter of being bothered to properly take into account additional circumstances and realizing they can be of influence. To which extent I am not bothered to investigate since I agree that men need their rights protected - as do women.

For the question: 'do men in India need their rights protected?' Ignoring these fairly relevant details would be acceptable, since it's fairly impossible that those 74% are all looking to protect rights that we in the West see as (lacking better words) 'backwards' and 'outdated'. There are men that feel their rights need to be protected thus they need that protection. Case closed.

But you can't use those figures and say "look, this many men need their rights protected" in a forum that has a predominantly Western ideology because these 'rights' are not specified and may differ between dominant ideologies, thus making the associated value pretty much meaningless. They include the rights that we consider relevant and important, but not exclusively. That's a matter of uncertainty, because we have Western ideologies and are interpreting the responses from people with a completely different ideology.

I get the feeling me raising this point was interpreted as "Indian men don't have men's problems and don't need representation", since you felt like explaining in depth something I already know and agree with. Let me emphasize that there was no need.

[Tahar Joblis]

Both the Rockies and the Himalayas are mountains.

Are there perhaps some things that Indian men believe to be rights that are, in fact, special privileges they have held that women lack? Quite possible. That is, however, up to you to demonstrate. I certainly won't argue on their behalf for the restoration of any special privileges over women. In the mean time, however, it's quite clear that there are very real legal protections that men, in India, lack; which women, in India, have; and which present serious violations of the principles of gender equality.

The survey demonstrates several things - one of which is that most residents of Mumbai believe that there are serious abuses of laws that provide special protections to women, with such laws being used as weapons by women to attack men; another of which is that most residents of Mumbai believe there is now a real need to address men's issues; a third of which is that there are a significant number of persons who believe that discrimination against men isn't even sexism.

Are there issues with the survey? Yes. For one thing, it was carried out entirely by young women, which seems likely to skew responses (if not in a pro-MRA direction). To the degree that the survey results are reliable, however, they speak to a very serious need for the development of a movement in India that will address problems of inequality on behalf of men; and they speak to a fairly alarming level of disconnect between popular awareness and legislative behavior in a purportedly democratic country.

(For those in the peanut gallery who may have lost track, here's an article discussing the survey in question. I haven't located a more direct presentation of source data, it may very well not exist.)

I never argued otherwise so I don't particularly see any new points being raised here.

For my analogy, it seems you've sort of missed a very relevant point, which I'll explain in the next paragraph. For the analogy itself, yes, both are mountains. Both are similar, but different in their own way. There are characteristics that vary that make climbing one mountain harder than the other, climate being one of them.

I just raised a point of skepticism about approaching statistics from India with a Western viewpoint, which has the risk of people ignoring some very relevant cultural and ideological difference. The cultural, political and ideological climate is different. It's a matter of being bothered to properly take into account additional circumstances and realizing they can be of influence. To which extent I am not bothered to investigate since I agree that men need their rights protected - as do women.

For the question: 'do men in India need their rights protected?' Ignoring these fairly relevant details would be acceptable, since it's fairly impossible that those 74% are all looking to protect rights that we in the West see as (lacking better words) 'backwards' and 'outdated'. There are men that feel their rights need to be protected thus they need that protection. Case closed.

Actually, it's entirely possible, if you are starting from the perspective of ignorance regarding India. What the survey shows is subjective in nature. It is not in any way objective. It shows how Indians think and feel. It is, nevertheless, suggestive.

The fact that those men need to have full and equal protection of the law does not depend on their opinions. You deserve equal rights whether or not you think you deserve equal rights.

Most feminists believe that women have fewer rights than men in the modern West. They are wrong. Most feminists believe that women are at least an (and many believe the most) oppressed class in the modern West. They are also wrong.

It is the perspective of ignorance regarding India that is what the survey addresses: It's a look inside what Indians think. Indians tend to know a little more about what's going on in their society than we do; and so it's a look into Indian society at a higher level of expertise than what you have, if you haven't taken steps to learn more about India.

