The NationStates Feminist Thread II

[Occupied Deutschland]

You do realize that there isn't one singular movement, right? We all don't belong to the same organization. When you say "your movement", you're trying to fold all movements and groups into one. Of course there's a structural problem when you do that.

Feminist Orgs in the US. (edit: ah ha. They snuck some foreign ones onto that list. I see what they did there. )

For example, the feminist health care movements (the various organizations within that movement) push for health issues. The FWHC and the WAMM are examples, yet they focus on different things and will not always agree. They aren't supposed to agree. They're separate organizations and, indeed, separate movements under the feminism banner.

This is perhaps why all the generalizations about feminism get under the skin. People presume feminism is just one big group. They insist that the groups they are most familiar with (usually the political ones such as NOW) are typical and represent all the rest. This simply isn't the case. This is also why you'll see feminists here disagree on subjects.

Men's rights groups are no different. Here, although the list is much shorter in this example link. I don't think the Save Indian Family has the same goals as the Canadian Association for Equality. I would be stupid if I judged all Men's rights groups by the behaviors and doctrines of just one group.

Interesting. I just looked up the Save Indian Family organization. One of the things they oppose:

"SIF and member organisation the National Coalition for Men criticize what they believe to be biased and anti-male laws, particularly Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) which protects wives from being harassed for refusing to pay dowries."

WOW. Those poor oppressed men!

If you read about the law, it sounds pretty fucked, actually.

I'd also question precisely why it seems to be limited to women even if it's existence is considered positive. Since, y'know, equal access to justice seems like a good thing (Ah, 'dowries', for some reason automatically jumped to 'alimony'. Primarily due to an utter lack of familiarity with dowries...)

[Valystria]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/women-are-more-violent-says-study-622388.html

Male violence remains a more serious phenomenon: men proved more likely than women to injure their partners. Female aggression tends to involve pushing, slapping and hurling objects. Yet men made up nearly 40 per cent of the victims in the cases that he studied - a figure much higher than previously reported.

The dissonance in this article confuses me. 40%<50%, last time I checked.

The number of recorded victims doesn't necessarily represent the aggression levels.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/women-are-more-violent-says-study-622388.html

"It's a complex argument but we do get more women aggressing against male partners than men against female partners," said Dr George. "The view is that women are acting in self-defence but that is not true - 50 per cent of those who initiate aggression are women. This sends a dangerous message to men because we are saying they are not going to get any legal redress so their option instead is to hit back."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/relationships/10927507/Women-are-more-controlling-and-aggressive-than-men-in-relationships.html

“This study found that women demonstrated a desire to control their partners and were more likely to use physical aggression than men.

[Highfort]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/women-are-more-violent-says-study-622388.html

Male violence remains a more serious phenomenon: men proved more likely than women to injure their partners. Female aggression tends to involve pushing, slapping and hurling objects. Yet men made up nearly 40 per cent of the victims in the cases that he studied - a figure much higher than previously reported.

The dissonance in this article confuses me. 40%<50%, last time I checked.

I think he's trying to say that while male violence is still higher than female violence, a surprising number of males are victims. 40% of victims being male leaves 60% as female (ignoring transgender violence, which is a mistake, but still) which means that violence against women is still a majority of domestic violence cases.

This is, of course, heteronormative - I'm not taking into account males who harm other men in gay relationships, women who harm other women in lesbian relationships, etc.

[Ostroeuropa]

Interesting. I just looked up the Save Indian Family organization. One of the things they oppose:

"SIF and member organisation the National Coalition for Men criticize what they believe to be biased and anti-male laws, particularly Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) which protects wives from being harassed for refusing to pay dowries."

WOW. Those poor oppressed men!

If you read about the law, it sounds pretty fucked, actually.

I'd also question precisely why it seems to be limited to women even if it's existence is considered positive. Since, y'know, equal access to justice seems like a good thing.

Just got through explaining this to her.

