The NationStates Feminist Thread II

[Galloism]

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.

And since the MRAs are as much about men wanting equal rights to women as feminism is about women wanting equal rights to men, why aren't you attracted to MRAs?

I think I can guess.

[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.

And since the MRAs are as much about men wanting equal rights to women as feminism is about women wanting equal rights to men, why aren't you attracted to MRAs?

I think I can guess.

What is your guess?

[Ostroeuropa]

*Snip*

Your work is to be commended, but attributing it to the feminist label in my opinion devalues it by making it part of a system of oppression.
It legitimizes what you call political feminism. You're kind of like the drug rehab people who work for Hamas, to stretch an analogy. You can say you just want to help people, but so long as you do it under this label, you may be doing more harm than good when you realize that it's individuals such as yourself lending radfems credibility.

I don't see why you would call yourself a feminist while there is an institutionalized movement of the same name which works to oppress men.
Aren't you concerned that men will be afraid to talk to you about their issues?

What good does it do, when there is so much harm?

I hate to bring it up, but it's basically becoming like the N word.
You just can't say that shit anymore, and if you don't understand why, then you're just going to have to take our word for it. Calling yourself a feminist implies a whole bunch of things to a lot of people. The political movement has irrecoverably damaged the word by being a lobby for rapists and domestic abusers. When you say you're a feminist to people, you're basically threatening men.
You don't mean it as a threat, and you may not understand it as one, but it's what you're doing.

Not all men will feel threatened, but a lot of them will.
And for good reason.

I would wager doing so actually harms your ability to be a teacher by suppressing mens willingness to say certain things around you.
You won't notice it, because they are censoring themselves around you.

[Valystria]

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.

You not being a bad person doesn't mean you aren't supporting a bad movement. It's possible to advocate for women's rights without being a feminist. In this way you would distance yourself from the radical dominance of feminism.

It's not all X are Y to say the various varieties of feminism don't matter in comparison to the radical wing that dominates the feminist movement. It's not moderate feminists who get into positions of power. It's the radical feminists. This makes the other variants of feminism largely irrelevant.

It's quite fortunate anti-feminist egalitarians like me give radical feminists attention, as it's certainly better than letting radical feminists have their way without any opposition.
Maybe if in Canada egalitarians gave the radical feminists more attention when they were lobbying to get Canada's prostitution laws changed to the radical feminist model, perhaps that would have made it more difficult for the radical feminists to have their way.
The worst thing to do would be to ignore the radical feminists while they continue to wield such entrenched institutional power.

You may want to reconsider calling radical feminists asshats. It's needlessly derogatory.

And since the MRAs are as much about men wanting equal rights to women as feminism is about women wanting equal rights to men, why aren't you attracted to MRAs?

I think I can guess.

What is your guess?

Sexim would be a good guess.

[Galloism]

And since the MRAs are as much about men wanting equal rights to women as feminism is about women wanting equal rights to men, why aren't you attracted to MRAs?

I think I can guess.

What is your guess?

I have a couple:

You've heard a million times how awful they are from feminist sources and have decided not to do any investigation for yourself.

You've been fed the bullshit that men don't have any real problems, and, based on that bullshit, a men's rights movement makes about as much sense as a white's rights movement.

[Wallenburg]

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

Except they don't. 40% isn't a majority. I'm trying to figure out why the articles you have cited say two different things at the same time. Your counterexamples to my example only prove there is something fucked up about these articles.

Changing the goalposts to more likely to injure doesn't change that.

Except I didn't change the goalposts. You claimed that women demonstrate higher levels of aggression than men. Injury is a higher level of aggression than slapping. Men injure more women than women do men in domestic abuses.

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

That. That is shifting the goalposts. You tried to claim that domestic abuse was a gendered issue by citing doublespeaking sources that I called into question. Then you claim it isn't a gendered issue and nothing can change that.

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

Because there isn't a patriarchy.

Duh. Did you think I didn't know that? Why do you think I didn't know that? How? I'm not an idiot. I can see what is in front of me. I have never seen a patriarchy. I didn't become a feminist because of a patriarchy. I didn't accept the radfem concept of a patriarchy. It's essentially a rhetorical question, anyway.

[Natapoc]

What is your guess?

I have a couple:

You've heard a million times how awful they are from feminist sources and have decided not to do any investigation for yourself.

You've been fed the bullshit that men don't have any real problems, and, based on that bullshit, a men's rights movement makes about as much sense as a white's rights movement.

