Are Women Oppressed in the West?

[Jello Biafra]

Costa Fierro, some of the questions New Edom asked were about why I think other people think certain things, and some were about my own views. I will mark my responses to you that are about what other people think using asterisks.

Fear.

Bullshit. If you knew anything about the world around you instead of this feminist claptrap, you would know that the justice system is hugely biased in favour of women to the point where men who defend themselves from abusive partners are arrested and referred to anger management classes.

Sure, but we're talking about a hypothetical future where the Duluth model isn't used.

If society in general believes that women sometimes treat men badly, then (for instance) each of the two people in a relationship can claim that they were abused by the other.

That happens anyway. The difference is, one person is believed and the other isn't. When a man is abused by his partner, no one believes that he is a victim, because men can't be victims.

Yes, but if men can be victims, then they will be the only victims.*
Or alternatively, they will both be the victims and nothing will be done, even though one of them has a much higher likelihood of killing the other.

Society thinks that men are inherently strong and inherently powerful, which is why society teaches men to never hit women. So if he tries to stop her from hitting him or abusing him, the women can run to the police and have the man arrested.

It does strike me as being odd, the number of people who are told 'you must never hit women' and not 'you must never hit anyone'.

So let me ask you this. When a man is hit by a woman, what the hell is he supposed to do? The police won't believe him.

Yes, and this is a problem.

There are no men's shelters.

Sure, because the patriar- excuse me, the men who make the laws won't make laws to build them, and because the patriar- excuse me, the men who have the vast majority if the money won't donate to charities to build them.

His family might likely be manipulated and all his friends would think he is weak for being beaten by a woman.

And this is the fault of feminists?

Because society in general believes a man when he says he didn't commit rape over a woman when she says that she was raped, there is a fear that society will believe men over women when it comes to the issue of intimate partner violence as well.

Bullshit. Why do you feminists keep lying all the time? Society in general doesn't automatically believe a man when he says he didn't commit a rape over a woman. Society virtually believes a woman when she says she's been sexually assaulted or raped. There isn't any inherent "rape culture" against women whereby she has to fight tooth and nail to be seen as a victim. That is just bullshit feminists make to deny men the right of recognition as victims of rape.

Can you find a source of someone (who isn't a feminist) saying that they believe rape victims in general? Do you personally believe people when they say they were raped?
I ask because doing a google search for 'Does Society Believe Rape Victims?' (without quotes) leads to a bunch of sources saying no, society doesn't believe rape victims. Some of them offer explanations as to why. Of course, this could all be a bunch of cases of confirmation bias, but it'd be a bias shared by basically everyone commenting on the issue.
Some of those sources are about men who claim that they were raped, but all this says is that society doesn't believe rape victims in general.

No. Even one case of a woman abusing a man matters.

Clearly it doesn't. Quite frankly, this is nothing more than lip service. If society, and feminists by extension, gave one single fuck about male domestic violence victims, we wouldn't see the sheer lack of services, shelters and other support organizations that men do not have. We wouldn't have a society that doesn't care about male domestic violence victims, that doesn't believe that he is automatically the aggressor or the perpetrator of violence or the one to blame in every single domestic violence incident. We wouldn't have a justice system that only recognizes women as victims. It doesn't matter to society, it doesn't matter to you and it doesn't matter to feminism so spare men your crocodile tears.

It does matter to me, and there are other individual feminists who also care about the issue.

[Jello Biafra]

Jello, you're just regurgitating Feminism 101. People believe a man who said he didn't rape over a woman who said she didn't? Since when? That's not really an issue. Feminists blow that out of proportion when ANYONE believes a man's innocence.

Let's look at the Stanford case. The woman got a huge outpouring of support fromt he media in general, from people on social media, from her family and friends. Yeah the sentence didn't go as pepole hoped on her side--but the guy's career was destroyed and he will always be listed as a sex offender. So basically society said he was a rapist but found the circumstances leading up to it murky enough to mitigate the sentence. I agree with this.

There were independent witnesses who saw it as it was going on. Her statement of what occurred wasn't solely relied on; there were other people corroborating her side.

Let's look at the Ghomeshi case. Even though again the circumstances were murky authorities followed up on it even though a lot of the original accusations came from social media, and the failure of prosecution to prove the case came only after the witnesses perjured themselves or confused their testimony.