Interesting. I just looked up the Save Indian Family organization. One of the things they oppose:

"SIF and member organisation the National Coalition for Men criticize what they believe to be biased and anti-male laws, particularly Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) which protects wives from being harassed for refusing to pay dowries."

WOW. Those poor oppressed men!

They oppose it because it's too broad and often abused to attack ex-husbands and such in a similar manner to how some women accuse ex-husbands of domestic abuse to obtain custody.
The wiki articles on mens rights groups are pretty shit. Guess why.

So yeh. Naturally, you've kind of proven our point here. You've run off to a feminist edited article that actively misrepresents a mens issue.
And you didn't bother to fact check. Because it conformed with your prejudicial understanding of the situation, you just accepted it.

Still pretty confident she won't understand why her feminist worldview makes people spread sexism though.
That mechanism I just outlined?

That, combined with malicious liars and misandrists, is why feminism is a complete fucking shitshow.

Feminists are DESPERATE to believe women are oppressed and mens issues don't exist. You can see them do it like just here.
You have to practically beat them over the head with facts to the contrary on EVERY SINGLE mens issue to get them to accept it.
They never bother confronting the fact they have these responses all the time.
They never want to confront their sexism.
They just hear a mens issue and go "LOL NO WAY! LOL MENZ!" until you force them to understand an issue. That's just the ones who don't actively lie and misrepresent shit to the other ones.
You can tell they are desperate to believe mens issues don't exist because of these reactions. They only accept a mens issue when forced to do so, and if something tells them something isn't a mens issue, they just outright believe it without checking.

Their feminism IS the issue.

Swift can say it's not all feminists and such, but these are the bulk of the movement right here. This post of natapocs and the article it's a response to?
It's the ESSENCE of feminism, and why it is so fucked. It's why the movement attracts these types in the first place I think. Because of it's nonsense view of the world and rhetoric about patriarchy.
People who are desperate to believe in that dynamic drift to it.

[Valystria]

The dissonance in this article confuses me. 40%<50%, last time I checked.

I think he's trying to say that while male violence is still higher than female violence, a surprising number of males are victims. 40% of victims being male leaves 60% as female (ignoring transgender violence, which is a mistake, but still) which means that violence against women is still a majority of domestic violence cases.

This is, of course, heteronormative - I'm not taking into account males who harm other men in gay relationships, women who harm other women in lesbian relationships, etc.

The dissonance in this article confuses me. 40%<50%, last time I checked.

The number of recorded victims doesn't necessarily represent the aggression levels.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/women-are-more-violent-says-study-622388.html

"It's a complex argument but we do get more women aggressing against male partners than men against female partners," said Dr George. "The view is that women are acting in self-defence but that is not true - 50 per cent of those who initiate aggression are women. This sends a dangerous message to men because we are saying they are not going to get any legal redress so their option instead is to hit back."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/relationships/10927507/Women-are-more-controlling-and-aggressive-than-men-in-relationships.html

“This study found that women demonstrated a desire to control their partners and were more likely to use physical aggression than men.

[Geilinor]

"SIF and member organisation the National Coalition for Men criticize what they believe to be biased and anti-male laws, particularly Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) which protects wives from being harassed for refusing to pay dowries."

WOW. Those poor oppressed men!

You're making the mistake of comparing India to Western countries.

[Wallenburg]

The dissonance in this article confuses me. 40%<50%, last time I checked.

The number of recorded victims doesn't necessarily represent the aggression levels.

Male violence remains a more serious phenomenon: men proved more likely than women to injure their partners.

Come again?

[Valystria]

Interesting. I just looked up the Save Indian Family organization. One of the things they oppose:

"SIF and member organisation the National Coalition for Men criticize what they believe to be biased and anti-male laws, particularly Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) which protects wives from being harassed for refusing to pay dowries."

WOW. Those poor oppressed men!

If you read about the law, it sounds pretty fucked, actually.

