The NationStates Feminist Thread II

[Keyboard Warriors]

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!

What gets you kicked out is shit like this:

Feminist 1: "Women earn less than their male counterparts on average"
Feminist 2: "Let's discuss how we can fix this"
Anti-feminist: "WHAT ABOUT THE MEN!?! SEXIST!!!!"

[Wallenburg]

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.

Good point. I should have posted this.

[Galloism]

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!

What gets you kicked out is shit like this:

Feminist 1: "Women earn less than their male counterparts on average"
Feminist 2: "Let's discuss how we can fix this"
Anti-feminist: "WHAT ABOUT THE MEN!?! SEXIST!!!!"

Or, you know, writing about men's issues from men's perspective at any point.

[Aborland]

I would love to post my opinion, but, by the standards you set I can not voice what I think here so that's an easy way to win a debate.

[Wallenburg]

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.

I'd love some sources on that.

[Wallenburg]

I would love to post my opinion, but, by the standards you set I can not voice what I think here so that's an easy way to win a debate.

Are you referring to forum rules? Because if you can't debate without breaking those you can't really debate at all.

[Natapoc]

What gets you kicked out is shit like this:

Feminist 1: "Women earn less than their male counterparts on average"
Feminist 2: "Let's discuss how we can fix this"
Anti-feminist: "WHAT ABOUT THE MEN!?! SEXIST!!!!"

Or, you know, writing about men's issues from men's perspective at any point.

Men do write about mens issues from a mans perspective and it's perfectly accepted. It's when one tries to take that mans perspective and use it to silence women that feminists will start calling you out for it.

[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.

I'd love some sources on that.

Tahar did my work for me.

Disagreement within the feminist movement does not mean the people who also care about men's rights are not real feminists.

Disagreement within the feminist movement is treated different ways when it comes to different issues.

When it is someone saying hateful things about men, it's handled as a disagreement between feminists. "I disagree with you, but you are entitled to your opinion." When it is someone staking out a contentious position on prostitution, it's handled as a disagreement between feminists. "You're wrong, because XYZ is actually in women's interests, not ZYX."

However, there are things that are treated as litmus tests. Right now, there are two, bordering on three, major litmus tests. In ascending order of consistency, these are:

• Intolerance of transwomen or other GSM individuals (except gay men, it's OK to bash gay men as misogynist). While there are TERFs, TERFs are on the out, and sometimes TERFs are attacked as non-feminists, with mainstream feminists trying to exclude them. (Considering the example of Robin Morgan, you can have a TERF record and stay in the mainstream feminist movement so long as you aren't too loud about being a TERF.)
• An anti-abortion / pro-life position. E.g., Sarah Palin. This is contentious.
• Favoring actual action on men's issues. We have a long litany of examples. Hirota mentioned Erin Pizzey, Anne COols, Don Dutton, Karen DeCrow, and Cassie Jaye. I mentioned Warren Farrell (who used to be on NOW's board and then wrote extensively about men's issues while continuing to identify as a feminist), Christina Hoff Sommers ("equity feminist" critical of the movement for misandry), and quite pointedly myself here on NSG. Here within NSG, most of NSG's feminist squad turned on me while I still quite vigorously identified as feminist... because I also cared about men's issues. I'm even talking post-Jolt days, so you can see it right in my posting history.

Warren Farrell was viciously attacked as "other" by feminists after years of involvement with the movement for nothing more than choosing to write about men's issues from a male perspective in the exact same manner as feminists had looked at women's issues from a female perspective. Erin Pizzey faced violence and threats from feminists for nothing more than pointing out the reality that women were themselves often perpetrators of violence within relationships. Cassie Jaye - the woman behind the Kickstarted documentary mentioned - has set down on the same road.

There is nothing that you can do that is more likely to get you othered as a "fake feminist" than deciding that something should actually be done about men's issues.

Oh, and I'll add one more:

Here's an interesting article from a woman who served as a prosecutor, a judge, a defense attorney, and is now teaching at Harvard.

She's also an avowed feminist.

