Should single men have right to exploit women's bodies?

[Galloism]

Well, you can largely thank feminism, as a movement, for working overtime trying to keep that kind of sexism around.

#notallfeminists of course

I doubt they spend a ton of time working to make sure the police give abused men the back of their hands.

Yes, actually, they do.

When I was a trooper, there were classes on DV sponsored by NOW of Florida. We didn't get paid for going to these classes (purely voluntary), but, hell, I wanted to be a good cop. They stressed, at length, that rapists were 99% men and victims 90% women (neither of those are true), and that women only act violently in self-defense, and that any man who tries to say his wife or girlfriend is violent is probably the abuser who's trying to muddy the waters, or he has abused her before that is why she's become this way, and we should take that into consideration.

And you know what? I believed it, and I wasn't the only one.

Now I know better. I don't KNOW that they're still teaching the same sexist bullshit, but there were plenty of data points proving that as sexist bullshit at the time (data points I wasn't aware of until later, but WERE in existence), so if they were peddling known bullshit at the time, I don't see why they would change now.

So, if you want to know why police give men 'the back of their hand', that's why. They've been taught to.

[Karsknev]

Well, you can largely thank feminism, as a movement, for working overtime trying to keep that kind of sexism around.

#notallfeminists of course

I doubt they spend a ton of time working to make sure the police give abused men the back of their hands.

Not directly, but these attitudes and practices are largely a consequence of the popular modern feminist rhetoric that because we live in a "patriarchy" it is inherently impossible for any woman to have any kind of power over a man, therefore if a man claims he is being abused by a woman, he must be some kind of spoiled misogynist who thinks he's being abused over minute conflicts that are easily solved, like a child who thinks he's abused for not getting a new toy.

[Herador]

I doubt they spend a ton of time working to make sure the police give abused men the back of their hands.

https://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V71-Stra ... -PV_10.pdf

You can doubt it, but it wouldn't change that many do.

How "many" is many? 50%? 60%? 70%? 90%? What is the number actively lobbying to keep things this way? What could they say to get those cops to react how they did?

I doubt they spend a ton of time working to make sure the police give abused men the back of their hands.

Yes, actually, they do.

When I was a trooper, there were classes on DV sponsored by NOW of Florida. We didn't get paid for going to these classes (purely voluntary), but, hell, I wanted to be a good cop. They stressed, at length, that rapists were 99% men and victims 90% women (neither of those are true), and that women only act violently in self-defense, and that any man who tries to say his wife or girlfriend is violent is probably the abuser who's trying to muddy the waters, or he has abused her before that is why she's become this way, and we should take that into consideration.

And you know what? I believed it, and I wasn't the only one.

Now I know better. I don't KNOW that they're still teaching the same sexist bullshit, but there were plenty of data points proving that as sexist bullshit at the time (data points I wasn't aware of until later, but WERE in existence), so if they were peddling known bullshit at the time, I don't see why they would change now.

So, if you want to know why police give men 'the back of their hand', that's why. They've been taught to.

That sounds a whole lot like cops making broad assumptions and a whole not like feminists saying cops men are rape-frenzied pigs.

Some do, probably, but I'm not seeing the connection here.

I doubt they spend a ton of time working to make sure the police give abused men the back of their hands.

Not directly, but these attitudes and practices are largely a consequence of the popular modern feminist rhetoric that because we live in a "patriarchy" it is inherently impossible for any woman to have any kind of power over a man, therefore if a man claims he is being abused by a woman, he must be some kind of spoiled misogynist who thinks he's being abused over minute conflicts that are easily solved, like a child who thinks he's abused for not getting a new toy.

Who said this? Do they have a large following? By what measure are we considering this train of thought to be commonly accepted by the massive number of people who consider themselves feminists?

E: Man this shit needed a lot of post-submitting touching up.

[Ashmoria]

I doubt they spend a ton of time working to make sure the police give abused men the back of their hands.

Not directly, but these attitudes and practices are largely a consequence of the popular modern feminist rhetoric that because we live in a "patriarchy" it is inherently impossible for any woman to have any kind of power over a man, therefore if a man claims he is being abused by a woman, he must be some kind of spoiled misogynist who thinks he's being abused over minute conflicts that are easily solved, like a child who thinks he's abused for not getting a new toy.

if that were the case there would have been a time when abused men were supported by society.