That said, some of the opinions it shows demonstrates that there are problems. For example, the roughly one quarter of people who think that sexism is defined as being discrimination against women? That is a dangerously ignorant minority who agree with radical feminists that somehow, sexism against men isn't supposed to count as sexism (usually this is expressed as "sexism = privilege + power" or some variant thereof).

But you can't use those figures and say "look, this many men need their rights protected" in a forum that has a predominantly Western ideology because these 'rights' are not specified and may differ between dominant ideologies, thus making the associated value pretty much meaningless. They include the rights that we consider relevant and important, but not exclusively. That's a matter of uncertainty, because we have Western ideologies and are interpreting the responses from people with a completely different ideology.

The differences in ideology are not as irrelevant to the matter of justice as you imply. Are there some things that Indians value that we do not, and vice versa? Yes. They have very different collective opinions on, say, cows. Or vegetarianism. However, hypocrisy, dishonesty, the presumption of innocence in criminal justice, etc come across reasonably well. Indians have, on the whole, a reasonably sound conception of the notion of rights and equality, and Mumbai, where the survey was taken, is considerably more cosmpolitan than rural India. Mumbai's literacy rate is about 93%. I'll take the view of the average Mumbai man-in-the-street as saying more about the actual state of things in India than someone like, oh, Gauthier here.

The World Value Survey puts India closer to the US than the US is to some European countries, in many ways. This survey isn't asking about, say, labor obligations within marriage. Which questions mentioned in the article do you think are culturally relative, and in what ways? Be specific.

I get the feeling me raising this point was interpreted as "Indian men don't have men's problems and don't need representation", since you felt like explaining in depth something I already know and agree with. Let me emphasize that there was no need.

Speaking of topic drift... you seemed interested in claiming that the Indian MRM is interested in defending special male privileges. I told you, point blank, that it was up to you to demonstrate this, and you have not yet done so.

[Gravlen]

So Sweden is getting rid of affirmative action. Not surprised why. At least it's a win for those who like small government.

Nope. Sweden did not get rid of affirmative action in 2010, and they're not getting rid of it today. Sweden changed a regulation regulating universities, but notably did not change the law - specifically the law on discrimination, which also apply to universities and is held as a higher norm than any regulations.

In short:

The regulations in today ́s Discrimination law allow positive action on the basis of sex in the workplace and in university.

Earlier also the University constitution permitted that positive action based on sex was applied in university but this was changed in 2010. This change should not affect the application of positive action based on sex, because the Discrimination law has a higher legal status.

http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:512713/FULLTEXT01.pdf

[Ostroeuropa]

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

11 year old boy and 13 year old boy face life sentences for having sex with an 11 year old girl in China, after their government repealed the law saying underage boys cannot consent to sex.

It is understood defendants cannot argue that consent was given in their defence because the laws are set out to protect extremely young girls.

"So far there is no evidence to suggest the girl was forced to have sex with the two boys," a police source said.

So basically, a feminist law ammendment directly endorsing a pedophiliac view of boys.

Like I said in my DV post, biggest lobby for rapists and domestic abusers in history.

[Alyakia]

it's a test case for a law they made after a they couldn't hit a 13 year old who raped a 5 year old with a rape charge. i admit it is plausible but i will need a stronger source than "it is understood that" from the south china post that only boys can get hit.

technically saying they face a life sentence is accurate because it is the maximum penalty but young offenders are rarely jailed and there is zero (0) chance of a 13 year old and 11 year old having sex that would have otherwise been ok getting jailed for life so i would consider it sensationalist.

e: i am also going to go all out and say you have not proven it is directly related to feminism. "That case prompted the Law Reform Commission to recommend that the age threshold of 14 for unlawful sexual intercourse be lifted." mentions nothing about feminism of boys specifically for that matter. they were not feminists out to demonize males they were people pissed off they couldn't charge a 13 year old with raping of a 5 year old in a hospital.