Other than not recognizing that female-on-male rape is a real thing (par for the course), her analysis is quite good actually.

http://prospect.org/article/sex-lies-and-justice

She's criticizing Harvard's procedures which go stupidly beyond even federal recommendations. I recommend reading the whole article, but let me quote just a few bits I really liked:

The atmosphere surrounding date rape had changed more dramatically than I had appreciated, at least in Massachusetts. The district attorney, though he fully understood the weaknesses of the case, felt compelled to bring the charges lest he face political repercussions, for being yet another politician ignoring a woman’s pain. Even the grand jury ignored their serious doubts about the case and indicted Paul. As I later learned from one of its members, they felt comfortable indicting Paul because I was rumored to be representing him and they assumed he would be acquitted. And the judge—with life tenure—likewise felt the pressure. The judge was critical; my partner decided to waive the jury when a program on date rape was aired on the eve of the trial. While the judge expressed his skepticism throughout the trial—every single comment of his pointed to reasonable doubt about Paul’s guilt—his verdict was “guilty.” He did not say so explicitly, but the message seemed clear. If he acquitted Paul, he would be pilloried in the press. “Judge acquits rapist,” the headlines would scream. But if he convicted Paul, no one would notice.

I took over the appeal. The brief my firm filed was what I described as a feminist brief: Just because the legal system has moved away from the view that all rape accusations are contrived does not mean it must move to the view that none are. This conviction was not just technically imperfect, I argued, it was a true injustice. I was successful. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reversed Paul’s conviction on a procedural error, the trial court’s evidentiary rulings. The prosecutor could have retried the case, but, thankfully, chose not to do so.

After decades of feminist advocacy (the case establishing the right to choose abortion in Massachusetts, the first introduction of Battered Woman Syndrome in a defense to a murder charge, and on and on), I was picketed by a women’s rights group when I spoke on a panel following the reversal of Paul’s case; I was a “so-called women’s rights attorney,” one sign announced, simply because I had represented a man accused of rape. When I explained why, including the fact that I believed he was innocent, a demonstrator yelled, “That is irrelevant!” The experience was chilling; to the picketers, a wrongful conviction and imprisonment simply did not matter. Paul would have been incarcerated, but for my firm’s advocacy and the appellate court’s independent review. Still, advocacy and appellate review could only go so far: Though the charges against Paul were dropped, he was expelled from the college he had been attending; he struggled to reapply years later and finally get his degree. Worse yet, he continues to suffer from the stigma of the accusation to this day, many, many decades later.

Moving on to Harvard's method:

As the letter of the 28 faculty members noted, this procedure does not remotely resemble any fair decision-making process with which any of us were familiar: All of the functions of the sexual assault disciplinary proceeding—investigation, prosecution, fact-finding, and appellate review—are in one office, we wrote, and that office is a Title IX compliance office, hardly an impartial entity. This is, after all, the office whose job it is to see to it that Harvard’s funding is not jeopardized on account of Title IX violations, an office which has every incentive to see the complaint entirely through the eyes of the complainant.

Nothing in the new procedure requires anything like a hearing at which both sides offer testimony, size up the respective witnesses, or much less cross-examine them. Nothing in the new procedure enables accuser and accused to confront each other in any setting, whether directly (which surely may be difficult for the accuser) or at the very least through their representatives. Nor is there any meaningful opportunity for discovery of the facts charged and the evidence on which it is based; the respondent gets a copy of the accusations and a preliminary copy of the team’s fact findings, to which he or she can object—again within seven days, a very short time—but not all of the information gathered is necessarily included. Everything is filtered through the investigative team, which decides the scope of the investigation, the credibility of witnesses, and whom to interview and when.

Investigation, prosecution, adjudication, and appeal in one office - the office that has a vested interest in keeping the federal money flowing. We have a word for that, and it involves Australia's favorite hopping marsupial.

Then there's the conclusion:

Feminists should be concerned about fair process, even in private institutions where the law does not require it, because we should be concerned about reliable findings of responsibility. We put our decades-long efforts to stop sexual violence at risk when men come forward and credibly claim they were wrongly accused. We put our work at risk when the media can dredge up the shibboleths about false accusations of rape, a collective “We told you so” tapping into old attitudes. The recent feeding frenzy around Rolling Stone’s account of a gang rape at the University of Virginia campus shows just how much damage can be done by the claim that a rape report was flawed—damage to the women making the accusations, to the men who are accused, and to the cause of combating sexual violence.

