The NationStates Feminist Thread II

[Frenline Delpha]

So in additional news, Israel is trying again at joint custody for children after divorce. And once again, feminists are opposing this law, because it means women don't get automatic custody of children under six years old.

Let's keep in mind what happened last time.

Yes, that's right, the head of the women's rights and gender equality commission managed to oppose it hard enough to get it killed, saying this:

MK Aida Touma-Sliman (Hadash – Joint List), head of the Women Rights and Gender Equality Committee in the Knesset said after the vote that “the attempt to revoke the preferred custodianship of mothers is an attempt to create a formal equality which in a reality that is patently unequal. I’m proud of my female colleagues in the opposition for their cooperation in defeating this bill.”

http://maki.org.il/en/?p=6094

Yeah. The only way to equality is... mandated custody based on gender.

Or something.

Logic is also a tool of the patriarchy, used to oppress women. Obviously.

[Tahar Joblis]

Pretty much this. Sometimes, I just don't get it.

1st Wave Feminism, arguably, was divided into two main parts as I see it. The main thrust was to allow women to be involved with public life in law, finance, property and politics. one part was simly tacked on to then Judeo-Christian values and was mostly about making society better in that Victorian sense of tidying things up and making things more efficient. The other side of it was a bit more perfectionist than that. 1st Wave Feminism has a dark side, leaders who believed in eugenitcs. Family values were strong in some elements of 1st Wave Feminism but even then there were some leaders in the movement who resented men and wanted women to be entirely independent from men.

One of the nice things about the first wave in the US is that it has a clear start date, more-or-less clear end date, and a clear mission statement. That is a list of fifteen things; although two are rhetorical complaints that cannot be tied to specific policy changes or social changes.

• Four items are concerned directly with political rights (centering around the voting franchise).
• Three items are concerned with property rights.
• Two items are concerned with married women being treated as children under the guardianship of their husbands (property rights, criminal liability).
• Two are concerned with access to education and the jobs which require an education.
• One is concerned with child custody in divorce law.
• One is concerned with religious hierarchy.
• One is concerned with double standards of behavior.

There is some overlap. Out of thirteen concrete complaints, ten resulted in clear policy victories from the perspective of the times, and the only clear defeat was women still not being allowed to be priests (which remained up to the religious hierarchy itself).

Equal career opportunities were a very large part of first wave feminism - and from the perspective of most first wave feminists, this complaint was satisfied by the creation of women's colleges and what would later be called "pink collar" jobs. (Women entered the teaching career in large numbers, virtually completely took over the previously-all-male secretarial career, and dominated the new professional career of nursing.) This depended on property rights, and marriage reforms centered around property rights, so you can see the priorities of the movement as:

1. Political rights.
2. Property rights.
3. Marriage / divorce reform.
4. Career opportunity.

2nd Wave Feminism was largely about equal opportunity in terms of careers, marriage, family life, education and had more of an emphasis on middle class values and transforming them. Within this movement lay a strong radical strain. At the time it was reletiavely isolated and was ofte mocked, and liberal feminism tended to be more popular well into the 90s. However a number of more radical feminist leaders had begun creating their own schools of thought in universities in many nations in the West, and this has fnially born fruit.

2nd wave feminism wasn't really about marriage/divorce reform very much. There were other forces involved in pushing for no-fault divorce, and feminists were decidedly unenthusiastic about (and in some cases outright opposed to) child custody reform.

It was mostly about eliminating discrimination, and especially about addressing the failure of "separate but equal." Abortion access was also there in the mix, which was new. The "access to priesthood" issue was revived, along with social double standards.

Women being secretaries wasn't equal access to the corporate career ladder; women being nurses wasn't equal access to the medical career ladder; women's colleges weren't equal access to education. In many ways, it can be viewed as the echo of the [racial] civil rights movement. The radicals were the minority of the movement for racial reform as well; you had black separatists, supremacists, and nationalists, but they lost out.

If we draw a distinction between the second wave and the third wave temporally, the second wave won a remarkably short victory on almost all desired points; desegregation and laws barring discrimination based on sex, as well as legalization of abortion. You started to see a scattering of victories in the battle over ordaining women as priests before the 70s were through, and also saw the start of some very major shifts in views on the double standards that disfavored women; but those areas were, as with the first wave, not things that could be changed via government policy.