Actually I've read the types of things they actually say (yes I've actually read the mens rights reddit and avoice for men and other sites) and I find them to be either:
1. Offensive.
2. Contrary to reality by any objective measure.
3. Something all my feminist friends already agree with that seem to be related to patriarchy (for example male circumcision, male rape being a real thing that is bad, etc)

[Wallenburg]

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.

And since the MRAs are as much about men wanting equal rights to women as feminism is about women wanting equal rights to men, why aren't you attracted to MRAs?

I think I can guess.

I would guess that--as with myself--(s)he grew up in a community where the MRM was quiet or nonexistent, and egalitarian feminism far more evident, and therefore stuck to feminism.

[Valystria]

The common trend is that women are more likely to use violence and physical aggression. The studies support this.

Except they don't. 40% isn't a majority. I'm trying to figure out why the articles you have cited say two different things at the same time. Your counterexamples to my example only prove there is something fucked up about these articles.

Changing the goalposts to more likely to injure doesn't change that.

Except I didn't change the goalposts. You claimed that women demonstrate higher levels of aggression than men. Injury is a higher level of aggression than slapping. Men injure more women than women do men in domestic abuses.

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

That. That is shifting the goalposts. You tried to claim that domestic abuse was a gendered issue by citing doublespeaking sources that I called into question. Then you claim it isn't a gendered issue and nothing can change that.

Because there isn't a patriarchy.

Duh. Did you think I didn't know that? Why do you think I didn't know that? How? I'm not an idiot. I can see what is in front of me. I have never seen a patriarchy. I didn't become a feminist because of a patriarchy. I didn't accept the radfem concept of a patriarchy. It's essentially a rhetorical question, anyway.

As I've said, aggression levels do not necessarily correlate with injury. You're assuming they do. It isn't double speaking to recognize aggression levels and injury levels are two separate matters. Someone less prone to violence can cause worse injuries. Someone more prone to violence can cause lesser injuries. That is why it shouldn't be assumed that aggression correlates with injury.

The studies remain valid that women are more aggressive in domestic violence. That was cited to disprove the gendered narrative of violence being a woman's issue. When everything is taken into account it's easy to see domestic violence can go either way and affects anyone regardless of sex. A 40/60 difference in victims is minimal and not a reason to marginalize male victims as feminism has done.

[Galloism]

I have a couple:

You've heard a million times how awful they are from feminist sources and have decided not to do any investigation for yourself.

You've been fed the bullshit that men don't have any real problems, and, based on that bullshit, a men's rights movement makes about as much sense as a white's rights movement.

Actually I've read the types of things they actually say (yes I've actually read the mens rights reddit and avoice for men and other sites) and I find them to be either:
1. Offensive.
2. Contrary to reality by any objective measure.
3. Something all my feminist friends already agree with that seem to be related to patriarchy (for example male circumcision, male rape being a real thing that is bad, etc)

1) I have no doubt. I've heard both feminists and MRAs say really really offensive things.
2) I have no doubt that happens sometimes too. I've heard both feminists and MRAs say things that are extremely contrary to reality. You yourself have said things contrary to reality in this forum.
3) Now, since say the nonrecognition of male rape is apparently "related to the patriarchy", and you have seen that famous feminists have been trying to bury it (as we've shown to you), what are you doing within the movement to make feminism stop reinforcing "the patriarchy"?

[Natapoc]

And since the MRAs are as much about men wanting equal rights to women as feminism is about women wanting equal rights to men, why aren't you attracted to MRAs?

I think I can guess.

I would guess that--as with myself--(s)he grew up in a community where the MRM was quiet or nonexistent, and egalitarian feminism far more evident, and therefore stuck to feminism.

That probably has something to do with it as well. None of the feminists I know, or knew fit the stereotype that Gallo and Ost want me to believe all feminists are like. It's simply impossible to believe their claims when I've personally met so many counter examples.

[Galloism]

I would guess that--as with myself--(s)he grew up in a community where the MRM was quiet or nonexistent, and egalitarian feminism far more evident, and therefore stuck to feminism.

That probably has something to do with it as well. None of the feminists I know, or knew fit the stereotype that Gallo and Ost want me to believe all feminists are like. It's simply impossible to believe their claims when I've personally met so many counter examples.

I never said all feminists - but the powerful feminists in positions of authority are very sexist, and no one seems to be doing anything to counter their rampant sexism.

"All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men people to do nothing."

[Wallenburg]

Well, my phone is stupid, so I can't quote Valystria's post. I'll do this the old fashioned way.

You and I seem to define "aggression levels" differently. I interpret it as meaning "severity or degree of aggression". How are you interpreting it?