I'd also question precisely why it seems to be limited to women even if it's existence is considered positive. Since, y'know, equal access to justice seems like a good thing (Ah, 'dowries', for some reason automatically jumped to 'alimony'. Primarily due to an utter lack of familiarity with dowries...)

From the article;

A husband or his family members are presumed to be guilty till they prove their innocence in the court. The guilty is punishable with a jail term of up to three years.

So apparently it's misogynist to oppose a law that assumes a man is guilty until proven innocent, if feminists like Natapoc (radical) and Swith (moderate) are to be believed.
Do you see Chessmistress isn't actually an isolated incident? Feminists including self-identified moderate feminists get angry at men's rights groups for attempting to acquire the basic legal protection of innocent until proven guilty.

This is why we egalitarians don't believe the moderates are any better. Moderate feminists spin the same misinformation as the radical feminists.

[Natapoc]

It's the ESSENCE of feminism, and why it is so fucked. It's why the movement attracts these types in the first place I think. Because of it's nonsense view of the world and rhetoric about patriarchy.
People who are desperate to believe in that dynamic drift to it.

I was initially attracted to feminism because I could see no reason why women shouldn't have equal rights to men. I later learned of patriarchy and found it to be a compelling explanation for the systematic mistreatment of women and both historical and modern inequality.

[Ostroeuropa]

It's the ESSENCE of feminism, and why it is so fucked. It's why the movement attracts these types in the first place I think. Because of it's nonsense view of the world and rhetoric about patriarchy.
People who are desperate to believe in that dynamic drift to it.

I was initially attracted to feminism because I could see no reason why women shouldn't have equal rights to men. I later learned of patriarchy and found it to be a compelling explanation for the systematic mistreatment of women and both historical and modern inequality.

Yeh.
You found it compelling.
That's kind of my point.
Do you see how that urge of yours to find that dynamic compelling just led you to say something that belittled and dismissed a mens issue, without you bothering to go fact check before running your mouth off?

Yeh.
The reason you say sexist shit, is the same reason you are a feminist.
You've fucking got it nailed down now.

That feeling of being compelled to that dynamic and finding it plausible, is the reason feminists do this shit and dismiss mens issues.
It's why they do shit like the Duluth Model, and Patriarchal definition of rape.

Because of that urge, right there, that you just displayed for us.
The desperation to believe in patriarchy and the refusal to fact check.

[Wallenburg]

It's the ESSENCE of feminism, and why it is so fucked. It's why the movement attracts these types in the first place I think. Because of it's nonsense view of the world and rhetoric about patriarchy.
People who are desperate to believe in that dynamic drift to it.

I was initially attracted to feminism because I could see no reason why women shouldn't have equal rights to men. I later learned of patriarchy and found it to be a compelling explanation for the systematic mistreatment of women and both historical and modern inequality.

If there is a patriarchy, why are there so many male feminists?

[Kelinfort]

I was initially attracted to feminism because I could see no reason why women shouldn't have equal rights to men. I later learned of patriarchy and found it to be a compelling explanation for the systematic mistreatment of women and both historical and modern inequality.

Yeh.
You found it compelling.
That's kind of my point.
Do you see how that urge of yours to find that dynamic compelling just led you to say something that belittled and dismissed a mens issue, without you bothering to go fact check before running your mouth off?

Yeh.
The reason you say sexist shit, is the same reason you are a feminist.
You've fucking got it nailed down now.

The whole notion of patriarchy is bullshit. Then again, I'm not exactly convinced by your worldview either.

I'm beginning to like the term SJW, except it should be applied to red pillers and rad Fems.

[Ostroeuropa]

Yeh.
You found it compelling.
That's kind of my point.
Do you see how that urge of yours to find that dynamic compelling just led you to say something that belittled and dismissed a mens issue, without you bothering to go fact check before running your mouth off?

Yeh.
The reason you say sexist shit, is the same reason you are a feminist.
You've fucking got it nailed down now.