3rd Wave feminism is arguably more ideology than activism, more religiion than philosophy. Women and Gender Studies classes often approach male-female issues as though there is a catechism they are teaching. There is a lot of indoctrination. Some would argue all teaching involves indoctrination, and that's true, but the difference here is that 3rd Wavers often seem to have been taught to believe that men hate women and that it's true and any attempt at arguing about it is proof of misogyny and male privilege. It is not optional among thm to believe this or not believe this--women's lives depend, you are told, on beleiving this.

Most people who follow modern 3rd Wave feminism believe this to one extent or another. Men who join it beleive it is their role to protect women, humbly and without thanks, in order to be good people. Women who bellieve in it often seem to believe it explains why there is evil in the world, and it in theory helps them feel good about themselves. Like many religions, it is easy to go in the direction of 'it's all someone else's fault' and not take any responsibility for bad things that happen. INdeed, taking responsiblity just means blame to most 3rd Wave feminists.

It is also a form of magical thinking. In magical thinking, things just ARE. So you don't have to explain why objectification leads to rape culture or even why you think it exists, it's a given as in the way that some people believe that bread and wine when blessed by a priest become spiritually the blood of Christ. A key difference is that with most modern religions in the West, you choose whether or not to belong to them, and while they may be admired and believed in by poltiical leaders, they are not supposed to favour one over the others. If they do this, people should be rightly suspicious since we all believe in so many. Feminism is a weird exception to this as 3rd Wavers often sem to get away with stating things that are more belief than fact as though they ARE fact.

Just to add: there are lots of approaches to understanding equality. 3rd Wave feminism has been stating that theirs is the ONLY approach for years and claims all approaches to gender equality as feminism, then proceeds to define how that woris. It's politically shrewd.

So that is my long winded response.

The hubris of calling it a "third wave" when it descends continuously from the second wave is, to me, striking. "Third wave" feminists work from the same institutions and on the same ideological foundations as a selection from the various "second wave" feminists who remained active.

The first wave of feminism spanned a period of some seventy-odd years.

What the "third wave" is/was, more than anything else, was the subsidence and in some cases subtraction of liberal feminists from the movement, leaving behind a movement increasingly dominated by the radical feminists. The major policy concerns of the second wave were resolved with extraordinary speed.

[New Edom]

1st Wave Feminism, arguably, was divided into two main parts as I see it. The main thrust was to allow women to be involved with public life in law, finance, property and politics. one part was simly tacked on to then Judeo-Christian values and was mostly about making society better in that Victorian sense of tidying things up and making things more efficient. The other side of it was a bit more perfectionist than that. 1st Wave Feminism has a dark side, leaders who believed in eugenitcs. Family values were strong in some elements of 1st Wave Feminism but even then there were some leaders in the movement who resented men and wanted women to be entirely independent from men.

One of the nice things about the first wave in the US is that it has a clear start date, more-or-less clear end date, and a clear mission statement. That is a list of fifteen things; although two are rhetorical complaints that cannot be tied to specific policy changes or social changes.

• Four items are concerned directly with political rights (centering around the voting franchise).
• Three items are concerned with property rights.
• Two items are concerned with married women being treated as children under the guardianship of their husbands (property rights, criminal liability).
• Two are concerned with access to education and the jobs which require an education.
• One is concerned with child custody in divorce law.
• One is concerned with religious hierarchy.
• One is concerned with double standards of behavior.

There is some overlap. Out of thirteen concrete complaints, ten resulted in clear policy victories from the perspective of the times, and the only clear defeat was women still not being allowed to be priests (which remained up to the religious hierarchy itself).

Equal career opportunities were a very large part of first wave feminism - and from the perspective of most first wave feminists, this complaint was satisfied by the creation of women's colleges and what would later be called "pink collar" jobs. (Women entered the teaching career in large numbers, virtually completely took over the previously-all-male secretarial career, and dominated the new professional career of nursing.) This depended on property rights, and marriage reforms centered around property rights, so you can see the priorities of the movement as:

1. Political rights.
2. Property rights.
3. Marriage / divorce reform.
4. Career opportunity.

2nd Wave Feminism was largely about equal opportunity in terms of careers, marriage, family life, education and had more of an emphasis on middle class values and transforming them. Within this movement lay a strong radical strain. At the time it was reletiavely isolated and was ofte mocked, and liberal feminism tended to be more popular well into the 90s. However a number of more radical feminist leaders had begun creating their own schools of thought in universities in many nations in the West, and this has fnially born fruit.

2nd wave feminism wasn't really about marriage/divorce reform very much. There were other forces involved in pushing for no-fault divorce, and feminists were decidedly unenthusiastic about (and in some cases outright opposed to) child custody reform.

