The NationStates Feminist Thread III

[Galloism]

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12280556

We (NZ) seem to be moving towards a more enlightened treatment of teachers who are also sexual predators since the Crown (state) is now explicitly identifying a double-standard (which the defence was trying to exploit).

She had earlier pleaded guilty to a raft of charges relating to two teenage boys who she sexually abused, often in cars parked in public places, and in school lunch breaks.

In court her lawyer sought a term of home detention but Tasman Crown Solicitor Mark O'Donoghue said that would be inadequate given the gravity of the offending.

He said if she were a man and the victims were schoolgirls community sentence would not have even been tabled.

For further signs that this is an evolving (rather than entrenched) equality since the article also says:

She is understood to be the first female teacher in New Zealand convicted and sentenced for sexual offending against students.

Which sounds like she might be the first caught but either I'm getting confused (with stories from overseas) or this means there have been plenty of people getting away with a slap on the wrist.

(Note she has name suppression but basically everyone gets that here.)

That’s a good start.

I think a lot more judges need to ask the question “what would a man get” or, maybe even better, “what would a woman get” when doing sentencing. The disparity is huge.

Regarding first convicted, I have no idea how to answer your question.

[Thepeopl]

In non marital hetero relationships the breakup instigator is 50/50.

Do you have a source for this?

My general impression is that girlfriends dump boyfriends more often than vice versa - that typically men start & escalate heterosexual relationships & women end them, no matter where we draw the line, all the way out to first dates & first contact. I.e., if you say a relationship starts with the first date, my impression is that it is typically the woman who decides to break things off after the first date, and so on all the way out to divorce of marriage.

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... al_Couples

[Ostroeuropa]

Do you have a source for this?

My general impression is that girlfriends dump boyfriends more often than vice versa - that typically men start & escalate heterosexual relationships & women end them, no matter where we draw the line, all the way out to first dates & first contact. I.e., if you say a relationship starts with the first date, my impression is that it is typically the woman who decides to break things off after the first date, and so on all the way out to divorce of marriage.

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... al_Couples

Showing equal likelihood of wanting to break up doesn't demonstrate equal likelihood of actually going through with it.
It's possible for equal desire to be present but for women to do it more often because of social dynamics.

[Thepeopl]

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... al_Couples

Showing equal likelihood of wanting to break up doesn't demonstrate equal likelihood of actually going through with it.
It's possible for equal desire to be present but for women to do it more often because of social dynamics.

https://web.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Rose ... reakup.pdf



Tl;dr. When not married, both genders instigate a breakup equally. When married, women are less satisfied and will instigate more.

Edit: it is the same research, but last link gives the whole research instead of just the excerpt.

Fixed the link , thanks Des Bal

[Galloism]

Showing equal likelihood of wanting to break up doesn't demonstrate equal likelihood of actually going through with it.
It's possible for equal desire to be present but for women to do it more often because of social dynamics.

https://web.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Rose ... 218FwskWMh

Tl;dr. When not married, both genders instigate a breakup equally. When married, women are less satisfied and will instigate more.

Edit: it is the same research, but last link gives the whole research instead of just the excerpt.

I am getting an object not found on that.

I don't find your results unlikely mind, the link just isn't working.

[Ostroeuropa]

Showing equal likelihood of wanting to break up doesn't demonstrate equal likelihood of actually going through with it.
It's possible for equal desire to be present but for women to do it more often because of social dynamics.

https://web.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Rose ... 218FwskWMh

Tl;dr. When not married, both genders instigate a breakup equally. When married, women are less satisfied and will instigate more.

Edit: it is the same research, but last link gives the whole research instead of just the excerpt.

Righto. In which case, during marriage you've got a bunch of legal and social factors in play which make breaking up less damaging to a woman than a man, so that's not surprising. If your options are a bread sandwich or a shit sandwich the bread sandwich starts to look pretty good. Meanwhile if it's bread or nothing, more people will choose the nothing.

[Des-Bal]

I am getting an object not found on that.

I don't find your results unlikely mind, the link just isn't working.

For what I assume are computer reasons there's a bunch of shit after .pdf

https://web.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Rose ... reakup.pdf works perfectly.

[Galloism]

I am getting an object not found on that.

I don't find your results unlikely mind, the link just isn't working.

For what I assume are computer reasons there's a bunch of shit after .pdf

https://web.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Rose ... reakup.pdf works perfectly.

Danke. You're a gentleman and a scholar.

[Costa Fierro]

That’s a good start.