The whole notion of patriarchy is bullshit. Then again, I'm not exactly convinced by your worldview either.

I'm beginning to like the term SJW, except it should be applied to red pillers and rad Fems.

You don't see how institutionally establishing an ideology founded on bullshit might lead to problems in society?
My worldview is that feminism is leading to problems in society.

[Valystria]

The number of recorded victims doesn't necessarily represent the aggression levels.

Male violence remains a more serious phenomenon: men proved more likely than women to injure their partners.

Come again?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 22388.html
When it comes to domestic confrontation, women are more violent than men.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/relationships/10927507/Women-are-more-controlling-and-aggressive-than-men-in-relationships.html
“This study found that women demonstrated a desire to control their partners and were more likely to use physical aggression than men.

The common trend is that women are more likely to use violence and physical aggression. The studies support this.
Changing the goalposts to more likely to injure doesn't change that.

It's a non-gendered issue either way despite what the feminist movement says about it.

The 40/60 split on victim numbers only reinforces that it's a non-gendered issue. That's the MRA position.

I was initially attracted to feminism because I could see no reason why women shouldn't have equal rights to men. I later learned of patriarchy and found it to be a compelling explanation for the systematic mistreatment of women and both historical and modern inequality.

If there is a patriarchy, why are there so many male feminists?

Because there isn't a patriarchy.

Patriarchy is one of those elusive words that mean anything and everything, but most specifically it means what a feminist wants it to mean. So far in the last few pages of the thread we've seen "patriarchy" used as a means to marginalize men's issues and making DV into a gendered issue.

[Kelinfort]

The whole notion of patriarchy is bullshit. Then again, I'm not exactly convinced by your worldview either.

I'm beginning to like the term SJW, except it should be applied to red pillers and rad Fems.

You don't see how institutionally establishing an ideology founded on bullshit might lead to problems in society?
My worldview is that feminism is leading to problems in society.

No, I don't think it's a huge problem. Or at least not as big as you think it is.

[Highfort]

I was initially attracted to feminism because I could see no reason why women shouldn't have equal rights to men. I later learned of patriarchy and found it to be a compelling explanation for the systematic mistreatment of women and both historical and modern inequality.

If there is a patriarchy, why are there so many male feminists?

To be fair, having a significant subgroup be on your side doesn't mean that group isn't oppressing you. For instance, many whites were members of the Civil Rights Movement but I don't think anyone would disagree with the analysis that Jim Crow and segregation were attempts by whites to oppress non-whites.

[Valystria]

You don't see how institutionally establishing an ideology founded on bullshit might lead to problems in society?
My worldview is that feminism is leading to problems in society.

No, I don't think it's a huge problem. Or at least not as big as you think it is.

How isn't it a huge problem?

Having made the Duluth model institutionally entrenched as the de facto domestic violence policy is a huge problem to victims of DV.

[Natapoc]

I was initially attracted to feminism because I could see no reason why women shouldn't have equal rights to men. I later learned of patriarchy and found it to be a compelling explanation for the systematic mistreatment of women and both historical and modern inequality.

Yeh.
You found it compelling.
That's kind of my point.
Do you see how that urge of yours to find that dynamic compelling just led you to say something that belittled and dismissed a mens issue, without you bothering to go fact check before running your mouth off?

Yeh.
The reason you say sexist shit, is the same reason you are a feminist.
You've fucking got it nailed down now.

That feeling of being compelled to that dynamic and finding it plausible, is the reason feminists do this shit and dismiss mens issues.
It's why they do shit like the Duluth Model, and Patriarchal definition of rape.

Because of that urge, right there, that you just displayed for us.
The desperation to believe in patriarchy and the refusal to fact check.

You've somehow jumped to the conclusion that I did not fact check any of this. I'm not sure how.

[Valystria]

Yeh.
You found it compelling.
That's kind of my point.
Do you see how that urge of yours to find that dynamic compelling just led you to say something that belittled and dismissed a mens issue, without you bothering to go fact check before running your mouth off?