It was mostly about eliminating discrimination, and especially about addressing the failure of "separate but equal." Abortion access was also there in the mix, which was new. The "access to priesthood" issue was revived, along with social double standards.

Women being secretaries wasn't equal access to the corporate career ladder; women being nurses wasn't equal access to the medical career ladder; women's colleges weren't equal access to education. In many ways, it can be viewed as the echo of the [racial] civil rights movement. The radicals were the minority of the movement for racial reform as well; you had black separatists, supremacists, and nationalists, but they lost out.

If we draw a distinction between the second wave and the third wave temporally, the second wave won a remarkably short victory on almost all desired points; desegregation and laws barring discrimination based on sex, as well as legalization of abortion. You started to see a scattering of victories in the battle over ordaining women as priests before the 70s were through, and also saw the start of some very major shifts in views on the double standards that disfavored women; but those areas were, as with the first wave, not things that could be changed via government policy.

3rd Wave feminism is arguably more ideology than activism, more religiion than philosophy. Women and Gender Studies classes often approach male-female issues as though there is a catechism they are teaching. There is a lot of indoctrination. Some would argue all teaching involves indoctrination, and that's true, but the difference here is that 3rd Wavers often seem to have been taught to believe that men hate women and that it's true and any attempt at arguing about it is proof of misogyny and male privilege. It is not optional among thm to believe this or not believe this--women's lives depend, you are told, on beleiving this.

Most people who follow modern 3rd Wave feminism believe this to one extent or another. Men who join it beleive it is their role to protect women, humbly and without thanks, in order to be good people. Women who bellieve in it often seem to believe it explains why there is evil in the world, and it in theory helps them feel good about themselves. Like many religions, it is easy to go in the direction of 'it's all someone else's fault' and not take any responsibility for bad things that happen. INdeed, taking responsiblity just means blame to most 3rd Wave feminists.

It is also a form of magical thinking. In magical thinking, things just ARE. So you don't have to explain why objectification leads to rape culture or even why you think it exists, it's a given as in the way that some people believe that bread and wine when blessed by a priest become spiritually the blood of Christ. A key difference is that with most modern religions in the West, you choose whether or not to belong to them, and while they may be admired and believed in by poltiical leaders, they are not supposed to favour one over the others. If they do this, people should be rightly suspicious since we all believe in so many. Feminism is a weird exception to this as 3rd Wavers often sem to get away with stating things that are more belief than fact as though they ARE fact.

Just to add: there are lots of approaches to understanding equality. 3rd Wave feminism has been stating that theirs is the ONLY approach for years and claims all approaches to gender equality as feminism, then proceeds to define how that woris. It's politically shrewd.

So that is my long winded response.

The hubris of calling it a "third wave" when it descends continuously from the second wave is, to me, striking. "Third wave" feminists work from the same institutions and on the same ideological foundations as a selection from the various "second wave" feminists who remained active.

The first wave of feminism spanned a period of some seventy-odd years.

What the "third wave" is/was, more than anything else, was the subsidence and in some cases subtraction of liberal feminists from the movement, leaving behind a movement increasingly dominated by the radical feminists. The major policy concerns of the second wave were resolved with extraordinary speed.

Well I don't think there's a serious disagreement here. I would point out that about the marriage thing there was a lot of effort put into making it clear that women ought to have every right to remove themselves from marital duties in pursuit of a career. In popular culture, what was depicted as a struggle on shows like "Murphy Brown" and "Soldier Soldier" is now normal and not even controversial on "Gilmore Girls".

In fact many modern feminists depict the very idea of trying to be attractive to a man as being somehow humiliating or at best secondary to how a woman feels about herself, and certainly the idea of providing anything for a man has become controversial within feminism as though it will somehow lead to immediate subservience.

[Dubrovka]

I respect feminists and all, but some of the "feminists" which I'm sure you don't approve of either, slander and attack men on things that men should have a right to be upset about.

[New Edom]

I respect feminists and all, but some of the "feminists" which I'm sure you don't approve of either, slander and attack men on things that men should have a right to be upset about.

There is an anti-male bias in popular feminism. What is commonly known as the 3rd Wave have been encouraged and taught by members of the 2nd Wave movement to do this and have been saying that there can be no unfair bias towards men since men have too much power,s o anything done to them is fair with rare exceptions. They are also taught that only feminists can criticize feminism, and that the main ideas--patriarchy theory, the wage gap, rape culture, objectification, are not up for debate because they are facts that don't need to be proven. This part of feminism is currently the dominant part. They are strongly supported by public figures who stand up for them whenever they are criticized.