Not really. She was sentenced to two and a half years in prison. A 16 year old boy who fled from police in a stolen car and killed someone after crashing into them also received the same sentence. Both are very light, but I struggle to find how what would be considered statutory rape and manslaughter in the United States (among a raft of charges for the teenager) be considered equally severe.

I think a lot more judges need to ask the question “what would a man get” or, maybe even better, “what would a woman get” when doing sentencing. The disparity is huge.

Sadly the way our rape laws are written it means that we can't actually see this happening if crimes are committed in the same general manner (unlawful intercourse). Rape is defined under the Crimes Act 1963, rape is defined as "the penetration of the penis by genitalia". This means that men, and only men (unless such a thing is committed by a trans woman, which is highly unlikely) can be convicted of rape. All other similar crimes, such as forced anal penetration, forced vaginal penetration, etc., as well as crimes involving those under the age of consent, are classified as "unlawful sexual contact" or something like that. It carries more or less the same punishment in terms of the maximum a judge can apply in terms of sentencing.

[Galloism]

The klan is a fun comparison for another reason - it’s a political ideology not a group or organization (in fact, there are dozens of groups that make up the “klan”, and anyone can claim to be a member, and groups often form and split spontaneously), and, more importantly, there’s some strange parts.

The Klan is absolutely not an ideology in even the slightest meaning of that word. It's an organization with splinter groups.

If the Klan were an organization with splinter groups, then what is the main "klan"? Which one? Because there's dozens of groups, none of which lead to a single hierarchy, and so the Klan can't be an organization.

You may as well say Christianity is an organization, even though they don't ladder up to the same hierarchy, because it all started with one Church in a little town in Israel. When we're talking organizations, it's important to understand the principles of ownership and control, and the Klan groups share none in common. In that sense, it's more an ideology than anything. It certainly isn't an organization, nor is it a group, as there's no shared hierarchy or ownership.

Who is the leader of all the Klans in the country? Who is the board of directors that all Klan groups report to?

Like how the Imperial Wizard of the Traditionalist American Knights of the KKK condemned the racist shooting in South Carolina:



https://www.nate-thayer.com/kkk-black-m ... -massacre/

See, you didn’t know there were Klan organizations that condemned the violence and sympathized with the black families killed. Something you had no awareness of. That doesn’t change the hate in the overall ideology however.

No, I actually did know that. The funny thing about this is that it supports my argument, not yours.

A) It demonstrates that even within an actual hierarchical organization you can have differences in opinion. Imagine how much wider that variation must be in a loose, unorganized group of people who happen to share a label.

B) Love the little comment of "hate in the overall ideology," as if I wouldn't notice that. The Klan, as an organization, is very open and adamant about its belief in white supremacy and racial segregation, even if some (or fuck, even most, I don't know) members/splinters are opposed to using violence to accomplish said goal. Meanwhile, where is this feminist organization that states that the goal of feminism is the subjugation of men and elevation of women? And how many self-identified feminists support said organization? Still a false equivocation. Not to mention, again, your entire attitude towards feminism is built on the strawman that feminism is about hating men, because you can point to quotes by radfems and misandrists proclaiming how much they hate men. In other news, I've now decided that all anti-feminists are Elliot Rodger. Do I have evidence to back it up? Sure, here's a bunch of "anti-SJW" types saying misogynistic shit on Reddit. Is this a fair or accurate representation? Probably not, but it supports my narrative, which means I'm right and anyone who disagrees with me is doing a No True Scotsman.

Yes, and the feminist movement is very open and adamant in its ideology of patriarchy and toxic masculinity - which are both canonized hatred. Blaming someone with original sin because of their born sex - accusing them of ruling the world to the express willful detriment of women - is not unlike those who hate the Jews with the same reasoning.

Okay, let's check out your links:

First one is dead.

Here's a new one.

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... _treatment

The second one is both interesting and disturbing. And it certainly indicates that said centers need a massive change in their internal culture. That said, the study itself in noway supports your argument that they are "mainly run by feminist groups." That's an assertion. And regardless, even if it is true, so what? Again, you continue to miss the point we've been trying to get across to you. If 100 feminists were in a room, and 99 of them said, "Men are evil and should all be enslaved." Would that mean the 1 feminist who disagrees is now a bad person despite their disagreement, just because they also identify as a feminist? I really don't understand how you can't see the similarities between this line of thinking and Fox News claiming that all socialists are secret Stalinists who want to throw everyone into Gulags. It also reminds me of anti-civil rights whites in the '60s saying the NAACP and Dr. King were the "real racists." It's literally the same logic and is an extremely unhealthy way to think about other people (also dehumanizing, because it's literally reducing people to labels and associations).