I wasn't familiar with this, and after looking it up, this is another case where there were multiple accusers. It also doesn't appear to have been taken seriously when there was only one accuser.

You can't have it both ways. You can have justice or you can have prejudice. What you are advocating here is prejudice on behalf of women. You basically just wrote that feminists are justified in ignoring the issue of abusive women, based on a philosophical lie proposed by women who don't want to acknowledge any social responsibility. Unless you can cite an example of any feminist pointing out how men ought ethically to be treated by women of course.

I am advocating believing crime victims when they say they were the victims of a crime.

[Lexten]

I am advocating believing crime victims when they say they were the victims of a crime.

What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Since when was an accusation proof?

[Jello Biafra]

Don't forget Micheal Jackson. Even after two not guilty verdicts, people still believe he is a child molester. I'd honestly say we live in a Guilty-when-accused-of-rape-whether-you-did-it-or-not society. People just want to push their own agenda. As Laci Green paraphrased, Listen and believe.

People think Michael Jackson is guilty for the most part because he agreed to a deal where he paid one of his accusers a bunch of money in exchange for dropping the case. They view this as an admission of guilt.

[Jello Biafra]

Those other 'sexist attitudes' are not objectively sexist:

For example, cross-cultural research has found that national averages on the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory are related to indices of gender inequality, such as having fewer women in positions of political power.

Having more women in positions of political power can be an indicator of sexism, when there is discrimination against men (affirmative actions/quota's). That sentence makes the assumption that more equal outcomes equates to lesser sexism, when it can just as easily be the result of greater sexism. The frustrating part here is the assumption that equal outcomes is equal opportunity, which is one of the key flaws in many feminist theories.

Affirmative action isn't sexism against men. Quotas might be.
Equal outcomes is not equivalent to equal opportunity, however if there were actually equal opportunity then we would see equal outcomes.

It sounds a bit dramatic, so let me rephrase it as: women are more likely to ask for help and expect to get help from men, than vice versa.

The same thing, just presented in less loaded terminology. It's also relative, so it's as much a comment on male unwillingness to ask for help than on female willingness.

Then doesn't think mean women are likely to ask for and expect help from women as well?

Perhaps, but there are many different kinds of feminists. Given the selection process of CEOs and the specific path that those women walk to get to the top, it's quite possible that even if they consider themselves feminists, they won't be the kind of feminists that cheer on good work/life balance and things like that. Like power feminism.

My point is that you can't just assume that if a group more frequently has a trait, a selection from that group has a same trait. It depends on the selection criteria (which are not neutral for CEOs).

Any selection from that group is more likely to have that trait than selecting from a group where that trait isn't present at all.

So do you think that a woman who had an easy birth is more likely be sympathetic than a man who stood next to his wife who had a very tough birth experience? I strongly object to the idea that women will automatically have certain shared experiences and shared conclusions based on those experiences, while men have completely different shared experiences and shared conclusions.

The woman is more likely to have talked to other women about their childbirth experiences than the man; if she has an easy birth then she will consider herself lucky.

Note that I wasn't actually proposing this, it was more of a thought experiment to show that's it's unfair to compensate for one thing and not the other.

In your example, the wife apparently (if she worked equal hours) accepted a imbalanced situation for some reason. The entire idea behind alimony (she did X, so he could do Y and vice versa) breaks down in that case. She didn't sacrifice her career for child caring, but apparently wanted to do both. If she found that already acceptable during marriage, then why would there need to be any compensation after divorce? The same for the man, he has no claim that he was prevented from doing equal childcare due to work, if he didn't actually have less opportunity to care.

She would have sacrificed the ability to work longer in exchange for child caring. Perhaps childcare cost her a promotion?

And CH Sommers. Young's opinions seem to be compatible with equity feminism and progressive anti-feminism, both of which are considered anti-feminist by contemporary mainstream feminism.

Personally, I don't think it is useful to lump people into a movement, when they are rejected by most of that movement. It becomes a bit of a joke, when a person X disagrees with 99% of the stuff that is done in the name of the movement and is still considered a member. At that point your generic label becomes so useless that the only sensible discussion can be had when you use more specific labels.