I know absolutely no feminists who have marginalized male victims of domestic abuse. Care to point me to an example of feminists doing so? Chessmistress doesn't count.

[Ostroeuropa]

Well, my phone is stupid, so I can't quote Valystria's post. I'll do this the old fashioned way.

You and I seem to define "aggression levels" differently. I interpret it as meaning "severity or degree of aggression". How are you interpreting it?

I know absolutely no feminists who have marginalized male victims of domestic abuse. Care to point me to an example of feminists doing so? Chessmistress doesn't count.

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V74-gende ... d%208-.pdf

[Highfort]

Well, my phone is stupid, so I can't quote Valystria's post. I'll do this the old fashioned way.

You and I seem to define "aggression levels" differently. I interpret it as meaning "severity or degree of aggression". How are you interpreting it?

I know absolutely no feminists who have marginalized male victims of domestic abuse. Care to point me to an example of feminists doing so? Chessmistress doesn't count.

I don't see why Chessmistress shouldn't count. I mean she's probably in the minority on this forum (and, hopefully, in real life) but she is there and she is a feminist, even if she is a radfem that no one likes to associate the movement with.

[Natapoc]

3) Now, since say the nonrecognition of male rape is apparently "related to the patriarchy", and you have seen that famous feminists have been trying to bury it (as we've shown to you), what are you doing within the movement to make feminism stop reinforcing "the patriarchy"?

The feminists I know in real life, all the feminists I associate with agree that male rape is awful and are (of course) against it. And yes when it happens we call it rape and we call out the men in the comment sections talking about wishing it had happened to them. I've never seen a feminist praising male rape so I don't know that I have had an opportunity to ask one to stop.

But for some reason you don't believe that any of us exist because you have put on these blinders where you believe that all feminists are one of the few who hold old (and harmful) views of what rape means.

[Ostroeuropa]

3) Now, since say the nonrecognition of male rape is apparently "related to the patriarchy", and you have seen that famous feminists have been trying to bury it (as we've shown to you), what are you doing within the movement to make feminism stop reinforcing "the patriarchy"?

The feminists I know in real life, all the feminists I associate with agree that male rape is awful and are (of course) against it. And yes when it happens we call it rape and we call out the men in the comment sections talking about wishing it had happened to them. I've never seen a feminist praising male rape so I don't know that I have had an opportunity to ask one to stop.

But for some reason you don't believe that any of us exist because you have put on these blinders where you believe that all feminists are one of the few who hold old (and harmful) views of what rape means.

Then why do feminists keep spreading statistics that utilize sexist definitions of rape to show women have it worse and deny equal rape stats? It makes everything you just said nothing more than a face saving maneuver.

[Wallenburg]

That probably has something to do with it as well. None of the feminists I know, or knew fit the stereotype that Gallo and Ost want me to believe all feminists are like. It's simply impossible to believe their claims when I've personally met so many counter examples.

I never said all feminists - but the powerful feminists in positions of authority are very sexist, and no one seems to be doing anything to counter their rampant sexism.

"All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men people to do nothing."

Which is why we need Bernie Sanders for president. Hillary Clinton would simply be the lesser of the many evils.

[Galloism]

Well, my phone is stupid, so I can't quote Valystria's post. I'll do this the old fashioned way.

You and I seem to define "aggression levels" differently. I interpret it as meaning "severity or degree of aggression". How are you interpreting it?

I know absolutely no feminists who have marginalized male victims of domestic abuse. Care to point me to an example of feminists doing so? Chessmistress doesn't count.

CAFE cites a 2009 Statistics Canada survey that found an estimated 601,000 women and 585,000 men were victims of spousal violence.

"Women are more likely to experience violence in an intimate relationship [by] many, many times," said Todd Minerson of the White Ribbon Campaign, a group that organizes men and boys to take action against violence against women.

The group says CAFE's billboard is misleading.

"Women are more likely to experience more severe and, in fact, far more likely to experience fatal violence," Minerson said.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/d ... -1.2989105

Yep. The violence is not important enough when men are the victims.

[Galloism]

3) Now, since say the nonrecognition of male rape is apparently "related to the patriarchy", and you have seen that famous feminists have been trying to bury it (as we've shown to you), what are you doing within the movement to make feminism stop reinforcing "the patriarchy"?

The feminists I know in real life, all the feminists I associate with agree that male rape is awful and are (of course) against it. And yes when it happens we call it rape and we call out the men in the comment sections talking about wishing it had happened to them. I've never seen a feminist praising male rape so I don't know that I have had an opportunity to ask one to stop.

But for some reason you don't believe that any of us exist because you have put on these blinders where you believe that all feminists are one of the few who hold old (and harmful) views of what rape means.