[Grave_n_idle]

it's a test case for a law they made after a they couldn't hit a 13 year old who raped a 5 year old with a rape charge. i admit it is plausible but i will need a stronger source than "it is understood that" from the south china post that only boys can get hit.

technically saying they face a life sentence is accurate because it is the maximum penalty but young offenders are rarely jailed and there is zero (0) chance of a 13 year old and 11 year old having sex that would have otherwise been ok getting jailed for life so i would consider it sensationalist.

e: i am also going to go all out and say you have not proven it is directly related to feminism. "That case prompted the Law Reform Commission to recommend that the age threshold of 14 for unlawful sexual intercourse be lifted." mentions nothing about feminism of boys specifically for that matter. they were not feminists out to demonize males they were people pissed off they couldn't charge a 13 year old with raping of a 5 year old in a hospital.

If the source is a 'men's right' thread on reddit, it's probably wholly invented, anyway.

[Ostroeuropa]

it's a test case for a law they made after a they couldn't hit a 13 year old who raped a 5 year old with a rape charge. i admit it is plausible but i will need a stronger source than "it is understood that" from the south china post that only boys can get hit.

technically saying they face a life sentence is accurate because it is the maximum penalty but young offenders are rarely jailed and there is zero (0) chance of a 13 year old and 11 year old having sex that would have otherwise been ok getting jailed for life so i would consider it sensationalist.

e: i am also going to go all out and say you have not proven it is directly related to feminism. "That case prompted the Law Reform Commission to recommend that the age threshold of 14 for unlawful sexual intercourse be lifted." mentions nothing about feminism of boys specifically for that matter. they were not feminists out to demonize males they were people pissed off they couldn't charge a 13 year old with raping of a 5 year old in a hospital.

The source openly states that the law change was done to protect young girls from sexual abuse after public outcry.
Who do you think it was, if not feminists?

What's wrong with the current source saying it only applies to boys?

If nothing else, it's a case of the feminist narrative causing problems.

Considering feminists continually waffle about how certain words and symbols and such can inculcate sexism, they seem remarkably unwilling to consider that maybe the way they push their narrative has negative effects on a culture.
You could argue that perhaps this law was changed by people who aren't feminists, but to argue they are not infected with the feminist narrative would be almost impossible.
Through continuous gynocentrism and focus on women being the victims of men, feminists inculcate a culture of hatred for men and violation of their rights as surely as a culture of continually portraying women as housewives, weaklings, cowards and morons would oppress women.

Basically, because of their movements MO, because of it's rhetoric and creed, this can be attributed to feminism. Especially since someone defending mens rights would be immediately demonized, thanks to feminism.
You're basically talking about how that guy who shot up a bunch of churches isn't reaaallllyyy a confederacy supporter.
Yeh, he kind of is. Even if the other ones think he's a fucknut, their rhetoric made him what he is. So too do feminists have to take account of the devestation their ideology continuously causes wherever it infests the state, as a result of their gynocentricity, their hateful rhetoric, and all around incompetence at being an equality movement.

[Alyakia]

The source openly states that the law change was done to protect young girls from sexual abuse after public outcry.
Who do you think it was, if not feminists?

the law was changed in response to one specific young girl. this happens all the time even in our country. why should i believe that every person that got pissed off over a 5 year old getting raped is automatically a misandrist feminist? for all i know it could have been the chinese EDL leading the charge.

What's wrong with the current source saying it only applies to boys?

the fact it is only one of questionable validity that does not actually cite the text of the law. when it actually mentions the law it arguably contradicts itself.

If nothing else, it's a case of the feminist narrative causing problems.

the feminist narrative of changing rape laws so that 13 year olds raping 5 year olds can be charge with rape?

let's save our outrage for when we actually get a result and see whether the courts actually say "rape because penis". until then anything else is projection. i am also frankly skeptical that either of us has an understanding of feminism in law in china.

[Grave_n_idle]

The source openly states that the law change was done to protect young girls from sexual abuse after public outcry.
Who do you think it was, if not feminists?

Everyone?