I mean, if 99% of feminists said that they hate men and should be enslaved, that probably does say something about the group, yes (I don't think it would be 99% that would say that, but it would say something about hte group). There may be individuals in that group that are different, but it doesn't change the overall trend.

It would be worthy of checking why that one would continue to associate with a group filled with such hate. There's that Klan guy that hates violence against black people, but that doesn't change the trend.

The rest of the links are all basically making the same argument as the above: some prominent feminists have done bad things and now all feminists are responsible for it. See above for my response.

Almost everything they've touched since about 1980 has been explicitly sexist, with very very few exceptions. Hell, even the ACA suffered sexist effects of feminism - only giving birth control to women, and none for men.

Also, from your post over there.

I'm looking at what feminism has done as a movement, not what one loudmouth does.

What movement?

This movement.

Again. Not. A. Hive. Mind. Getting real sick of this "guilty by association" bullshit. If all of those links represent feminism then r/MGTOW and the various incel subreddits that keep getting banned represent anti-feminism.

If you can't respect other people's individuality, then I have no reason to respect yours.

Oh I think there's ok individual feminists. I married one. Doesn't change the fact that, overall, it's a hate movement that works against equality. It's responsible for empowering rapists, domestic abusers, murderers, and many other such things on account of its undercurrent of hatred against men and feminine irresponsibility. They've indoctrinated the police to their way of thinking - hell i was a victim of said indoctrination as an officer - we were taught by the National Organization of Women and a local women's shelter that women never commit domestic violence and only engage in violence in self defense, ever. And, explicitly, that if we found a man beaten silly by his wife or partner, we should arrest him because he must have beaten her before - even if there's not a scratch on her.

And I've talked to many police in many departments - who get the same training.

I know there’s good feminists out there.

"I know there are good feminists."

*spends several posts explaining why feminism--and by extension, feminists--is evil.*

These two things are mutually exclusive. Pick one.

Feminism is a hate movement, engaging in ideology like patriarchy, toxic masculinity, defense of abusers, rapists, and murderers, but not every adherent is hateful. You are confusing criticism of an ideology with criticism of all adherents. I can criticize conservatism - often do - but that doesn't mean every conservative is a wanker.

The point remains unchanged, however: feminism already has a set definition, just like any other ideology. Though, some minor aspects may change, the core remains the same: equality between sexes.

Let me stop you right here. Feminism's definition isn't equality of the sexes. Here's the actual definition of feminism:

the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes.

This means that where women have more rights than men, they do not advocate for equality, because they only advocate for women's rights on the grounds of equality. Hell, as you've seen in the evidence, they advocate for women's rights on the grounds of equality even when that goes explicitly against equality, but they still argued for it on the grounds of equality even when it was against equality.

Feminism is, at it's core, a women's rights movement. And that's not necessarily a bad thing in of itself, except they used hatred and denigration of men to get there. And decided to protect rapists and abusers to do it.

And there's no significant voices against it.

When was the last time you heard a feminist, ever, point out that among adults, men and women are raped at about the same rate each year, and that men are mostly raped by women? When's the last time you saw them point out that women admit to committing more domestic violence than men? Probably never - because feminism doesn't equal equality. It equals advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of equality, and reducing women's right to rape and be violent does nothing to advocate women's rights. In fact, it reduces them.

Which explains why the opposition to recognizing it.

EDIT: Fixed a bracket.

[Thepeopl]

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... _treatment

Tl;dr, if you read on page 9

Although females outnumber males as victims of the most severe PV, female perpetration of severe violence is not a rare occurrence. In the US in 1998, 510 men were killed by their partners (as compared to 1,320 women, (Rennison, 2000) and in Canada in 2003, approximately 55 men were killed by their partners (as compared to 241 women, Statistics Canada, 2005). Similarly, there are large numbers of men who are severely assaulted and injured by their partner. Data from the National Crime Victimization Survey (Rennison, 2000) finds that annually, 60,000 men (and 900,000 women) are victims of severe PV and that between 1993 and 1998, 47,000 men were injured by their partner, 28,090 of whom received medical treatment. It is most often assumed that self-defense and battered women

And, the summary, on page 11

Summary The available evidence clearly indicates that there are many similarities in PV perpetrated by men and women. Major and credible studies suggest that women perpetrate physical attacks on male partners at the same or higher rates as men attack female partners and that motives for PV are generally parallel for men and women. Even when severe violence is considered, only a minority of cases fit a profile of self-defense or violence in response to intimate terrorism. Another substantial proportion of cases are better characterized as common couple violence or mutual violent control in which men as well as women are victims of severe violence at the hands of their partners. This being said, it is also clear that the adverse impact of PV is much greater for violence perpetrated by men: Male violence is substantially more likely to result in injury or death, and is more fear provoking.