Oh I believe you exist - but you're not doing anything about it and are letting sexist people define you without challenging them on it.

In fact, in previous discussions, when I have shown you the extreme levels of male victims of rape, you've tried to dodge and equivocate. You pay lip service to wanting equality, but when I actually show you the facts, you simply refuse to believe men are real victims.

[Wallenburg]

Then why do feminists keep spreading statistics that utilize sexist definitions of rape to show women have it worse and deny equal rape stats? It makes everything you just said nothing more than a face saving maneuver.

There I can agree with you. Organized feminism has stained itself by trying to cover up the realities of female-on-male rape, and it is--in a word--disgusting.

[Valystria]

Well, my phone is stupid, so I can't quote Valystria's post. I'll do this the old fashioned way.

You and I seem to define "aggression levels" differently. I interpret it as meaning "severity or degree of aggression". How are you interpreting it?

I know absolutely no feminists who have marginalized male victims of domestic abuse. Care to point me to an example of feminists doing so? Chessmistress doesn't count.

I'm interpreting aggression by aggression as the studies do, not by the amount of injuries caused by aggression.

As for marginalizing male victims of DV... what do you think Violence Against Women campaigns amount to? Marginalizing male victims of DV by ensuring the focus remains on women, when the obvious solution would be to draw attention to DV itself so everyone would benefit. Feminism as movement doesn't draw attention to domestic violence. It only draws attention to domestic violence against women.

[Wallenburg]

You and I seem to define "aggression levels" differently. I interpret it as meaning "severity or degree of aggression". How are you interpreting it?

I know absolutely no feminists who have marginalized male victims of domestic abuse. Care to point me to an example of feminists doing so? Chessmistress doesn't count.

I'm interpreting aggression by aggression as the studies do, not by the amount of injuries caused by aggression.

As for marginalizing male victims of DV... what do you think Violence Against Women campaigns amount to? Marginalizing male victims of DV by ensuring the focus remains on women, when the obvious solution would be to draw attention to DV itself so everyone would benefit. Feminism as movement doesn't draw attention to domestic violence. It only draws attention to domestic violence against women.

According to Ostro, there's nothing wrong in feminists focusing on domestic violence against women.

[Natapoc]

The feminists I know in real life, all the feminists I associate with agree that male rape is awful and are (of course) against it. And yes when it happens we call it rape and we call out the men in the comment sections talking about wishing it had happened to them. I've never seen a feminist praising male rape so I don't know that I have had an opportunity to ask one to stop.

But for some reason you don't believe that any of us exist because you have put on these blinders where you believe that all feminists are one of the few who hold old (and harmful) views of what rape means.

Then why do feminists keep spreading statistics that utilize sexist definitions of rape to show women have it worse and deny equal rape stats? It makes everything you just said nothing more than a face saving maneuver.

Because the best evidence suggests that rape rates are not equal. There is some evidence that disrupts that viewpoint but based on the best evidence I've seen, I don't think I can accept that claim.

I can say that some men are raped and that's horrible. Even if only one man had ever been raped in all of history that would be one man too many!

It's sad that it's probably greater than 1 in 6 (according to this FEMINIST orgonization) boys have been sexually violated, for example.
https://rainn.org/get-information/types ... al-assault

"researchers have found that 1 in 6 men have been through abusive sexual experiences before even reaching adulthood."

Yes here is another feminist group trying to spread attention to the plight of men who are raped.

They also claim that "Male college aged students are 78% more likely than nonstudents to be a victim of rape or sexual assault.14
"

Now yes you'll go ahead and hate them because they also use an official government statistic that:

"About 3% of American men — or 1 in 33 — have experienced an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime."

And I know you will accuse them of trying to minimize male rape by using it... But I disagree. They are plainly stating contradictory statistics because we simply don't have very good data on male rape.

Even information about the rates that women are raped are full of controversy. This is not an easy thing to measure.

It's not a conspiracy.

[Valystria]

I'm interpreting aggression by aggression as the studies do, not by the amount of injuries caused by aggression.

As for marginalizing male victims of DV... what do you think Violence Against Women campaigns amount to? Marginalizing male victims of DV by ensuring the focus remains on women, when the obvious solution would be to draw attention to DV itself so everyone would benefit. Feminism as movement doesn't draw attention to domestic violence. It only draws attention to domestic violence against women.

According to Ostro, there's nothing wrong in feminists focusing on domestic violence against women.

There is if feminism wishes to call itself an equality movement. It's only creating inequality to focus on 60% of the victims while erasing and blaming the other 40%.