There is no question that we have to confront sexual misconduct on campus and elsewhere as aggressively and comprehensively as we can. There is no question that we have to lift the protection offered the star athlete, confront the administrators more concerned with the man’s future than with a woman’s trauma, challenge the atmosphere of impunity at fraternity houses and social clubs. And we can do so without turning every disciplinary proceeding into a full-blown trial, without imposing the maximum due process protections, on the one hand, or an administrative Star Chamber, on the other. It isn’t necessary to jettison every modicum of a fair process to redress decades-long inattention to these issues. It never is. As I argued in Paul’s case, we should not substitute a regime in which women are treated without dignity for one in which those they are accusing are similarly demeaned. Indeed, feminists should be concerned about fair process, not just because it makes fact-findings more reliable and more credible, but for its own sake.

Right on ma'am.

[Galloism]

Or, you know, writing about men's issues from men's perspective at any point.

Men do write about mens issues from a mans perspective and it's perfectly accepted. It's when one tries to take that mans perspective and use it to silence women that feminists will start calling you out for it.

Uh huh.

I don't believe you. The evidence contradicts your statements.

[Keyboard Warriors]

What gets you kicked out is shit like this:

Feminist 1: "Women earn less than their male counterparts on average"
Feminist 2: "Let's discuss how we can fix this"
Anti-feminist: "WHAT ABOUT THE MEN!?! SEXIST!!!!"

Or, you know, writing about men's issues from men's perspective at any point.

Yeah, that's blatantly incorrect. I'm pretty sure I've supported men's issues in the past (being a male you sort of have to, you know, for yourself) and in the present, yet I don't have a horde of screaming feminists on my doorstep explaining how I'm not one of them.

You said earlier that it got people kicked out of this thread, well no shit. It's a feminist thread for women's issues. You have the men's rights thread for male issues.

[Natapoc]

Men do write about mens issues from a mans perspective and it's perfectly accepted. It's when one tries to take that mans perspective and use it to silence women that feminists will start calling you out for it.

Uh huh.

I don't believe you. The evidence contradicts your statements.

I'm sure I read such an article in a mainstream feminist website within the last year. But I know that you won't believe me because your world view precludes this.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Something that perhaps needs to be said is that probably, we do need a men's rights group. Issues pertaining to men can be discussed at length with such group/s. And then, have both MRAs and feminists come together and work on issues that affect them both. No cock-blocking.

[Galloism]

Uh huh.

I don't believe you. The evidence contradicts your statements.

I'm sure I read such an article in a mainstream feminist website within the last year. But I know that you won't believe me because your world view precludes this.

A mainstream site?

Ooooh. Do share. Keep in mind it must be mainstream.

[Galloism]

Something that perhaps needs to be said is that probably, we do need a men's rights group. Issues pertaining to men can be discussed at length with such group/s. And then, have both MRAs and feminists come together and work on issues that affect them both. No cock-blocking.

I would like that, although, once again, I'm not sure MRAs are the group we need (unless they mature).

I'm not especially hopeful, but it would be nice.

[The Alexanderians]

Or, you know, writing about men's issues from men's perspective at any point.

Men do write about mens issues from a mans perspective and it's perfectly accepted. It's when one tries to take that mans perspective and use it to silence women that feminists will start calling you out for it.

Fixed that for you

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Something that perhaps needs to be said is that probably, we do need a men's rights group. Issues pertaining to men can be discussed at length with such group/s. And then, have both MRAs and feminists come together and work on issues that affect them both. No cock-blocking.

I would like that, although, once again, I'm not sure MRAs are the group we need (unless they mature).

I'm not especially hopeful, but it would be nice.

No, I think you're right when it comes to MRAs. It would have to be a different kind of group or groups.

[Swith Witherward]

I would love to post my opinion, but, by the standards you set I can not voice what I think here so that's an easy way to win a debate.

All posts have to fall into compliance with the OSRS. That's how it is on NS.