So, my guess is: we focus on dv perpetrated by men more because they (a small group of the dv perpetrators) cause more severe bodily harm.

[Yirophia]

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12280556

We (NZ) seem to be moving towards a more enlightened treatment of teachers who are also sexual predators since the Crown (state) is now explicitly identifying a double-standard (which the defence was trying to exploit).

She had earlier pleaded guilty to a raft of charges relating to two teenage boys who she sexually abused, often in cars parked in public places, and in school lunch breaks.

In court her lawyer sought a term of home detention but Tasman Crown Solicitor Mark O'Donoghue said that would be inadequate given the gravity of the offending.

He said if she were a man and the victims were schoolgirls community sentence would not have even been tabled.

For further signs that this is an evolving (rather than entrenched) equality since the article also says:

She is understood to be the first female teacher in New Zealand convicted and sentenced for sexual offending against students.

Which sounds like she might be the first caught but either I'm getting confused (with stories from overseas) or this means there have been plenty of people getting away with a slap on the wrist.

(Note she has name suppression but basically everyone gets that here.)

Now don't get me wrong, what I'm hearing from this article and the related one it linked me back to makes this sound like a very unhealthy relationship on the whole, not to mention that in her capacity as a teacher this is immensely unprofessional and abusive of privileges and so on. However, with regards to the age alone I'm not entirely sure there's a problem, personally. Let us not tread into the territory of "but what if the foetus consents???" of course, but I for one would struggle to really, honestly make a strong argument, dispassionately, without resorting to appeals to emotion and a sense of cultural "normalcy" in the frame of reference, against an AoC of 15. Yes, 15 year olds are dumb, naturally, but it's not as if they have some overwhelming tendency to be woefully unaware of what excites them, in these matters, much less to be wholly ignorant of the matters writ large. And that goes regardless of sex or gender or whatever. For that matter it's not as if 16 or even 18 or 21 year olds are all that clever on the whole either.

I may be biased, I suppose, as someone who myself had intimate relationships, (all but one of) which were consensual (in the literal sense that is to say, to not consider for the moment the issue of statute) with people quite a bit older than me, far across the AoC threshold. (A fact I am not entirely proud of, but oh well....)

Moreover, a lot of research has been done on paedophilia and hebephilia and ephebophilia (they are actual terms, libertarians are just idiots that stretch them to the extreme) and near as anyone can tell people are "born this way" in that regard, and no real psychotherapeutic intervention to cure it has been discovered to my knowledge. Like homosexuals. This is not, of course, to say, that we should allow people to sexually abuse toddlers; unlike homosexuality there is real and vast harm done by people who have these behaviours. However, often there seems to be a measure of compassion missing in these issues, which I feel should be there. And I'm not just saying this because the defendant was a female, by any means, I would consider the same -- much moreso in fact -- for male defendants. These are not really "hardened criminals" as it were; quite literally, they are sick, which is to say they are in need of treatment far more than they are of being locked up and the key thrown away. The US justice system is of course an exceptionally egregious example of this, with how it makes almost no attempt to rehabilitate and just throws people out 20+ years on regardless of how society has changed or if whatever marketable skills they may have had are no longer marketable thus practically forcing them to turn to further criminality to survive, etc. This case is from NZ of course, and the defendant is again a woman so she's getting the good side of a powerful double standard which, perhaps, at least approaches the standard everyone should be considered under, but even so I must ponder at all this.

Given the muddied waters of what I'm saying I should note that this is NOT to be taken as an endorsement of flagrant law-breaking. Reform should, if at all possible at least, come in the form of reasoned public discourse and petition of a legitimate, preferably highly democratic and sensible, government. As for those aversely affected by the current policies, well... It isn't possible to make things immediately perfect for all, it's just a fact we have to live with.

[Tarchuna and Ravenna]

This is unrelated. However, I will still mention it.

I strongly believe that women should be mothers first and workers second. They were shaped by millions of years of evolution to do so. Anyone who says otherwise is either terribly misguided or deluded.

[Yirophia]

This is unrelated. However, I will still mention it.

I strongly believe that women should be mothers first and workers second. They were shaped by millions of years of evolution to do so. Anyone who says otherwise is either terribly misguided or deluded.

