The NationStates Feminist Thread II

[Natapoc]

Have you ever met old people?

Yup. And I've met some who are actually quite willing to fact check, and read. Even when perhaps that is a bit more difficult for them to do. Not every person who is a senior citizen or thereabouts is rigid and opposed to change.

Yes and I have too. But do you really dispute that the older a person gets the less likely they are to consider new ideas? Even good people who mean well and may have been very progressive in their day often fail to keep up with the times.

And I don't think we should hate them for that. For many people it's just an aspect of human development.

[Wallenburg]

A little sauce on the gender pay gap.

[Natapoc]

Perhaps she had more of an impact than I realized. I don't know how much power she had in her role or what exactly she did.

Well, the CDC now uses her sexist definition of rape. Coincidence?

She also devised what we know about campus rape - no doubt minimizing or suppressing evidence about male victims of females along the way. This is part of what has led to the current lopsided discussion about campus rape (when she knew that a study using her methodology - focused at men - showed 16% of men were raped on campus, about 1 in 6). She advises the US Department of Justice and the American Public Health Association, plus was awarded by a Law Enforcement Training association. And many of the men I talk to are flat out laughed at by police if they say they've been raped by a woman. Coincidence?

... all while no doubt peddling this falsehood that men who are raped by women aren't real rape victims and that women are victims now and forever of male violence, when violence in the reverse direction in much the same way is almost as common, and she knew it.

She's almost as prominent as they come when it comes to feminists, and she supports rapists.

If a man would have come up to a police officer 100 years ago and told the officer that he was raped the reaction would have probably been about the same. You're speaking of patriarchy. Not something done by feminism.

[Cat Rangoon]

Yup. And I've met some who are actually quite willing to fact check, and read. Even when perhaps that is a bit more difficult for them to do. Not every person who is a senior citizen or thereabouts is rigid and opposed to change.

Yes and I have too. But do you really dispute that the older a person gets the less likely they are to consider new ideas? Even good people who mean well and may have been very progressive in their day often fail to keep up with the times.

And I don't think we should hate them for that. For many people it's just an aspect of human development.

If you're staying active in your movement, like Koss, then yes, you should be willing to revisit your information and advance. My husband's grandmother is in her mid 80s and she consults online sources when she encounters conflicting information.

It is harder to change when we're older, I agree. But it is not impossible nor is it that an excuse for sticking to outdated definitions and information.

[Natapoc]

A little sauce on the gender pay gap.

Yeah I'm not sure why so many of the people on this forum think there is no pay gap. It's pretty clear.

[Wallenburg]

Well, the CDC now uses her sexist definition of rape. Coincidence?

She also devised what we know about campus rape - no doubt minimizing or suppressing evidence about male victims of females along the way. This is part of what has led to the current lopsided discussion about campus rape (when she knew that a study using her methodology - focused at men - showed 16% of men were raped on campus, about 1 in 6). She advises the US Department of Justice and the American Public Health Association, plus was awarded by a Law Enforcement Training association. And many of the men I talk to are flat out laughed at by police if they say they've been raped by a woman. Coincidence?

... all while no doubt peddling this falsehood that men who are raped by women aren't real rape victims and that women are victims now and forever of male violence, when violence in the reverse direction in much the same way is almost as common, and she knew it.

She's almost as prominent as they come when it comes to feminists, and she supports rapists.

If a man would have come up to a police officer 100 years ago and told the officer that he was raped the reaction would have probably been about the same. You're speaking of patriarchy. Not something done by feminism.

I'd say both have contributed their (un)fair share. The traditional culture has ridiculed male rape victims, and feminism has never really gotten past--when actually fighting for national policy--a sole focus on female rape victims.

[Natapoc]

Yes and I have too. But do you really dispute that the older a person gets the less likely they are to consider new ideas? Even good people who mean well and may have been very progressive in their day often fail to keep up with the times.

And I don't think we should hate them for that. For many people it's just an aspect of human development.

If you're staying active in your movement, like Koss, then yes, you should be willing to revisit your information and advance. My husband's grandmother is in her mid 80s and she consults online sources when she encounters conflicting information.

It is harder to change when we're older, I agree. But it is not impossible nor is it that an excuse for sticking to outdated definitions and information.

Teachers are notoriously the most difficult demographic of all to teach. This is well known by anyone who has tried to teach teachers at any time after they started teaching.

[Galloism]

Well, the CDC now uses her sexist definition of rape. Coincidence?