That's kinda what 'public outcry' suggests.

[Ostroeuropa]

The source openly states that the law change was done to protect young girls from sexual abuse after public outcry.
Who do you think it was, if not feminists?

the law was changed in response to one specific young girl. this happens all the time even in our country. why should i believe that every person that got pissed off over a 5 year old getting raped is automatically a misandrist feminist? for all i know it could have been the chinese EDL leading the charge.

What's wrong with the current source saying it only applies to boys?

the fact it is only one of questionable validity that does not actually cite the text of the law. when it actually mentions the law it arguably contradicts itself.

If nothing else, it's a case of the feminist narrative causing problems.

the feminist narrative of changing rape laws so that 13 year olds raping 5 year olds can be charge with rape?

let's save our outrage for when we actually get a result and see whether the courts actually say "rape because penis". until then anything else is projection. i am also frankly skeptical that either of us has an understanding of feminism in law in china.

No, the feminist narrative on the oppression of women, instead of just sexism being shit.
If the law was changed while ignoring that sometimes girls rape boys, that is a problem which feminism is part of, and arguably the biggest cause of in the modern era due to their monopoly on gender issues.
Do you really not see a problem with the way the feminist movement conducts itself and advocates for gender issues?
it's completely fucked. It causes things like this to happen.

The source openly states that the law change was done to protect young girls from sexual abuse after public outcry.
Who do you think it was, if not feminists?

Everyone?

That's kinda what 'public outcry' suggests.

That's cute. I've seen the media conflate actual public outcries with misogynistic mobs, and small cabals of feminists spamming twitter as public outcry.
I'll tell you what public outcry actually means in the media.
The people who agree with our agenda. They do the same thing on economics, as practically every left winger knows.

[Alyakia]

i'm also going to again say fuck it and point out both we and china managed to come up with sexist age of consent laws before feminism was a serious force or before it even existed so again the onus to prove that this is eve actually happening the way you describe it and that it is feminism that is to blame is on you

edward i you damn feminist

[Ostroeuropa]

i'm also going to again say fuck it and point out both we and china managed to come up with sexist age of consent laws before feminism was a serious force or before it even existed so again the onus to prove that this is eve actually happening the way you describe it and that it is feminism that is to blame is on you

edward i you damn feminist

"But but, the economy was broken when we came to power in the 1990's, so it's not our fault it's still a complete clusterfuck!"

Yeh, it fucking is. Feminists have a great deal of institutional power, and the way they use it is extremely indicative of feminism as an ideology and a movement.
It's so fucked that their DV campaign is an utter farce, as I pointed out
here:
viewtopic.php?p=25710333#p25710333

This is what a feminist outlook gets you.

[Alyakia]

the law was changed in response to one specific young girl. this happens all the time even in our country. why should i believe that every person that got pissed off over a 5 year old getting raped is automatically a misandrist feminist? for all i know it could have been the chinese EDL leading the charge.



the fact it is only one of questionable validity that does not actually cite the text of the law. when it actually mentions the law it arguably contradicts itself.



the feminist narrative of changing rape laws so that 13 year olds raping 5 year olds can be charge with rape?

let's save our outrage for when we actually get a result and see whether the courts actually say "rape because penis". until then anything else is projection. i am also frankly skeptical that either of us has an understanding of feminism in law in china.

No, the feminist narrative on the oppression of women, instead of just sexism being shit.
If the law was changed while ignoring that sometimes girls rape boys, that is a problem which feminism is part of, and arguably the biggest cause of in the modern era due to their monopoly on gender issues.
Do you really not see a problem with the way the feminist movement conducts itself and advocates for gender issues?
it's completely fucked. It causes things like this to happen.

see my above post. maybe you could argue that even in 1275 and 1885 they were ignorant of males being raped, which let's be honest, they almost definitely were. but that has shit all to do with feminism. and again like i said i am skeptical that your views of western feminism apply in china. it looks to me like you are forgetting that there can be sexism against males from people that are not feminists.