Now I for one would love to bear someone many children some day. That in mind, I disagree entirely all the same; it's simply not for every woman, and it's not even safe to say that our "nature" would insist on such; there may be some parallel to the "gay uncle theory" in the form of the "lesbian aunt theory" or more generally the "caretaker aunt theory" or what have you. Evolution is a clever thing in some ways (despite being frightfully dumb in others, it seems; looking at you, tooth gaps, why we can't just have one single long platform of tooth either side of the mouth or at least fewer of them I'm uncertain, but anyway....) Even if our nature did demand it, really, what good is nature inherently? Set aside this notion of what "nature" says we ought to be, and look instead to what we ourselves consider that we ought to be.

[Hirota]

This is unrelated. However, I will still mention it.

I strongly believe that women should be mothers first and workers second. They were shaped by millions of years of evolution to do so. Anyone who says otherwise is either terribly misguided or deluded.

Oh wow, a tradcon. We don't get many of them in these parts, and even fewer stick around.

Appeals to tradition are stupid. Just because something happened in the past doesn't mean that it is relevant in the future.

Put it another way. Lets apply this to another stupid appeal to tradition:

I strongly believe that humans should always keep their appendix. They were shaped by millions of years of evolution to have one. Anyone who says otherwise is either terribly misguided or deluded.

...Even though most consensus on the appendix is they are a holdover from an evolutionary past. We don't need them anymore.

And that's the same with your argument. You are citing a holdover from an evolutionary past and clinging to it when we simply don't need to. If women want to work or stay at home and raise kids they shouldn't be dictated to by ancient history as the sole arbiter of what is right or wrong.

[Ostroeuropa]

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... _treatment

Tl;dr, if you read on page 9

Although females outnumber males as victims of the most severe PV, female perpetration of severe violence is not a rare occurrence. In the US in 1998, 510 men were killed by their partners (as compared to 1,320 women, (Rennison, 2000) and in Canada in 2003, approximately 55 men were killed by their partners (as compared to 241 women, Statistics Canada, 2005). Similarly, there are large numbers of men who are severely assaulted and injured by their partner. Data from the National Crime Victimization Survey (Rennison, 2000) finds that annually, 60,000 men (and 900,000 women) are victims of severe PV and that between 1993 and 1998, 47,000 men were injured by their partner, 28,090 of whom received medical treatment. It is most often assumed that self-defense and battered women

And, the summary, on page 11

Summary The available evidence clearly indicates that there are many similarities in PV perpetrated by men and women. Major and credible studies suggest that women perpetrate physical attacks on male partners at the same or higher rates as men attack female partners and that motives for PV are generally parallel for men and women. Even when severe violence is considered, only a minority of cases fit a profile of self-defense or violence in response to intimate terrorism. Another substantial proportion of cases are better characterized as common couple violence or mutual violent control in which men as well as women are victims of severe violence at the hands of their partners. This being said, it is also clear that the adverse impact of PV is much greater for violence perpetrated by men: Male violence is substantially more likely to result in injury or death, and is more fear provoking.

So, my guess is: we focus on dv perpetrated by men more because they (a small group of the dv perpetrators) cause more severe bodily harm.

And yet the biggest predictor of a woman suffering an injury from DV is being violent herself and we've known this a while, so to tackle the actual problem the focus should be on women instead of, you know, focusing on men defending themselves and criminalizing them.

[Yirophia]

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... _treatment

Tl;dr, if you read on page 9



And, the summary, on page 11



So, my guess is: we focus on dv perpetrated by men more because they (a small group of the dv perpetrators) cause more severe bodily harm.

And yet the biggest predictor of a woman suffering an injury from DV is being violent herself and we've known this a while, so to tackle the actual problem the focus should be on women instead of, you know, focusing on men defending themselves and criminalizing them.

This goes far and away counter to pretty much everything I've ever heard on the subject. That doesn't mean it's wrong, but sources would be immensely appreciated.

[Hirota]

And yet the biggest predictor of a woman suffering an injury from DV is being violent herself and we've known this a while, so to tackle the actual problem the focus should be on women instead of, you know, focusing on men defending themselves and criminalizing them.

This goes far and away counter to pretty much everything I've ever heard on the subject. That doesn't mean it's wrong, but sources would be immensely appreciated.

Gallo is normally king on this kind of stuff:

However, most domestic violence is mutual (nearly 50%), and of the portion that's not, women are the violent partner 70% of the time:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854883/

Men are more likely to cause serious injuries and death, though.