She also devised what we know about campus rape - no doubt minimizing or suppressing evidence about male victims of females along the way. This is part of what has led to the current lopsided discussion about campus rape (when she knew that a study using her methodology - focused at men - showed 16% of men were raped on campus, about 1 in 6). She advises the US Department of Justice and the American Public Health Association, plus was awarded by a Law Enforcement Training association. And many of the men I talk to are flat out laughed at by police if they say they've been raped by a woman. Coincidence?

... all while no doubt peddling this falsehood that men who are raped by women aren't real rape victims and that women are victims now and forever of male violence, when violence in the reverse direction in much the same way is almost as common, and she knew it.

She's almost as prominent as they come when it comes to feminists, and she supports rapists.

If a man would have come up to a police officer 100 years ago and told the officer that he was raped the reaction would have probably been about the same. You're speaking of patriarchy. Not something done by feminism.

Except some of us have been trying to fix the issues surrounding men who are victims of rape and domestic violence, and feminists, as a group, have been trying to keep the traditional view that men cannot be victims or are almost never victims.

I'm not saying feminism has caused this issue, but many prominent feminists have done their damnedest to perpetuate it.

I mean, imagine you live in a really old house, and your house was on fire because of an electrical short, but a group of people actively blocked the firefighters from accessing your house for hours and, as a result, the house burned down to its foundations. Would you be madder at your electrician (who might be dead at this point from old age) or the people who blocked firefighters from accessing the home?

[Natapoc]

If a man would have come up to a police officer 100 years ago and told the officer that he was raped the reaction would have probably been about the same. You're speaking of patriarchy. Not something done by feminism.

Except some of us have been trying to fix the issues surrounding men who are victims of rape and domestic violence, and feminists, as a group, have been trying to keep the traditional view that men cannot be victims or are almost never victims.

I'm not saying feminism has caused this issue, but many prominent feminists have done their damnedest to perpetuate it.

I mean, imagine your house was on fire because of an electrical short, but a group of people actively blocked the firefighters from accessing your house for hours and, as a result, the house burned down to its foundations. Would you be madder at your electrician or the people who blocked firefighters from accessing the home?

I don't believe that most of the people standing in the way are feminists. I believe most are traditionalists and some are feminists who have traditionalist views.

[Ostroeuropa]

If a man would have come up to a police officer 100 years ago and told the officer that he was raped the reaction would have probably been about the same. You're speaking of patriarchy. Not something done by feminism.

Except some of us have been trying to fix the issues surrounding men who are victims of rape and domestic violence, and feminists, as a group, have been trying to keep the traditional view that men cannot be victims or are almost never victims.

I'm not saying feminism has caused this issue, but many prominent feminists have done their damnedest to perpetuate it.

I mean, imagine your house was on fire because of an electrical short, but a group of people actively blocked the firefighters from accessing your house for hours and, as a result, the house burned down to its foundations. Would you be madder at your electrician or the people who blocked firefighters from accessing the home?

Especially when you consider that many of the arguments surrounding why traditionalism arose and perpetuated boil down to it being an effective system at the time that outlived it's usefulness.

So it's more that you and your neighbor have a shack. It's pretty shitty but does the job.

Then your neighbor moves into a mansion, and actively campaigns and prevents you moving out of your shack.
Then your shack burns down and you get aids.

[Cat Rangoon]

If you're staying active in your movement, like Koss, then yes, you should be willing to revisit your information and advance. My husband's grandmother is in her mid 80s and she consults online sources when she encounters conflicting information.

It is harder to change when we're older, I agree. But it is not impossible nor is it that an excuse for sticking to outdated definitions and information.

Teachers are notoriously the most difficult demographic of all to teach. This is well known by anyone who has tried to teach teachers at any time after they started teaching.

I was kicked out of a class or two while at university. Yes, teachers are stubborn to teach, but if she isn't willing to change or revise her ideas (Koss) with all the new information, then she has no business being a contributor.

The way I see it, and it's just my personal view, is that we need to be extra careful when we're teaching or trying to illustrate. What we say can have repercussions, not all good. I am willing to admit that probably Koss didn't do this out of malice. I doubt she had a reason to. But her rhetoric influenced others who may have done things out of malice.

Ripples in a pond.

[Occupied Deutschland]

A little sauce on the gender pay gap.

Now control that for workplace locale (gender imbalances in a location can cause a preponderance of men going into the occupations available there, and vice-versa), job/work experience, education and career choice (this is a MAJOR one), work conditions, benefits, marriage and/or children and/or family, and actual hours worked and you may begin to have something relevant.
As the BLS report on the topic itself mentions in its opening:

It is important to note that the comparisons of earnings in this report are on a broad level and do not control for many factors that can be significant in explaining earnings differences.

[The Alexanderians]

Perhaps she had more of an impact than I realized. I don't know how much power she had in her role or what exactly she did.