[Liberonscien]

Someone should make an egalitarian thread.
/thread jack

On topic:

Are men automatically oppressors of women?
Answer with yes or no, then explain why, please.

No, that's a ridiculous claim that seems to require that oppression be hard-wired into our biology, otherwise at birth there would at least be a brief period of a few years before children learned of their societys' gender expectations in which men would not be capable of oppressing women (or rather, boys would not be capable of oppressing girls).

Oppression is different from discrimination and is a learned behavior. I am naturally predisposed to discriminate against people who are different than me, but I learn from my family, my friends, and society as a whole whether I should affect this discrimination as oppression or whether I should see it for what it is, fallacious, primitive reasoning.

Alright.
Are men automatically discriminatory towards women?

[Liberonscien]

Ah, the pay gap, that reminds me:

How it’s worded:

“Women make 77¢ for every $1 a man makes.”

How it should be worded:

“Women earn 23% less than men on average in the workplace.
Not due to societal factors favouring men over women, but due to women’s choices of which industry to build a career in.
These careers, more often than not; tend to pay less than those that men choose to go into on average. Men’s chosen fields tend to pay more due to factors like their importance to the economy, risk of injury, longer hours etc.”

It’s not as simple as “Women make less”

So you agree that there is a wage gap but your explanation is that women just want to make less. Giving women less money than men is simply a result of their own choice?

Somehow your explanation does not sound very believable. But I'm sure the anti-feminists will love it. Anything to help reinforce oppressive systems.

I could be mistaken but I believe that if a man and a woman were to get identical jobs then they would be paid the same wage.

[USS Monitor]

On topic:

Are men automatically oppressors of women?
Answer with yes or no, then explain why, please.

No. Some treat women with respect.

[Frenline Delpha]

So you agree that there is a wage gap but your explanation is that women just want to make less. Giving women less money than men is simply a result of their own choice?

Somehow your explanation does not sound very believable. But I'm sure the anti-feminists will love it. Anything to help reinforce oppressive systems.

I could be mistaken but I believe that if a man and a woman were to get identical jobs then they would be paid the same wage.

They have to under the law.

[Hirota]

Somehow your explanation does not sound very believable.

I'm sure anything that doesn't enforce your delusional echo chamber doesn't sound very believable to you. But you've often demonstrated a tenuous grasp of silly things like facts, evidence and reality.

[Dagashi Shojo]

Reading about various forms of feminism (such as separatist feminism) it seems less about equality and more about misapplying Marx's theories on class to gender, with men being the ruling class and women the oppressed proletariat. I'm not saying that one cannot be a feminist and believe in equality, but one can't deny that the movement historically involved a lot more than equality.

[Ameriganastan]

...Huh. I was watching an old episode of All In The Family, and they had this riddle.

A surgeon and his son go out for a drive.
They crash and the father dies.
They rush the kid to the hospital for surgery.
The surgeon walks in and looks at the kid.
And says 'I can't operate on my only son.'

I sat there all episode trying to figure it out like Archie did, and never once considered what turned out to be the answer: Cause the surgeon was his mom.

...Kinda made me think there.

[Costa Fierro]

I have a question for all the feminists who bother visiting this thread: why is it that you seem to be under the impression that men can walk around at any time of the day with impunity?

[Des-Bal]

...Huh. I was watching an old episode of All In The Family, and they had this riddle.

A surgeon and his son go out for a drive.
They crash and the father dies.
They rush the kid to the hospital for surgery.
The surgeon walks in and looks at the kid.
And says 'I can't operate on my only son.'

I sat there all episode trying to figure it out like Archie did, and never once considered what turned out to be the answer: Cause the surgeon was his mom.

...Kinda made me think there.

It's always good to think but I'll note that riddle isn't necessarily playing on your assumption that surgeons are male. Much like the married/single logic problem your instinct is to answer the wrong question. In the logic puzzle you're focused on figuring out if there's any way to tell if Bob is married that you don't notice it doesn't matter, in the surgeon riddle you want to work out how the surgeon parent is both dead and performing surgery and that keeps you from considering whether or not there could be more than one parent surgeon.

[Giovenith]

So I wanted to post this in the corresponding MRA thread, but since that thread has been dead for six months now because people like to bring issues that really should go there here instead, decided to share here instead. Hopefully someone can revive that other thread. It is relevant to the general discussion trend of this place though.

A screenshot can say a thousand words.