And as that study mentions:

Reciprocity was associated with more frequent violence among women (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=2.3; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.9, 2., but not men (AOR=1.26; 95% CI=0.9, 1.7). Regarding injury, men were more likely to inflict injury than were women (AOR=1.3; 95% CI=1.1, 1.5), and reciprocal intimate partner violence was associated with greater injury than was nonreciprocal intimate partner violence regardless of the gender of the perpetrator (AOR=4.4; 95% CI=3.6, 5.5).

So if I'm reading this right, if most violence is shown to be mutual, and women are shown to be more likely to be more frequently violent in that group, and reciprocal intimate partner violence was associated with greater injury, then it stands to reason that the claim that there is a correlative relationship between women being more violent and women being injured isn't unreasonable.

I'm not convinced it's a casual relationship, but this should be looked at without gender biases coming into play. I'm referring there to how Erin Pizzey has been treated.

[Ostroeuropa]

And yet the biggest predictor of a woman suffering an injury from DV is being violent herself and we've known this a while, so to tackle the actual problem the focus should be on women instead of, you know, focusing on men defending themselves and criminalizing them.

This goes far and away counter to pretty much everything I've ever heard on the subject. That doesn't mean it's wrong, but sources would be immensely appreciated.

Example one:
https://medium.com/@AliShahrestani/exte ... baa4fbec9d

Example two:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/women-m ... e-1.261669

The reason the evidence was ignored is that it runs counter to feminist dogmas about patriarchy and the violent subjugation of women.

The metadata:
http://web.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

(So they took a look at over 200 studies and compiled the data into an overall point: The 200 studies show that women are as violent, or more violent than men.).

The frequency in terms of % of incidents relative to population of domestic violence scenarios is:

Reciprocal, Lesbian relationship.
Unilateral, Lesbian beating partner.
Reciprocal, Female initiated.
Unilateral, woman beating man.
Reciprocal, Male initiated.
Unilateral, Man beating woman.
Reciprocal, Gay relationship.
Unilateral, Gay relationship.

The more women in a domestic situation, the more likely it is to turn out violent. The chances of a domestic incident having been initiated by a woman are higher than them being started by a man.

In the case where one partner is beating another without that person defending themselves, more often than not, it is a woman doing so.

Again. These facts are ignored because they run counter to feminist dogma.


Here is the prediction factor:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/research ... t5ZcZrGBmJ


I.E, from the data you can conclude, that if a woman suffers physical injuries from a domestic violence incident, it is more likely than not she received them after having initiated a violent confrontation with her partner, up to a 67% chance. And yet due to feminist dogma and theories spamming society we act as though the exact opposite is true.

IPV researcher Deborah Capaldi, Ph.D., a social scientist at the Oregon Social Learning Center, finds that the best way for women to be safe is to not initiate violence against their male partners.

And yet the focus remains on men, because it's not really about DV or even about helping women, it's about hating men, rigging institutions to discriminate against them, and demonizing them in public consciousness.

+

Moreover, the study found that men's physical aggression changes significantly when they find a new partner. Instead of a man being either a batterer or not, often it was his female partner's violence or nonviolence which heavily influenced whether he would be violent to her.

Whereas, women who are """victims""" of violence tend to keep being """victims.""" and don't escape the cycle of abusive relationships. Guess why.

Because while the woman ditches the man to get a new partner, her level of violence *doesn't change* because she isn't being pressured into it to defend herself, she's simply a violent and abusive person. That means each relationship she enters she's going to keep assaulting her partner and it's a coin flip whether he fights back or doesn't. If he does fight back, the stats count her as a "Victim" again.

Also of note:

Dr. Capaldi believes that current IPV programs are putting women in harm's way. She says current batterer treatment programs are "ineffective... likely because they are not based on well-conducted research." She explains:

I.E, they're based on conspiracy theories and prejudice derived from feminist theory.

[Yirophia]

This goes far and away counter to pretty much everything I've ever heard on the subject. That doesn't mean it's wrong, but sources would be immensely appreciated.

Example one:
https://medium.com/@AliShahrestani/exte ... baa4fbec9d

Example two:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/women-m ... e-1.261669

The reason the evidence was ignored is that it runs counter to feminist dogmas about patriarchy and the violent subjugation of women.

The metadata:
http://web.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

(So they took a look at over 200 studies and compiled the data into an overall point: The 200 studies show that women are as violent, or more violent than men.).

The frequency in terms of % of incidents relative to population of domestic violence scenarios is:

Reciprocal, Lesbian relationship.
Unilateral, Lesbian beating partner.
Reciprocal, Female initiated.
Unilateral, woman beating man.
Reciprocal, Male initiated.
Unilateral, Man beating woman.
Reciprocal, Gay relationship.
Unilateral, Gay relationship.