So you believe most of the feminist movement is made up of "contemporary mainstream feminis[ts]"?

[Jello Biafra]

I am advocating believing crime victims when they say they were the victims of a crime.

What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Since when was an accusation proof?

You can say "I believe that something terrible was done to you" and also "I believe that [Man X] is innocent until proven guilty, and that there must be some other explanation".
You'll notice that there's rarely this sort of denial when it comes to other crimes. If someone says their house is burglarized, they aren't met with statements like "No it wasn't, you let people in and gave them your stuff".

[Frenline Delpha]

Don't forget Micheal Jackson. Even after two not guilty verdicts, people still believe he is a child molester. I'd honestly say we live in a Guilty-when-accused-of-rape-whether-you-did-it-or-not society. People just want to push their own agenda. As Laci Green paraphrased, Listen and believe.

People think Michael Jackson is guilty for the most part because he agreed to a deal where he paid one of his accusers a bunch of money in exchange for dropping the case. They view this as an admission of guilt.

That view lacks nuance. This video is a pretty good argument against the whole Michael Jackson scandal:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pnoQqlygQs

[Lexten]

What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Since when was an accusation proof?

You can say "I believe that something terrible was done to you" and also "I believe that [Man X] is innocent until proven guilty, and that there must be some other explanation".

Not really. Either you didn't give consent and were raped or you gave consent and weren't. It's pretty black and white.

You'll notice that there's rarely this sort of denial when it comes to other crimes. If someone says their house is burglarized, they aren't met with statements like "No it wasn't, you let people in and gave them your stuff".

Except people have sex with other people all the time. People don't give away their TV, laptop, jewellery and cash for free and then trash their house all the time.

[Solaas]

You'll notice that there's rarely this sort of denial when it comes to other crimes. If someone says their house is burglarized, they aren't met with statements like "No it wasn't, you let people in and gave them your stuff".

Except people have sex with other people all the time. People don't give away their TV, laptop, jewellery and cash for free and then trash their house all the time.

Except that under patriarchy very often there's societal pressure in order to obtain such sex, and that's exactly why every situation should be carefully evaluated under the light of such pressures, and also taking in account that rape culture actually blames the victim rather than the perpetrator.
Luckily, there are some judges, like Canadian judge Marvin Zuker, that are setting new milestones in women's rights - this is a revolutionary sentence
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mar ... 5d5ed22235
In such link there's even the full 179 pages sentence, with all the acts.
Regarding societal pressures on women under patriarchy:
There has been, and still is held, since 24th to 30th July, 2016, a very interesting five-day long feminist meeting in Normandy, France, discussing exactly issues like the societal pressures on women to be heterosexual and engage in PIV under patriarchy (and also topics like antiracism, ecofeminism...), in order to not only further Feminist analysis, but also in order to rediscover the joy and freedom found in women-only spaces.

https://womynsgathering2016.wordpress.c ... e-program/

THEME 1: HETEROSEXUALITY UNDER PATRIARCHY

Discussions around the pressures on women to be heterosexual and engage in PIV (penis-in-vagina) sex: in what way are male partner violence and reproductive and sexual violence against women, girls and children at the heart of male violence? How can we understand societal Stockholm syndrome (the mental colonisation of women by male perpetrators of violence) and how can we overcome it, collectively?

THEME 2: LESBIANISM AND FEMINISM: ALTERNATIVES TO THE PATRIARCHAL COUPLE

Discussions on how to escape from the patriarchal model of relationships in « romantic » relationships among women. What is a lesbian relationship that is feminist? How can we reconcile feminism and sexuality? Is it possible to have a « romantic » relationship without emotional dependence and pain? How can we avoid the alienation, objectification, domination and subordination which are integral to the patriarchal model of the couple?

[Frenline Delpha]

Except people have sex with other people all the time. People don't give away their TV, laptop, jewellery and cash for free and then trash their house all the time.