...Huh. I was watching an old episode of All In The Family, and they had this riddle.

A surgeon and his son go out for a drive.
They crash and the father dies.
They rush the kid to the hospital for surgery.
The surgeon walks in and looks at the kid.
And says 'I can't operate on my only son.'

I sat there all episode trying to figure it out like Archie did, and never once considered what turned out to be the answer: Cause the surgeon was his mom.

...Kinda made me think there.

It's always good to think but I'll note that riddle isn't necessarily playing on your assumption that surgeons are male. Much like the married/single logic problem your instinct is to answer the wrong question. In the logic puzzle you're focused on figuring out if there's any way to tell if Bob is married that you don't notice it doesn't matter, in the surgeon riddle you want to work out how the surgeon parent is both dead and performing surgery and that keeps you from considering whether or not there could be more than one parent surgeon.

When I first heard it I immediately knew it was the mother, I thought the trick was to figure out why she couldn't operate on her child.

[Ameriganastan]

When I first heard it I immediately knew it was the mother, I thought the trick was to figure out why she couldn't operate on her child.

I assumed the answer was that the kid would have 2 dads, cause the episode was running on that Logo channel.

[Giovenith]

When I first heard it I immediately knew it was the mother, I thought the trick was to figure out why she couldn't operate on her child.

I assumed the answer was that the kid would have 2 dads, cause the episode was running on that Logo channel.

That'd be an entertaining twist.

"The surgeon says, 'I can't operate on my son,' how is this possible?"
"Easy! The surgeon is his mother! It reveals our bias about the sexes."
"HA, NO, IT'S BECAUSE THE KID HAS TWO GAY DADS! Straight bias!"
"... Well fuck."

[Costa Fierro]

A screenshot can say a thousand words.

I love the smell of double standards in the morning (or evening, mixes well with the wood smoke).

[New Edom]

So I wanted to post this in the corresponding MRA thread, but since that thread has been dead for six months now because people like to bring issues that really should go there here instead, decided to share here instead. Hopefully someone can revive that other thread. It is relevant to the general discussion trend of this place though.

A screenshot can say a thousand words.

It's always good to think but I'll note that riddle isn't necessarily playing on your assumption that surgeons are male. Much like the married/single logic problem your instinct is to answer the wrong question. In the logic puzzle you're focused on figuring out if there's any way to tell if Bob is married that you don't notice it doesn't matter, in the surgeon riddle you want to work out how the surgeon parent is both dead and performing surgery and that keeps you from considering whether or not there could be more than one parent surgeon.

When I first heard it I immediately knew it was the mother, I thought the trick was to figure out why she couldn't operate on her child.

It does say a lot.

You know, there are reasons for not bringing things up in the MRA thread.

The first is that it often becomes an echo chamber or peacocking. It is very hard to admit to being vulnerable to the current social order, especially because the general response if you are not cursing masculinity is to be mocked or have your issues treated with scorn. Feminists are among the first to do this.

The second is that on a broader practical note, feminists have generally done a bang up job on presenting the idea that anything that discusses gender outside of the radical paradigm is anti-feminist and sexist. For instance writing or talking about abusive women, writing or talking about ways that women undermine the supposedly sacred notion of consent as defined by feminists--as indeed your poster you put up there signifies.

So to be blunt, feminism has to be humbled in general. There are far too few moderates and genuinely liberal feminists out there speaking publcly who aren't kissing radical as. Let's not mince words: the 3rd Wave generally accept radical ideologies and were taught by radicals. Without humbling feminism, there can be no fair treatment for men. Every time there is any attempt to address men's issues feminists and their liberal allies do their best to fcrush it, and conservatives are rarely too far behind, urging ordinary men to man up and marry and swallow the propaganda of Christian self help books for chumps.

And to be clear: by humbled, I mean brought to reality again. Reminded that they are human and that people outside their ideology can find them wrong and that they have to prove that what they are saying is true and should be listened to. MRAs and Men going their own way and the whole crew tried reason for years, and it failed to even get them in the door. If feminists will insist on controlling the whole conversation, then they can expect that they will be challenged until they are willing to be fair.

[Aapje]

MRAs and Men going their own way and the whole crew tried reason for years, and it failed to even get them in the door.

There is research that shows that correcting false beliefs can actually result in those beliefs being reinforced. Humans are just quite irrational in many ways. If you want to convince people, you can't just be right, the idea must appeal to the unconscious. This is very hard for MRA beliefs, because many aspects of traditional gender roles forbid sympathy with men. So even people with rational sympathy for men feel unconscious revulsion when men ask for help.