Yeh.
The reason you say sexist shit, is the same reason you are a feminist.
You've fucking got it nailed down now.

That feeling of being compelled to that dynamic and finding it plausible, is the reason feminists do this shit and dismiss mens issues.
It's why they do shit like the Duluth Model, and Patriarchal definition of rape.

Because of that urge, right there, that you just displayed for us.
The desperation to believe in patriarchy and the refusal to fact check.

You've somehow jumped to the conclusion that I did not fact check any of this. I'm not sure how.

That makes it even worse if you fact checked.

It means you were aware of the facts and you didn't care.

[Ostroeuropa]

Yeh.
You found it compelling.
That's kind of my point.
Do you see how that urge of yours to find that dynamic compelling just led you to say something that belittled and dismissed a mens issue, without you bothering to go fact check before running your mouth off?

Yeh.
The reason you say sexist shit, is the same reason you are a feminist.
You've fucking got it nailed down now.

That feeling of being compelled to that dynamic and finding it plausible, is the reason feminists do this shit and dismiss mens issues.
It's why they do shit like the Duluth Model, and Patriarchal definition of rape.

Because of that urge, right there, that you just displayed for us.
The desperation to believe in patriarchy and the refusal to fact check.

You've somehow jumped to the conclusion that I did not fact check any of this. I'm not sure how.

So you were aware the law they were opposing amounts to guilty until proven innocent, and still replied with "Oh those poor menz!".

[The Alexanderians]

If there is a patriarchy, why are there so many male feminists?

To be fair, having a significant subgroup be on your side doesn't mean that group isn't oppressing you. For instance, many whites were members of the Civil Rights Movement but I don't think anyone would disagree with the analysis that Jim Crow and segregation were attempts by whites to oppress non-whites.

That's lumping though based on race. Not all whites support the Jimmy laws, even at the time.

[Natapoc]

I was initially attracted to feminism because I could see no reason why women shouldn't have equal rights to men. I later learned of patriarchy and found it to be a compelling explanation for the systematic mistreatment of women and both historical and modern inequality.

If there is a patriarchy, why are there so many male feminists?

Because:
1. Some men are just good people and don't want to participate in the subjugation of women.
2. Patriarchy hurts (at least some) men too. They find natural allies in feminism.
3. Some men claim to be feminists because they think it means they can get prostitutes, watch porn, and have women buy their dinner and do all the work or they think claiming to be a "feminist" will entitle them to dates and sex. Such men are not really feminists and are probably the main reason some feminists wish to exclude men from accepting the label "feminist".

#2 and #1 are great. #3 is annoying.

[Swith Witherward]

It's fair to all fold all your separate organizations into one when the only part of the feminism banner that matters is the radical feminist component. It's radical feminists who lead your movement, it's radical feminists who wield institutionalized power and authority.
You are enabling them by saying "no, we're not all like this even though the movement for all practical intents and purposes is".

Nice tu quoque by mentioning men's right's groups. There might be one or two subpar ones but when you lump all of them together you do not see a coalition of groups dedicated to promoting inequality and suppressing women's issues.
Feminism has a serious structural problem. The MRM does not.
What you don't understand in the usage of your tu quoque is that feminism isn't being judged by one group. It's being judged by the combined institutional power and influence of the movement, and it's not a force for better.

If we take into account all the "waves" in the history of feminism, we can see paradigm shifts occurring over the course of time. Given time, it would make sense to see the same patterns in MRA orgs as well.

Now, kindly stop with the "All X are Y". My movement does not involve NOW or other mainstream groups. I, personally, am not into feminism for the political aspect. The organization I belong to and the movement it supports focuses on STEM and helping young girls take greater interest in math and science, specifically aviation and physics. We do not exclude boys, for the record, and we work to make certain our programs provide free text books and materials for all school aged (and even home schooled) children. These texts can be found in most well-funded schools, and are gender neutral rather that focusing on only women.