Except that under patriarchy very often there's societal pressure in order to obtain such sex, and that's exactly why every situation should be carefully evaluated under the light of such pressures, and also taking in account that rape culture actually blames the victim rather than the perpetrator.
Luckily, there are some judges, like Canadian judge Marvin Zuker, that are setting new milestones in women's rights - this is a revolutionary sentence
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mar ... 5d5ed22235
In such link there's even the full 179 pages sentence, with all the acts.
Regarding societal pressures on women under patriarchy:
There has been, and still is held, since 24th to 30th July, 2016, a very interesting five-day long feminist meeting in Normandy, France, discussing exactly issues like the societal pressures on women to be heterosexual and engage in PIV under patriarchy (and also topics like antiracism, ecofeminism...), in order to not only further Feminist analysis, but also in order to rediscover the joy and freedom found in women-only spaces.

https://womynsgathering2016.wordpress.c ... e-program/

THEME 1: HETEROSEXUALITY UNDER PATRIARCHY

Discussions around the pressures on women to be heterosexual and engage in PIV (penis-in-vagina) sex: in what way are male partner violence and reproductive and sexual violence against women, girls and children at the heart of male violence? How can we understand societal Stockholm syndrome (the mental colonisation of women by male perpetrators of violence) and how can we overcome it, collectively?

THEME 2: LESBIANISM AND FEMINISM: ALTERNATIVES TO THE PATRIARCHAL COUPLE

Discussions on how to escape from the patriarchal model of relationships in « romantic » relationships among women. What is a lesbian relationship that is feminist? How can we reconcile feminism and sexuality? Is it possible to have a « romantic » relationship without emotional dependence and pain? How can we avoid the alienation, objectification, domination and subordination which are integral to the patriarchal model of the couple?

Using HuffPo as a source is like using RationalWiki or Conservapedia as a source. It's fucking stupid, and it clearly shows your bias.

Also, patriarchy. Ding. +1 sins

[Lexten]

Except people have sex with other people all the time. People don't give away their TV, laptop, jewellery and cash for free and then trash their house all the time.

Except that under patriarchy very often there's societal pressure in order to obtain such sex, and that's exactly why every situation should be carefully evaluated under the light of such pressures, and also taking in account that rape culture actually blames the victim rather than the perpetrator.
Luckily, there are some judges, like Canadian judge Marvin Zuker, that are setting new milestones in women's rights - this is a revolutionary sentence
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mar ... 5d5ed22235
In such link there's even the full 179 pages sentence, with all the acts.
Regarding societal pressures on women under patriarchy:
There has been, and still is held, since 24th to 30th July, 2016, a very interesting five-day long feminist meeting in Normandy, France, discussing exactly issues like the societal pressures on women to be heterosexual and engage in PIV under patriarchy (and also topics like antiracism, ecofeminism...), in order to not only further Feminist analysis, but also in order to rediscover the joy and freedom found in women-only spaces.

https://womynsgathering2016.wordpress.c ... e-program/

THEME 1: HETEROSEXUALITY UNDER PATRIARCHY

Discussions around the pressures on women to be heterosexual and engage in PIV (penis-in-vagina) sex: in what way are male partner violence and reproductive and sexual violence against women, girls and children at the heart of male violence? How can we understand societal Stockholm syndrome (the mental colonisation of women by male perpetrators of violence) and how can we overcome it, collectively?

THEME 2: LESBIANISM AND FEMINISM: ALTERNATIVES TO THE PATRIARCHAL COUPLE

Discussions on how to escape from the patriarchal model of relationships in « romantic » relationships among women. What is a lesbian relationship that is feminist? How can we reconcile feminism and sexuality? Is it possible to have a « romantic » relationship without emotional dependence and pain? How can we avoid the alienation, objectification, domination and subordination which are integral to the patriarchal model of the couple?

Um... how is this relevant to my point?

[New Edom]

Jello, you're just regurgitating Feminism 101. People believe a man who said he didn't rape over a woman who said she didn't? Since when? That's not really an issue. Feminists blow that out of proportion when ANYONE believes a man's innocence.

Let's look at the Stanford case. The woman got a huge outpouring of support fromt he media in general, from people on social media, from her family and friends. Yeah the sentence didn't go as pepole hoped on her side--but the guy's career was destroyed and he will always be listed as a sex offender. So basically society said he was a rapist but found the circumstances leading up to it murky enough to mitigate the sentence. I agree with this.

There were independent witnesses who saw it as it was going on. Her statement of what occurred wasn't solely relied on; there were other people corroborating her side.