The more women in a domestic situation, the more likely it is to turn out violent. The chances of a domestic incident having been initiated by a woman are higher than them being started by a man.

In the case where one partner is beating another without that person defending themselves, more often than not, it is a woman doing so.

Again. These facts are ignored because they run counter to feminist dogma.


Here is the prediction factor:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/research ... t5ZcZrGBmJ


I.E, from the data you can conclude, that if a woman suffers physical injuries from a domestic violence incident, it is more likely than not she received them after having initiated a violent confrontation with her partner, up to a 67% chance. And yet due to feminist dogma and theories spamming society we act as though the exact opposite is true.

IPV researcher Deborah Capaldi, Ph.D., a social scientist at the Oregon Social Learning Center, finds that the best way for women to be safe is to not initiate violence against their male partners.

And yet the focus remains on men, because it's not really about DV or even about helping women, it's about hating men.

+

Moreover, the study found that men's physical aggression changes significantly when they find a new partner. Instead of a man being either a batterer or not, often it was his female partner's violence or nonviolence which heavily influenced whether he would be violent to her.

Whereas, women who are """victims""" of violence tend to keep being """victims.""" and don't escape the cycle of abusive relationships. Guess why.

Because while the woman ditches the man to get a new partner, her level of violence *doesn't change* because she isn't being pressured into it to defend herself, she's simply a violent and abusive person. That means each relationship she enters she's going to keep assaulting her partner and it's a coin flip whether he fights back or doesn't. If he does fight back, the stats count her as a "Victim" again.

Also of note:

Dr. Capaldi believes that current IPV programs are putting women in harm's way. She says current batterer treatment programs are "ineffective... likely because they are not based on well-conducted research." She explains:

I.E, they're based on conspiracy theories and prejudice derived from feminist theory.

Right, well. I'll have to look over all of this in detail and dig down the rabbit hole some other time, really. Should probably get some sleep before I got to therapy later....

For now, though, could we perhaps take a stand, inasmuch as we can, and just say that feminism is, by definition, a political stance of wanting men and women to be equals, with the practical effect in basically every modern human culture, where the latter are historically even if not STILL institutionally oppressed, and still struggle with inequalities in treatment and expectations and so on, being largely in the form of seeking to empower women?

We can just as easily have other terms for the kinds of people you describe, and I do admit they exist and they muddy the waters, no small portion of them likely purposefully so. "Matriarchalists" and/or "man-haters" for instance. Conflating the two is damaging to the cause of this equality due to popular perceptions of a movement that is at its core and origin a good and just one that stands for that cause and giving all sorts of awful people against it no shortage of ammo. It's also just one defensive front in the apparent ongoing war against meaning and truth. These days there are idiots in modern western, liberal democracies that will tell you that all three descriptors of such societies are bad when they are pretty much literally the three best things.... Ever. (Note how I say three, defining "modern western" as one term aside "liberal" and "democracy" in the process; I am under no illusion that the west becoming so enlightened as it is today happened at the dawn of time or anywhere close to it for that matter, nor that the path to here was anything short of long and immensely painful. Nor do I have the fantasy that the current western world is perfect, it's just a whole damn lot better than any alternative that exists at the same time as it or ever before.)

[Ostroeuropa]

Right, well. I'll have to look over all of this in detail and dig down the rabbit hole some other time, really. Should probably get some sleep before I got to therapy later....

Okey doke.

For now, though, could we perhaps take a stand, inasmuch as we can, and just say that feminism is, by definition, a political stance of wanting men and women to be equals,

No, we can't do that, sorry. For the same reason classical liberalism isn't really universal human values because it ignores demographic issues and is centered on the european middle classes and what they perceive universalism as, feminism is not an egalitarian movement or philosophy, it is a gynocentric one and you can see this play out whenever institutions embrace it due to the misandry it inevitably causes.

Definitional fiat is not an appropriate response to people demanding the definition begin to reflect reality. There was a time when Imperialism meant civilizing other cultures and dragging them out of barbarianism.

It's a gynocentric movement and thus incapable of delivering equality. This is an observation made by Womanists too, who note that feminism is also highly centered on white womens interests, experience and perceptions instead of a genuine equality movement. Though the Womanists don't get enough of a clue to apply that insight to men too, they do reject feminism as a label as inappropriate for minority women on the grounds feminist ideology and theory is too riddled with eurocentrism to be of value.

with the practical effect in basically every modern human culture, where the latter are historically even if not STILL institutionally oppressed, and still struggle with inequalities in treatment and expectations and so on, being largely in the form of seeking to empower women?