Well, the CDC now uses her sexist definition of rape. Coincidence?

She also devised what we know about campus rape - no doubt minimizing or suppressing evidence about male victims of females along the way. This is part of what has led to the current lopsided discussion about campus rape (when she knew that a study using her methodology - focused at men - showed 16% of men were raped on campus, about 1 in 6). She advises the US Department of Justice and the American Public Health Association, plus was awarded by a Law Enforcement Training association. And many of the men I talk to are flat out laughed at by police if they say they've been raped by a woman. Coincidence?

... all while no doubt peddling this falsehood that men who are raped by women aren't real rape victims and that women are victims now and forever of male violence, when violence in the reverse direction in much the same way is almost as common, and she knew it.

She's almost as prominent as they come when it comes to feminists, and she supports rapists.


Edit: There's also this from her wiki:

In her academic career, Koss has published close to 300 works on violence against women, including 145 peer-reviewed scientific articles as well as books, book chapters, and briefs. In addition to the Ms. Study, Koss has led 10 other federally funded research projects.

In my case it wasn't so much laughed at but told to get out of the building or they'd arrest me for trying to waste resources and harassing them.

[Galloism]

Except some of us have been trying to fix the issues surrounding men who are victims of rape and domestic violence, and feminists, as a group, have been trying to keep the traditional view that men cannot be victims or are almost never victims.

I'm not saying feminism has caused this issue, but many prominent feminists have done their damnedest to perpetuate it.

I mean, imagine your house was on fire because of an electrical short, but a group of people actively blocked the firefighters from accessing your house for hours and, as a result, the house burned down to its foundations. Would you be madder at your electrician or the people who blocked firefighters from accessing the home?

I don't believe that most of the people standing in the way are feminists. I believe most are traditionalists and some are feminists who have traditionalist views.

Then your belief is downright delusional and not based in reality. Feminists have set the stage for all of our modern domestic violence and rape awareness initiatives, and have done so with sexist definitions and sexist presumptions.

I provided evidence - lots of it. With both specific examples and long term trends, along with suppression of evidence taking place by feminists at the highest levels of academia.

At this point, the only way you can claim that feminists have not been the ones "standing in the way" is if you somehow believe that feminists are, as a group, mind-controlled by lizardmen. It's the most rational explanation for your conclusion.

[Wallenburg]

If a man would have come up to a police officer 100 years ago and told the officer that he was raped the reaction would have probably been about the same. You're speaking of patriarchy. Not something done by feminism.

Except some of us have been trying to fix the issues surrounding men who are victims of rape and domestic violence, and feminists, as a group, have been trying to keep the traditional view that men cannot be victims or are almost never victims.

I'm not saying feminism has caused this issue, but many prominent feminists have done their damnedest to perpetuate it.

I mean, imagine you live in a really old house, and your house was on fire because of an electrical short, but a group of people actively blocked the firefighters from accessing your house for hours and, as a result, the house burned down to its foundations. Would you be madder at your electrician (who might be dead at this point from old age) or the people who blocked firefighters from accessing the home?

So we tell them that we can see through the smoke and call their bullshit, rather than condemning an entire movement for the behavior of a few zealots.

[Galloism]

Well, the CDC now uses her sexist definition of rape. Coincidence?

She also devised what we know about campus rape - no doubt minimizing or suppressing evidence about male victims of females along the way. This is part of what has led to the current lopsided discussion about campus rape (when she knew that a study using her methodology - focused at men - showed 16% of men were raped on campus, about 1 in 6). She advises the US Department of Justice and the American Public Health Association, plus was awarded by a Law Enforcement Training association. And many of the men I talk to are flat out laughed at by police if they say they've been raped by a woman. Coincidence?

... all while no doubt peddling this falsehood that men who are raped by women aren't real rape victims and that women are victims now and forever of male violence, when violence in the reverse direction in much the same way is almost as common, and she knew it.

She's almost as prominent as they come when it comes to feminists, and she supports rapists.


Edit: There's also this from her wiki:

In my case it wasn't so much laughed at but told to get out of the building or they'd arrest me for trying to waste resources and harassing them.

That happens a lot too.

Believe me - you are not alone in that experience.

[Keyboard Warriors]

If a man would have come up to a police officer 100 years ago and told the officer that he was raped the reaction would have probably been about the same. You're speaking of patriarchy. Not something done by feminism.

Except some of us have been trying to fix the issues surrounding men who are victims of rape and domestic violence, and feminists, as a group, have been trying to keep the traditional view that men cannot be victims or are almost never victims.

I'm not saying feminism has caused this issue, but many prominent feminists have done their damnedest to perpetuate it.