I also volunteered to serve as a mentor for suicidal teens. I worked with mainly girls, focusing on trying to help them overcome their poor body image. We turned to Dove at one point and they assisted us via their Campaign for Real Beauty.

I'm pretty sure you're unaware of that work, mostly because it exemplifies what many active-in-the-world feminists do in their free time. We really all don't run around like SJWs, blogging the "atrocities of the patriarchy" etc. The problem for us is the problem we're seeing right here in this thread: if I say "elephant" you think of the animal; if I say "trunk" you think of its trunk. However, the image in my mind when I said "trunk" is the boot of a car. You see "radfem" when you see "feminist" because you are unaware of just how broad the feminist banner is.

You made a valid point: it's radical feminists who wield institutionalized power and authority. Yes, much to my annoyance, this is sometimes the case. I look at the feminist groups at my university and I grit my teeth. I hear the stories passed along from my male friends about their "women's studies" TA's grading them poorly because they are men, and I want to punch the TA's throat. However, and most thankfully, these silly twits eventually grow old and wilt under yet another new wave of feminism. There is nothing we can do about them. Can we hold every black person accountable for the actions taken by thugs? Can we blame every Hispanic, legal or illegal citizen alike, for the drugs filtering in from the cartels? Can we point to every feminist and say that she, personally, is responsible for what some radical does at a protest?

The most we can do is shun the asshats. Unfortunately, people like you give those same asshats all the attention, thus you actively feed the trolls we are trying so hard to starve.

Do you ever take credit for shit feminists have done as a reason you support your movement?
Then you whitewash the movement by selectively saying what does and doesn't apply as "Feminism."
Take the good with the bad, and the bad is pretty awful.

Take the good and not the bad, you're whitewashing.

Don't take the good, or the bad... then why are you a feminist?

Do I take credit for shit feminists have done? No. I also don't take credit for the atomic bomb. Sure, physicists fashioned that puppy, and I'm a physicist, but I didn't drop it on Hiroshima. Do pretend that some feminists haven't done stupid things? Of course not. That would be like saying physicists have never, ever created anything Inherently Bad.

Do I make atomic bombs? Certainly not. You see, I can be a physicist and focus on bettering humanity. That's how I apply my time and talents. Likewise, I use my time and talents to better young girls, preparing them for college by supporting their love for science and math.

It isn't about what "does or doesn't apply to feminism". It's that not all feminists embrace the same things nor work towards the same goals. I don't fight "patriarchy"; I fight ignorance and thus promote the advancement of math and science for all young girls and that, in turn, allows boys to use the same educational resources to also excel in the fields.

[Natapoc]

"SIF and member organisation the National Coalition for Men criticize what they believe to be biased and anti-male laws, particularly Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) which protects wives from being harassed for refusing to pay dowries."

WOW. Those poor oppressed men!

You're making the mistake of comparing India to Western countries.

Yeah you are probably right. There are complex cultural issues involved and it's probably best to stick to cultures that we know well.

[Highfort]

To be fair, having a significant subgroup be on your side doesn't mean that group isn't oppressing you. For instance, many whites were members of the Civil Rights Movement but I don't think anyone would disagree with the analysis that Jim Crow and segregation were attempts by whites to oppress non-whites.

That's lumping though based on race. Not all whites support the Jimmy laws, even at the time.

I never said that all whites supported Jim Crow laws or segregation, but during the time of the Civil Rights Movement segregation and Jim Crow were policies that were implemented by whites onto nonwhites. That's simply a fact, whether or not all whites supported the policy has nothing to do with the fact whites implemented it, any more that whether all Christians supported the persecution of Jews, during the Middle Ages Jews were often persecuted in Christendom.

What I'm trying to say is that, if one accepts the feminist worldview, this is not incompatible with men being for feminism. Some men can be for feminism while those in power support patriarchy.