Let's look at the Ghomeshi case. Even though again the circumstances were murky authorities followed up on it even though a lot of the original accusations came from social media, and the failure of prosecution to prove the case came only after the witnesses perjured themselves or confused their testimony.

I wasn't familiar with this, and after looking it up, this is another case where there were multiple accusers. It also doesn't appear to have been taken seriously when there was only one accuser.

You can't have it both ways. You can have justice or you can have prejudice. What you are advocating here is prejudice on behalf of women. You basically just wrote that feminists are justified in ignoring the issue of abusive women, based on a philosophical lie proposed by women who don't want to acknowledge any social responsibility. Unless you can cite an example of any feminist pointing out how men ought ethically to be treated by women of course.

I am advocating believing crime victims when they say they were the victims of a crime.

So no, you cannot cite an example of how feminists provopose women should behave ethically towards men.

[The balkens]

Except that under patriarchy very often there's societal pressure in order to obtain such sex, and that's exactly why every situation should be carefully evaluated under the light of such pressures, and also taking in account that rape culture actually blames the victim rather than the perpetrator.
Luckily, there are some judges, like Canadian judge Marvin Zuker, that are setting new milestones in women's rights - this is a revolutionary sentence
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mar ... 5d5ed22235
In such link there's even the full 179 pages sentence, with all the acts.
Regarding societal pressures on women under patriarchy:
There has been, and still is held, since 24th to 30th July, 2016, a very interesting five-day long feminist meeting in Normandy, France, discussing exactly issues like the societal pressures on women to be heterosexual and engage in PIV under patriarchy (and also topics like antiracism, ecofeminism...), in order to not only further Feminist analysis, but also in order to rediscover the joy and freedom found in women-only spaces.

https://womynsgathering2016.wordpress.c ... e-program/

Um... how is this relevant to my point?

I am donating to that fund Milo is running thanks to this.

You are putting boys in school.

[Jello Biafra]

You can say "I believe that something terrible was done to you" and also "I believe that [Man X] is innocent until proven guilty, and that there must be some other explanation".

Not really. Either you didn't give consent and were raped or you gave consent and weren't. It's pretty black and white.

Or you were raped, but not by the specific man being accused of it.
Or there was legitimate confusion as to whether or not consent was given.
Or consent was given and withdrawn, but he didn't hear the withdrawal.

[Jello Biafra]

So no, you cannot cite an example of how feminists provopose women should behave ethically towards men.

I'm not sure that there'd be a difference in ethics between how one behaves with men and how one behaves with women.

[Lexten]

Not really. Either you didn't give consent and were raped or you gave consent and weren't. It's pretty black and white.

1) Or you were raped, but not by the specific man being accused of it.
2) Or there was legitimate confusion as to whether or not consent was given.
3) Or consent was given and withdrawn, but he didn't hear the withdrawal.

1) Rape victims undergo a sexual assault nurse examination and evidence such as semen and hair samples are collected. Then all that has to be done is a DNA test or something similar to determine if man X had sexual intercourse with the woman.
2) It's a yes or no question. Pretty simple.
3) I assume if you wanted to stop so much that you then pressed charges you would physically push the person away/shout rather than quietly withdrawing consent.

[Solaas]

3) I assume if you wanted to stop so much that you then pressed charges you would physically push the person away/shout rather than quietly withdrawing consent.

Such mentality is a proof of the existence of rape culture, I think.
Even men's entitlement to sex is clearly showed here.
There's also victim blaming.

[Kvatchdom]

Both genders are oppressed in their own little ways, and most of it can't be changed with legislation. In the west, this is far less obvious than anywhere else however.

[Aapje]

Affirmative action isn't sexism against men.

They have one spot at the university for which there is a test. A woman scores 20, I score 18. They deduct 5 points from her score because she is a woman and give me the spot. Sexism against women?

Now change the genders, sexism against men?

Equal outcomes is not equivalent to equal opportunity, however if there were actually equal opportunity then we would see equal outcomes.

Only if men and women are the same. It is 100% scientifically proven that men and women have different hormones in their bodies. There is strong scientific evidence of gendered behavior in babies and monkeys.

Do you think that babies & monkeys have been taught patriarchal gender norms?