[Karsknev]

Not directly, but these attitudes and practices are largely a consequence of the popular modern feminist rhetoric that because we live in a "patriarchy" it is inherently impossible for any woman to have any kind of power over a man, therefore if a man claims he is being abused by a woman, he must be some kind of spoiled misogynist who thinks he's being abused over minute conflicts that are easily solved, like a child who thinks he's abused for not getting a new toy.

if that were the case there would have been a time when abused men were supported by society.

If what were the case? (Clarification?)

[Fartsniffage]

Not directly, but these attitudes and practices are largely a consequence of the popular modern feminist rhetoric that because we live in a "patriarchy" it is inherently impossible for any woman to have any kind of power over a man, therefore if a man claims he is being abused by a woman, he must be some kind of spoiled misogynist who thinks he's being abused over minute conflicts that are easily solved, like a child who thinks he's abused for not getting a new toy.

if that were the case there would have been a time when abused men were supported by society.

How does that follow?

[Ashmoria]

if that were the case there would have been a time when abused men were supported by society.

If what were the case? (Clarification?)

if attitudes were caused by feminist rhetoric.

[Galloism]

Not directly, but these attitudes and practices are largely a consequence of the popular modern feminist rhetoric that because we live in a "patriarchy" it is inherently impossible for any woman to have any kind of power over a man, therefore if a man claims he is being abused by a woman, he must be some kind of spoiled misogynist who thinks he's being abused over minute conflicts that are easily solved, like a child who thinks he's abused for not getting a new toy.

if that were the case there would have been a time when abused men were supported by society.

Not really - because prior to feminists pushing for public action on DV (which they should have) DV generally wasn't interfered with - regardless of who was perpetrating it.

[Ashmoria]

if that were the case there would have been a time when abused men were supported by society.

Not really - because prior to feminists pushing for public action on DV (which they should have) DV generally wasn't interfered with - regardless of who was perpetrating it.

true

but it is not because of feminists that society at large refuses to believe that men can be abused. it is a feature of patriarchy. not every bit of patriarchy runs in mens favor you know.

[Imperializt Russia]

Chess ruins the possibility for a meaningful discussion on feminism, part 60.

You're all over the road with the OP anyway.
Surrogacy (for some people, the only reliable way to ensure pregnancy) is now evil, apparently? Are gay men evil for virtue of still being men, as the only way for them to "conceive" their own child is through surrogacy?

What is the legislation even about? I don't know, and I don't even really care anymore. I'm not going to get a balanced appraisal out of you, and certainly whatever page of the thread this gets posted on will be in full anti-feminism shitshow mode anyway.

Prove me wrong, NSG.

[Herador]

Chess ruins the possibility for a meaningful discussion on feminism, part 60.

You're all over the road with the OP anyway.
Surrogacy (for some people, the only reliable way to ensure pregnancy) is now evil, apparently? Are gay men evil for virtue of still being men, as the only way for them to "conceive" their own child is through surrogacy?

What is the legislation even about? I don't know, and I don't even really care anymore. I'm not going to get a balanced appraisal out of you, and certainly whatever page of the thread this gets posted on will be in full anti-feminism shitshow mode anyway.

Prove me wrong, NSG.

NSG is liberal though, right? Surely this thread should be in full support mode.

[Ostroeuropa]

Not really - because prior to feminists pushing for public action on DV (which they should have) DV generally wasn't interfered with - regardless of who was perpetrating it.

true

but it is not because of feminists that society at large refuses to believe that men can be abused. it is a feature of patriarchy. not every bit of patriarchy runs in mens favor you know.

What's your basis for saying it's patriarchy?
When male advocacy groups try to organize for more recognition, who is opposing them the most? Do you even know about this topic?
Why are you arguing with people who do and not bothering to look into it, just insisting its patriarchy, and not actually listening to people who do this shit as activists?

Yes. It's because of feminists that society at large refuses to believe men can be abused.

They may not have piled up the shit, but they're guarding it with a pitchfork, i'd say it's safe to say they're the reason it can't get cleaned up.

[Galloism]

Yes, actually, they do.

When I was a trooper, there were classes on DV sponsored by NOW of Florida. We didn't get paid for going to these classes (purely voluntary), but, hell, I wanted to be a good cop. They stressed, at length, that rapists were 99% men and victims 90% women (neither of those are true), and that women only act violently in self-defense, and that any man who tries to say his wife or girlfriend is violent is probably the abuser who's trying to muddy the waters, or he has abused her before that is why she's become this way, and we should take that into consideration.

And you know what? I believed it, and I wasn't the only one.