[Natapoc]

I'm sure I read such an article in a mainstream feminist website within the last year. But I know that you won't believe me because your world view precludes this.

A mainstream site?

Ooooh. Do share. Keep in mind it must be mainstream.

Sadly, although I recall reading it and the mostly supportive comments from other feminists, I do not remember the URL. Luckily this is unnecessary. A feminist man already posted affirming that he's had such discussions without being rejected by feminists.

[Galloism]

I would like that, although, once again, I'm not sure MRAs are the group we need (unless they mature).

I'm not especially hopeful, but it would be nice.

No, I think you're right when it comes to MRAs. It would have to be a different kind of group or groups.

It would have to be a group that sticks to its guns though - and won't wither in the face of feminist's attempted suppression of reality.

Holding up that men are roughly as likely to be raped as women, and for men, most of the perpetrators are female. That men are roughly as likely to suffer DV as women, and most of the perpetrators of DV against men are women.

Feminists in power have been trying to block that recognition. We must get it into the public eye.

[Galloism]

A mainstream site?

Ooooh. Do share. Keep in mind it must be mainstream.

Sadly, although I recall reading it and the mostly supportive comments from other feminists, I do not remember the URL. Luckily this is unnecessary. A feminist man already posted affirming that he's had such discussions without being rejected by feminists.

Probably imaginary.

[Keyboard Warriors]

Something that perhaps needs to be said is that probably, we do need a men's rights group. Issues pertaining to men can be discussed at length with such group/s. And then, have both MRAs and feminists come together and work on issues that affect them both. No cock-blocking.

It won't happen until more men care about men's rights.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

No, I think you're right when it comes to MRAs. It would have to be a different kind of group or groups.

It would have to be a group that sticks to its guns though - and won't wither in the face of feminist's attempted suppression of reality.

Holding up that men are roughly as likely to be raped as women, and for men, most of the perpetrators are female. That men are roughly as likely to suffer DV as women, and most of the perpetrators of DV against men are women.

Feminists in power have been trying to block that recognition. We must get it into the public eye.

It has to be a quid pro quo, though. No coercion from either side. Just coming to the table, sitting down and working on common goals. Like adults. Not like toddlers at the sandbox, tossing hidden dog turds at each other.

[Natapoc]

I would like that, although, once again, I'm not sure MRAs are the group we need (unless they mature).

I'm not especially hopeful, but it would be nice.

No, I think you're right when it comes to MRAs. It would have to be a different kind of group or groups.

And one of the rare times I'll agree with both of you.

Yes I've always advocated the creation of an organization that helps men from a perspective that is not anti-feminist. That would be great.

[Highfort]

No, I think you're right when it comes to MRAs. It would have to be a different kind of group or groups.

The current MRM is too focused on opposing feminism to work in conjunction with it. Moderate feminism would need to have a moderate MRM in order to achieve the balance of egalitarianism that both movements claim to be espousing.

Reminds me of Republicans and Democrats. In theory, they govern by balancing each other out. In practice, it's generally more that they're at each others' throats and the nation suffers for it.

Similarly, in feminism and MRM there are moderates who are willing to compromise but they are silenced by the vitriolic radicals who declare that, no, we cannot have equality while the other side still exists. We have found the enemy, and we will not negotiate with imps of Satan. That is the problem with how the movements currently treat each other. It's a nuclear arms race and neither side has a strong enough faction willing to compromise, so both sides simply have to double down on radicalism and hope that the other side dies out first.

[Galloism]

Something that perhaps needs to be said is that probably, we do need a men's rights group. Issues pertaining to men can be discussed at length with such group/s. And then, have both MRAs and feminists come together and work on issues that affect them both. No cock-blocking.

It won't happen until more men care about men's rights.

And THAT won't happen until we're allowed to talk about it without being smeared that we hate women or are anti-equality or whatever the fuck. I mean, public backlash is a thing people here - I advocate, but I do it online through a proxy anonymously. I'm afraid that if I actually dared use my real name to advance the cause that female-on-male rape would be taken seriously, I'd be harassed, threatened at home, and lose my job.

And yes - it really is that scary. I get enough death threats through my email as it is just trying to help male victims of rape and DV.