The idea that equal opportunity leads to equal outcomes is extremely dangerous. If people aren't actually the same, it leads to oppression to get square pegs to fit into round holes and thus makes people less happy.

Then doesn't think mean women are likely to ask for and expect help from women as well?

Yes, but less likely. There are two parts to the gender norm:
- Women are allowed to ask for help more than men
- Men are obliged to help women more than women have to help women and women have to help men

The first part makes it more likely for women to ask for help in general. The second part makes it more likely for women to expect/demand help from men and for men to be more willingly to help women than men.

Any selection from that group is more likely to have that trait than selecting from a group where that trait isn't present at all.

Not when the selection method selects that trait away. I think that a reasonable argument can be made that CEOs are selected for ideas that other CEOs think improves the bottom line. More worker rights or more part-time work doesn't seem to be part of that set of ideas.

The woman is more likely to have talked to other women about their childbirth experiences than the man; if she has an easy birth then she will consider herself lucky.

The problem with this reasoning is that we have actual counterexamples where the opposite is true.

Take abortion. Your logic would suggest that women are more likely to have heard of women who benefited from abortion, so they would support it more than men. Yet actual surveys show the opposite: more women oppose abortion than men.

I simply don't believe the link between an experience and political positions about those experiences is that strong. I've known plenty of women with tough attitudes about quickly getting back to work and plenty of men who wanted to give a woman plenty of time to recover.

She would have sacrificed the ability to work longer in exchange for child caring. Perhaps childcare cost her a promotion?

If she does reduce her work hours to care, while the man works more hours; then we are basically back at the same initial scenario. The man sacrificing time spent on care to spend more time on providing and the woman doing the opposite. Then she misses out on work opportunities and he misses out on child-bonding opportunities.

So you believe most of the feminist movement is made up of "contemporary mainstream feminis[ts]"?

That depends on how you define 'feminist movement.' I don't know and don't particularly care about the entire group of people who answer 'yes' to 'do you consider yourself a feminist.'

I do care about the feminists who get in the media, make laws, lobby, run feminist organizations & do advocacy work, etc. The latter group is IMO clearly dominated by certain kinds of feminists, who share 99% disagreement with people like Young and Sommers.

[The Emerald Legion]

3) I assume if you wanted to stop so much that you then pressed charges you would physically push the person away/shout rather than quietly withdrawing consent.

Such mentality is a proof of the existence of rape culture, I think.
Even men's entitlement to sex is clearly showed here.
There's also victim blaming.

First of all, if rape culture existed, we wouldn't be having this discussion because noone would care about rape. It wouldn't be a crime. But it is, and so rape culture does not exist.

How is "Someone who has consented to sex should actually clearly voice their withdrawal of consent by physical or verbal actions, rather than simply 'suffering in silence' and then going to the police." Victim Blaming and Male entitlement to sex?

It's rather the opposite. It's affirming women's right to have a goddamn voice. To be a real person not a semi-mute fragile thing.

More and more these issues make me wish for the day when we can just rip out everyone's brains and stick them into sex-less metal shells and move on to less absolutely stupid topics of societal interest.

[Aapje]

You can say "I believe that something terrible was done to you" and also "I believe that [Man X] is innocent until proven guilty, and that there must be some other explanation".

Both statements have assumptions that harm your objectivity. It's psychologically hard to walk back a statement, so once you make such a statement, you automatically condemn yourself to some subconscious tunnel vision.

The police should not fall victim to this, but rather focus on asking about the facts. Telling an accuser what (might have) happened is the opposite of good police work. It leads to a situation where alleged victims get steered into a confession that matches prejudice of the police officer. Note that it's very unfortunate that feminists have been teaching women that normal police questions like 'what were you wearing' should be interpreted as an accusation. Because of this, women become less able to give good testimony and thus the chance increases for an rapist to not get convicted.

If the alleged victim needs mental support, this needs to be done in such a way to preserve the quality of her testimony as much as possible and thus with no judgments either way.

You'll notice that there's rarely this sort of denial when it comes to other crimes. If someone says their house is burglarized, they aren't met with statements like "No it wasn't, you let people in and gave them your stuff".