IMO, mainstream feminism was not successful despite rejecting only some of traditional gender roles, but because of it. By appealing to hypoagency and claims about the violent nature of men, men were naturally inclined to help. So women could use some traditional gender roles against other traditional gender roles. Of course, the result of that is that feminism actually strengthened the traditional gender roles that benefited them (and keeps doing so).

And to be clear: by humbled, I mean brought to reality again. Reminded that they are human and that people outside their ideology can find them wrong and that they have to prove that what they are saying is true and should be listened to.

That's not going to happen. Advocacy movements don't de-radicalize when their issues get addressed. Instead, the moderate supporters leave as they no longer see the need for the movement. The remaining radicals simply focus on increasingly ridiculous (manspreading) or misrepresented (wage gap) issues.

Right now, only a fairly small minority of the population considers themselves feminist. The real issue is that there is still a vague common belief by the majority that women are worse off, fueled by false narratives in the media, the arts, etc. So the majority just nods along with false narratives because they feel right (what Colbert called Truthiness).

The real solution is not that the feminist movement starts becoming sensible, but rather that the majority starts doubting the narrative. The more radical feminism is, the better actually, because people are more likely to doubt the entire narrative when they see absurd claims. Once they pull one thread and start paying attention, the narrative unravels. SJWs are a godsend for the anti-feminist movement, really. When people see nasty things happening under a feminist banner, they start questioning. And when you are right, getting people questioning is most of the battle.

PS. These changes in majority thought often aren't gradual, but abrupt. Once the resistance movement has reached a certain size, the mainstream media can no longer ignore it. Then people who never thought the issue over and considered the issue as settled as water being wet, will take it seriously. Public opinion can then change quickly.

[Chessmistress]

I have a question for all the feminists who bother visiting this thread: why is it that you seem to be under the impression that men can walk around at any time of the day with impunity?

I don't think that men are never in danger while walking around in dangerous places.
I just think they're something like 100 times less likely to be assaulted than a woman.

There is research that shows that correcting false beliefs can actually result in those beliefs being reinforced.

Source about this?
I'm not going to comment the rest, it's a too much twisted viewpoint, really bizarre...

[Philjia]

There is research that shows that correcting false beliefs can actually result in those beliefs being reinforced.

Source about this?
I'm not going to comment the rest, it's a too much twisted viewpoint, really bizarre...

Not really. People always go on the defensive when threatened.

[The Alexanderians]

I have a question for all the feminists who bother visiting this thread: why is it that you seem to be under the impression that men can walk around at any time of the day with impunity?

I don't think that men are never in danger while walking around in dangerous places.
I just think they're something like 100 times less likely to be assaulted than a woman.

There is research that shows that correcting false beliefs can actually result in those beliefs being reinforced.

Source about this?
I'm not going to comment the rest, it's a too much twisted viewpoint, really bizarre...

source for that ridiculous hyperbole

[Galloism]

I don't think that men are never in danger while walking around in dangerous places.
I just think they're something like 100 times less likely to be assaulted than a woman.

You've got the correlation the wrong way 'round. Men are much more likely to be victimized than women in almost every type of crime except rape and domestic violence (where men and women are probably victimized roughly equally, more or less).

[New Edom]

I have a question for all the feminists who bother visiting this thread: why is it that you seem to be under the impression that men can walk around at any time of the day with impunity?

I don't think that men are never in danger while walking around in dangerous places.
I just think they're something like 100 times less likely to be assaulted than a woman.

There is research that shows that correcting false beliefs can actually result in those beliefs being reinforced.

Source about this?
I'm not going to comment the rest, it's a too much twisted viewpoint, really bizarre...

A hundred times less likely. Based on what?

In Canada, for instance, RCMP and MoJ figures how that men are 2 x more likely to be violently asaulted than women.
Men are 3.5 times more likely to be victims of attempted murder.
Men are 1.8 times more likely to be mugged.
Women are 3.1 times more likely to be subjected to forcible confinement
Women are 11.3 times more likely to be victims of sexual assault.

So let's add another figure: stranger attacks on women are apparently only roughly 25% of sex related crimes against women, as most take place in familiar places with people who are at least somewhat familiar. So in point of fact then, women are safer out in public than men according to these figures.

However if we were being ethical the figures shouldn't matter. Caucasians form a huge majority in areas like Iowa or Montana, yet crimes against Blacks and Asians while forming a smaller percentage should be just as much of a concern as criems against Whites.