Now I know better. I don't KNOW that they're still teaching the same sexist bullshit, but there were plenty of data points proving that as sexist bullshit at the time (data points I wasn't aware of until later, but WERE in existence), so if they were peddling known bullshit at the time, I don't see why they would change now.

So, if you want to know why police give men 'the back of their hand', that's why. They've been taught to.

That sounds a whole lot like cops making broad assumptions and a whole not like feminists saying cops are rape-frenzied pigs.

Some do, probably, but I'm not seeing the connection here.

The feminist movement, as a whole, has worked hard to suppress and prevent female abusers and rapists from facing justice - to the point of influencing law enforcement in such a fashion.

Let's talk about Domestic Violence Coordinating Councils - established by the Violence against women act.

The Violence Against Women Act provides for the establishment of state-level DV
coordinating councils. These groups are charged with allocating federal grant monies to
local service providers. But the committees that make funding decisions are composed of
persons representing the same groups that are receiving the monies, an obvious conflict
of interest.

According to Boston Globe columnist Cathy Young, these coordinating councils
“formally require member organizations to embrace the feminist analysis of abuse as
patriarchal coercion.”25 An example of that perspective came from the director of the
Massachusetts Coalition Against Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence, who made this
dismissive comment about male victims: “Sometimes it snows in Florida … but we don’t
make public policy around it.”26

http://www.saveservices.org/pdf/SAVE-VA ... -Males.pdf

[Imperializt Russia]

Not really - because prior to feminists pushing for public action on DV (which they should have) DV generally wasn't interfered with - regardless of who was perpetrating it.

true

but it is not because of feminists that society at large refuses to believe that men can be abused. it is a feature of patriarchy. not every bit of patriarchy runs in mens favor you know.

There's a quote I read the other day.

Given that it's 2am, I couldn't be arsed to copy it out, so I'll let slip it's from Twitter (or wherever) and just post the cap of it.

[Ashmoria]

true

but it is not because of feminists that society at large refuses to believe that men can be abused. it is a feature of patriarchy. not every bit of patriarchy runs in mens favor you know.

What's your basis for saying it's patriarchy?
When male advocacy groups try to organize for more recognition, who is opposing them the most? Do you even know about this topic?
Why are you arguing with people who do and not bothering to look into it, just insisting its patriarchy, and not actually listening to people who do this shit as activists?

are you saying you think there was some time when it was acceptable for a man to admit to being abused by his wife/girlfriend? not in any time that *I* have been alive.

[Galloism]

Not really - because prior to feminists pushing for public action on DV (which they should have) DV generally wasn't interfered with - regardless of who was perpetrating it.

true

but it is not because of feminists that society at large refuses to believe that men can be abused. it is a feature of patriarchy. not every bit of patriarchy runs in mens favor you know.

Then you make feminism, as a movement, part of the patriarchy and supporting thereof. Feminism therefore calls for the destruction of itself.

That's gotta be problematic for you.

[Ostroeuropa]

What's your basis for saying it's patriarchy?
When male advocacy groups try to organize for more recognition, who is opposing them the most? Do you even know about this topic?
Why are you arguing with people who do and not bothering to look into it, just insisting its patriarchy, and not actually listening to people who do this shit as activists?

are you saying you think there was some time when it was acceptable for a man to admit to being abused by his wife/girlfriend? not in any time that *I* have been alive.

It's because of feminists that society at large refuses to believe men can be abused.

They may not have piled up the shit, but they're guarding it with a pitchfork, i'd say it's safe to say they're the reason it can't get cleaned up. You can dodge that and try and ignore it all you like, but it will never stop being true.

[Imperializt Russia]

Chess ruins the possibility for a meaningful discussion on feminism, part 60.

You're all over the road with the OP anyway.
Surrogacy (for some people, the only reliable way to ensure pregnancy) is now evil, apparently? Are gay men evil for virtue of still being men, as the only way for them to "conceive" their own child is through surrogacy?

What is the legislation even about? I don't know, and I don't even really care anymore. I'm not going to get a balanced appraisal out of you, and certainly whatever page of the thread this gets posted on will be in full anti-feminism shitshow mode anyway.

Prove me wrong, NSG.

NSG is liberal though, right? Surely this thread should be in full support mode.

Ironically, supporting feminism and claiming to be socially liberal is now a non-binary belief.

[Ashmoria]

true

but it is not because of feminists that society at large refuses to believe that men can be abused. it is a feature of patriarchy. not every bit of patriarchy runs in mens favor you know.