The most common type of rape is not stranger rape, but rape by someone the accuser knows. There is no automatic reason to assume that it's unlikely for a man and woman who know each other to have sex.

Burglary is often done by strangers. It is unlikely to give a stranger something very expensive for free. In cases where friends burgle, there is quite often the question whether the friend didn't merely loan the object or thought that he had permission.

[Aapje]

It's affirming women's right to have a goddamn voice.

It's interesting how often feminist theories deny women agency.

[Gravlen]

1) Or you were raped, but not by the specific man being accused of it.
2) Or there was legitimate confusion as to whether or not consent was given.
3) Or consent was given and withdrawn, but he didn't hear the withdrawal.

1) Rape victims undergo a sexual assault nurse examination and evidence such as semen and hair samples are collected. Then all that has to be done is a DNA test or something similar to determine if man X had sexual intercourse with the woman.
2) It's a yes or no question. Pretty simple.
3) I assume if you wanted to stop so much that you then pressed charges you would physically push the person away/shout rather than quietly withdrawing consent.

1) It's not that simple in Real Life. It's not like in CSI. There might not be any DNA. The victim might have showered or cleaned heresl up, destroying or removing any DNA evidence. DNA evidence isn't foolproof either.
2) In real life, there's shades of gray, and there's more to consent than a simple yes or no. Was consent given under duress? Was the person old enough or sober enough to be able to consent?
3) Not always. The person might freeze up, or be too afraid to struggle against the person who disregarded the withdrawal of consent. It happens.

[New Edom]

So no, you cannot cite an example of how feminists provopose women should behave ethically towards men.

I'm not sure that there'd be a difference in ethics between how one behaves with men and how one behaves with women.

Of course you don't, because you are pro-feminist and see it as so good that no real criticism can stick to it, as far as I can see. So it seems more useful to just decide that you have your point of view, I have mine, and ultimately we'll see which is stronger.

[Costa Fierro]

Sure, but we're talking about a hypothetical future where the Duluth model isn't used.

The justice system would still be biased regardless of whether or not the Duluth model isn't used.

Yes, but if men can be victims, then they will be the only victims.*

Me won't, and can't, be the only victims in an issue that affects both sexes. The whole point of recognizing men as victims of domestic violence is to get it into people's heads that it's not a women-only issue and that it is seriously enough to warrant massive societal and legal changes.

Or alternatively, they will both be the victims and nothing will be done, even though one of them has a much higher likelihood of killing the other.

Or alternatively, society recognizes it as an issue that affects both sexes and that governments begin to actually address why domestic violence happens and provide support for victims regardless of the genitalia they have.

Yes, and this is a problem.

You haven't answered the question. I asked "what is a man supposed to do when a woman hits him".

Sure, because the patriar- excuse me, the men who make the laws won't make laws to build them, and because the patriar- excuse me, the men who have the vast majority if the money won't donate to charities to build them.

Because feminists oppose the construction of men's shelters. Because feminists don't want government resources directed towards people that they don't acknowledge as victims. And as women in some places constitute the largest voting demographics, it is their voices who are heard the most.

And this is the fault of feminists?

It is. Feminists have empowered women through creating a society that always believes women to be victims and a justice system that backs up that belief. All a woman has to do is pretend that she is the victim and people are expected to believe her, regardless of whether or not she's actually telling the truth.

Do you personally believe people when they say they were raped?

If the evidence supports it? Sure.

I ask because doing a google search for 'Does Society Believe Rape Victims?' (without quotes) leads to a bunch of sources saying no, society doesn't believe rape victims.

Interesting that this was the fourth item listed. But looking through, I see a bunch of sources that say no. But a lot of these sources are also feminist sources. So there is a lot of bias in this.

Some of those sources are about men who claim that they were raped, but all this says is that society doesn't believe rape victims in general.

I've only found one source about male rape. Which, again, proves that society doesn't believe men can be victims of rape.

It does matter to me, and there are other individual feminists who also care about the issue.

No. Your lack of actual concern as demonstrated in your snarky remark about resources for male victims of domestic violence, and your downplaying of society's belief that only one sex can ever be considered victims of rape says more than you could ever hope to achieve with written words.

If this is what constitutes "liberal" feminism then I am glad only a minority of women are feminists.