I mean, imagine you live in a really old house, and your house was on fire because of an electrical short, but a group of people actively blocked the firefighters from accessing your house for hours and, as a result, the house burned down to its foundations. Would you be madder at your electrician (who might be dead at this point from old age) or the people who blocked firefighters from accessing the home?

To complete the situation, imagine you've got some police standing right next to the the people who blocked the firefighters from entering who could easily move them on, but they didn't because they were too lazy?

Who would you be mad at then? Also the police for not doing their job perhaps?

I say this because the issues in rape definitions and lack of shelters/support for men surely could easily be fixed by a government that's still dominated by men, yet it seems that the men in power don't actually care about men's rights.

There are so many groups that are complicit in keeping alive certain traditions and laws to the detriment of the male gender that I can't understand why feminists are the ones who get dragged through the mud time and time again. Soft targets maybe?

[Natapoc]

I don't believe that most of the people standing in the way are feminists. I believe most are traditionalists and some are feminists who have traditionalist views.

Then your belief is downright delusional and not based in reality. Feminists have set the stage for all of our modern domestic violence and rape awareness initiatives, and have done so with sexist definitions and sexist presumptions.

I provided evidence - lots of it. With both specific examples and long term trends, along with suppression of evidence taking place by feminists at the highest levels of academia.

At this point, the only way you can claim that feminists have not been the ones "standing in the way" is if you somehow believe that feminists are, as a group, mind-controlled by lizardmen. It's the most rational explanation for your conclusion.

There is a greater than 1 in 6 chance that I'll be adding "mind-controlled by lizardmen" to my sig now.

[The Alexanderians]

In my case it wasn't so much laughed at but told to get out of the building or they'd arrest me for trying to waste resources and harassing them.

That happens a lot too.

Believe me - you are not alone in that experience.

Oh don't worry I know, it's a disgusting trend that the male victims end up getting arrested in place of the rapists.

[Galloism]

Except some of us have been trying to fix the issues surrounding men who are victims of rape and domestic violence, and feminists, as a group, have been trying to keep the traditional view that men cannot be victims or are almost never victims.

I'm not saying feminism has caused this issue, but many prominent feminists have done their damnedest to perpetuate it.

I mean, imagine you live in a really old house, and your house was on fire because of an electrical short, but a group of people actively blocked the firefighters from accessing your house for hours and, as a result, the house burned down to its foundations. Would you be madder at your electrician (who might be dead at this point from old age) or the people who blocked firefighters from accessing the home?

So we tell them that we can see through the smoke and call their bullshit, rather than condemning an entire movement for the behavior of a few zealots.

See, the thing is, when a person does rise up and call out the bullshit and say men's issues are important - they are vilified by the movement as a whole until they are driven from it.

We've had a good half-dozen examples of such earlier in the thread.

[Galloism]

Except some of us have been trying to fix the issues surrounding men who are victims of rape and domestic violence, and feminists, as a group, have been trying to keep the traditional view that men cannot be victims or are almost never victims.

I'm not saying feminism has caused this issue, but many prominent feminists have done their damnedest to perpetuate it.

I mean, imagine you live in a really old house, and your house was on fire because of an electrical short, but a group of people actively blocked the firefighters from accessing your house for hours and, as a result, the house burned down to its foundations. Would you be madder at your electrician (who might be dead at this point from old age) or the people who blocked firefighters from accessing the home?

To complete the situation, imagine you've got some police standing right next to the the people who blocked the firefighters from entering who could easily move them on, but they didn't because they were too lazy?

Who would you be mad at then? Also the police for not doing their job perhaps?

I say this because the issues in rape definitions and lack of shelters/support for men surely could easily be fixed by a government that's still dominated by men, yet it seems that the men in power don't actually care about men's rights.

Bingo, and yes I am upset at the government for accepting Mary Koss's bullshit. I've written some very pointed letters to the CDC over the last couple years. But see, the men disproportionately affected by such things are NOT the ones in congress. There's very much a class issue at play, and men do not necessarily work in mens' best interests.

There are so many groups that are complicit in keeping alive certain traditions and laws to the detriment of the male gender that I can't understand why feminists are the ones who get dragged through the mud time and time again. Soft targets maybe?

Mostly because they've been the ones controlling the dialogue regarding rape and DV, and have done so deliberately to exclude male victims.

It's a matter of main responsibility. It's sort of like how I blame the bankers responsible for the financial collapse a few years ago. It's true that Congress could have prevented it via enacting proper banking laws, but they didn't do that.

Ultimately however, the bankers who actually perpetuated the incident bear the greatest blame.