Then you make feminism, as a movement, part of the patriarchy and supporting thereof. Feminism therefore calls for the destruction of itself.

That's gotta be problematic for you.

I don't have a problem with institutional feminism not being perfect.

[Karsknev]

If what were the case? (Clarification?)

if attitudes were caused by feminist rhetoric.

The attitudes are not solely caused by feminist rhetoric, they are bolstered by it. Old ideas can and often are perpetrated through new spins and philosophies. Something doesn't have to be the original creator of an attitude to still hold a lot responsibility for it's continuation.

[Herador]

That sounds a whole lot like cops making broad assumptions and a whole not like feminists saying cops are rape-frenzied pigs.

Some do, probably, but I'm not seeing the connection here.

The feminist movement, as a whole, has worked hard to suppress and prevent female abusers and rapists from facing justice - to the point of influencing law enforcement in such a fashion.

Let's talk about Domestic Violence Coordinating Councils - established by the Violence against women act.

The Violence Against Women Act provides for the establishment of state-level DV
coordinating councils. These groups are charged with allocating federal grant monies to
local service providers. But the committees that make funding decisions are composed of
persons representing the same groups that are receiving the monies, an obvious conflict
of interest.

According to Boston Globe columnist Cathy Young, these coordinating councils
“formally require member organizations to embrace the feminist analysis of abuse as
patriarchal coercion.”25 An example of that perspective came from the director of the
Massachusetts Coalition Against Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence, who made this
dismissive comment about male victims: “Sometimes it snows in Florida … but we don’t
make public policy around it.”26

http://www.saveservices.org/pdf/SAVE-VA ... -Males.pdf

Disturbing, I'll admit, but a single 12 year old legislation doesn't define a movement.

[Galloism]

Then you make feminism, as a movement, part of the patriarchy and supporting thereof. Feminism therefore calls for the destruction of itself.

That's gotta be problematic for you.

I don't have a problem with institutional feminism not being perfect.

I do have a problem with people saying, essentially, "well, if feminism supported it and it became law, maybe it's not bullshitty".

It's passive acceptance of sexist bullshit because it came from a camp pretending to be for equality. Passive acceptance isn't acceptable in response to sexism, regardless of source. If you accept feminism isn't perfect, don't try to passively accept sexist bullshit supported by the feminist movement. Call it out. Say it's wrong.

If you're going to be for equality, BE for equality.

Don't just pay lip service.

[Ashmoria]

are you saying you think there was some time when it was acceptable for a man to admit to being abused by his wife/girlfriend? not in any time that *I* have been alive.

It's because of feminists that society at large refuses to believe men can be abused.

They may not have piled up the shit, but they're guarding it with a pitchfork, i'd say it's safe to say they're the reason it can't get cleaned up. You can dodge that and try and ignore it all you like, but it will never stop being true.

no it isn't.

oh don't be silly. for that to be true there would have had to have been a time when abused men were supported by society.

[Galloism]

The feminist movement, as a whole, has worked hard to suppress and prevent female abusers and rapists from facing justice - to the point of influencing law enforcement in such a fashion.

Let's talk about Domestic Violence Coordinating Councils - established by the Violence against women act.



http://www.saveservices.org/pdf/SAVE-VA ... -Males.pdf

Disturbing, I'll admit, but a single 12 year old legislation doesn't define a movement.

It's part of an overarching pattern.

Thirty years of feminists suppressing information regarding male victims. 30 years of trying to protect domestic abusers when they happen to be female. 30 years of threatening researchers from everything from their jobs to their lives.

The pattern is there. You can't ignore it.

[Galloism]

It's because of feminists that society at large refuses to believe men can be abused.

They may not have piled up the shit, but they're guarding it with a pitchfork, i'd say it's safe to say they're the reason it can't get cleaned up. You can dodge that and try and ignore it all you like, but it will never stop being true.

no it isn't.

oh don't be silly. for that to be true there would have had to have been a time when abused men were supported by society.

No, it doesn't. Men and women were treated equally shitty when it came to DV for a long time.

Feminists came along and said "you know, we need to treat women better" and lobbied hard for it. And there have been substantial improvements.

Then some people said "hey, you know we need to treat men better too" and feminists started screaming "NO WE CAN'T, YOU WILL HURT WOMEN IF WE DO THAT! WOMEN ARE THE ONLY TRUE VICTIMS!" and politicians went "shit, ok, damn. Don't bite me."

And here we are.

#notallfeminists