[Natapoc]

So we tell them that we can see through the smoke and call their bullshit, rather than condemning an entire movement for the behavior of a few zealots.

See, the thing is, when a person does rise up and call out the bullshit and say men's issues are important - they are vilified by the movement as a whole until they are driven from it.

We've had a good half-dozen examples of such earlier in the thread.

No they don't. There are a lot of feminists saying that men's issues are important. Saying "men have problems that need to be addressed" will not get you kicked out of the feminist hive mind. It will not make the lizard people stop telling you what to say.

I know. I've tried it and they still won't let go of my brain!

[Swith Witherward]

The moderates have had decades and decades to reclaim the positions of power. They haven't gotten anywhere.

I'd say it's problematic that you'd be willing to support a feminism led by moderates. The core problem of feminism remains. It's that the path to equality is not by measuring if women's rights are equal with men's rights. That structurally excludes everyone who isn't a woman.

I think it's possible for feminism to work in conjunction with the men's rights movement and thus present a two-front approach to solving gender inequality. The two, if led by moderates and if willing to compromise, would be able to balance out each other.

As it stands, however, the MRM is basically ignored by the mainstream media and feminism has the floor, which is a serious problem given that radfems have control of the movement and its direction.

This is one of the main problems that needs to be addressed. We can't possibly hope to achieve anything if one side is continually ignored or, worse, torn apart. It will take moderates willing to compromise, and we're sadly lacking in that department. It isn't that moderates aren't out there. It's that many of them get tired of trying to fight a war on two fronts.

The thing is, no one has said we shouldn't question the movement, or that we shouldn't call out the bad behavior. No one has said that feminism is perfect, nor have we said it's the only way. Every movement has bad apples and every movement has its detractors. The rise of sexism and misandry is alarming...

Hence this thread. What if we can accomplish that in this thread? What if we can offer the next generation something positive?

Yet we can't.

Why?

Read through this thread. Pages of mostly three people screaming about how nasty the feminist movement is. Accusations that all feminists are sexist. Posts about how desperate we are, about how we allow the radicals to be in power, and about how we would rather abuse men and strip them of their rights than work hard to establish equality. Posts by people trying to define feminism by only negative angles rather than allowing us moderates to redefine it into something positive.

This is why we don't see the moderates very often.

"Be the change you want to see. Be the first to step forward and meet me half way."

For all their negativity about feminism, I have yet to see one of them say, "Swith, how can I help you make this thread better? How can we make it a place where we see promotion of equality, where we address both men's and women's issues so rights are not lost on either side?" We can't do that until both sides smooth out their hackles and acknowledge that, yes, each is entitled to an opinion BUT we can't see progress until people are willing to be part of that change.

A pipe dream? You bet. One worth having, IMHO.

(And no, I'm not picking on Highfort. We've had interesting discussions about feminism. He usually gives me good insight into his perspective, and that is something I thoroughly appreciate.)

[Galloism]

Then your belief is downright delusional and not based in reality. Feminists have set the stage for all of our modern domestic violence and rape awareness initiatives, and have done so with sexist definitions and sexist presumptions.

I provided evidence - lots of it. With both specific examples and long term trends, along with suppression of evidence taking place by feminists at the highest levels of academia.

At this point, the only way you can claim that feminists have not been the ones "standing in the way" is if you somehow believe that feminists are, as a group, mind-controlled by lizardmen. It's the most rational explanation for your conclusion.

There is a greater than 1 in 6 chance that I'll be adding "mind-controlled by lizardmen" to my sig now.

Like I said - the belief the feminists have not been the ones standing in the way, when we have shown you ample proof that feminists have been the ones standing in the way, drops your belief from "moderately credible" to "blind faith".

There is no one standing in the way except feminists. This is why a men's movement is needed - because otherwise feminists in power will continue to block any attempts to get mens' issues addressed. I'm not convinced MRAs are it (at least I hope not), but feminism is clearly incapable of handling equality issues if women are not the ones disadvantaged.

[Galloism]

See, the thing is, when a person does rise up and call out the bullshit and say men's issues are important - they are vilified by the movement as a whole until they are driven from it.

We've had a good half-dozen examples of such earlier in the thread.

No they don't. There are a lot of feminists saying that men's issues are important. Saying "men have problems that need to be addressed" will not get you kicked out of the feminist hive mind. It will not make the lizard people stop telling you what to say.

I know. I've tried it and they still won't let go of my brain!

Try telling your feminist friends that the CDC shows that, among the adult unimprisoned population, the CDC has shown that among adults men are raped at approximately the same rate as women year by year, and that women are the primary perpetrators when it comes to male victims.

See how that goes.