Disagree. It's more about hating men than helping women as i've noted above and this isn't the only example of it. This is due to the malformed and dysfunctional ideology behind the movement and how it conflates """Fighting patriarchy""" with both liberating women and ending sexism.

We can just as easily have other terms for the kinds of people you describe, and I do admit they exist and they muddy the waters, no small portion of them likely purposefully so.

"These people I describe".

Dude.

The feminism you are thinking of is imaginary. When an institution is feminist, it is misandrist because the ideas put into practice are anti-male. Furthermore you run into the problem of feminist discourse being riddled with misandrist terminology and framing. You're some guy sat there talking about how "Not all imperialists" and how "Imperialism isn't bad it's just being mismanaged" rather than just admit it's a shitty idea and a shitty project. It doesn't matter if you don't personally support the massacres of natives in pursuit of empire, you don't properly understand that the mechanisms by which empire survives and thrives necessitate those massacres, and no amount of propaganda about how it's about "Civilizing the world" makes that true, even if you personally buy into it.

"Matriarchalists" and/or "man-haters" for instance.

No thanks, because in my view all feminists are contributing to the problem by legitimizing what has historically been an anti-male movement in practice.

Conflating the two is damaging to the cause of this equality due to popular perceptions of a movement that is at its core and origin a good and just one that stands for that cause and giving all sorts of awful people against it no shortage of ammo.

It's core and origin are not good. It is built upon epistemic injustice against men and the denial of misandry for around a hundred years, as well as gynocentrism and conspiracy theories about how sexism works.

It creates those openly awful people in much the same way stochastic terrorism works. Casual racism permeating through society creates open and hateful and explicit racists. Just like those "Good" (Bad) feminists you're talking about create the "Bad" (Worse) feminists. Your uncle might be a nice chap who wouldn't hurt a fly, but his constant shit about how mexicans are stealing our jobs and so on creates an environment where terrorism occurs. So it goes for feminists creating misandrists. Stochastic hatemongering:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_wolf_(terrorism)#Stochastic_terrorism

It's also just one defensive front in the apparent ongoing war against meaning and truth.

Sure, there's problems not caused by feminists as well as problems which are.

These days there are idiots in modern western, liberal democracies that will tell you that all three descriptors of such societies are bad when they are pretty much literally the three best things.... Ever. (Note how I say three, defining "modern western" as one term aside "liberal" and "democracy" in the process; I am under no illusion that the west becoming so enlightened as it is today happened at the dawn of time or anywhere close to it for that matter, nor that the path to here was anything short of long and immensely painful. Nor do I have the fantasy that the current western world is perfect, it's just a whole damn lot better than any alternative that exists at the same time as it or ever before.)

[/quote]

Not too sure about Liberal there buddy. Might want to read up on your history of Liberalism. Otherwise agree in sentiment.


So long as we're playing silly buggers with "Origins" and "Definitions" and being obtuse to context, here you go:

How about people who wave the confederate flag? I mean by definition it's just the flag of the southern nation, right? And that's as far as we need to look into the matter, right? No context surrounding that? We don't need to examine for instance what the people who came up with that and defined it as the southern nations flag... meant by a southern nation? Much like we don't need to examine what "feminists" meant by equality and whether it's desirable or even socially acceptable in terms of how they see it?

Sure some waving it might be alright, but it's still a symbol of hate because of the damage done by institutions using that symbol. Much like feminism as a label one adopts.

And when you evaluate feminist institutions and their policies, it's not a good look. It's a pretty terrible one actually given the range of anti-male policies enacted.

(Just three examples though there are many more; The Duluth model, entrenching the sentencing gap in the UK, due process violations.).

Calling yourself a feminist and not being a total raging cunt to men is still like waving a confederate flag around and refusing to accept you're doing something pretty racist, at the very least.

At the very least it demonstrates a lack of sufficient knowledge on mens issues, or a lack of sufficient empathy for those suffering from them.

And trust me, this "Very bestest least shite" kind of feminist?
They're extremely rare.

Most *think* they are this, but have their heads full of misandrist propaganda they repeat, such as lopsided rape statistics, which demonize men and erase their issues. The terminology of the movement is also misandrist, so it's like arguing you're not all a bunch of racists if you go around using words like kike and nigger all the time to describe Jews and Black people, despite those groups objecting.

(Self-demonstrating example: See the "Feminist subhumanity" problem; The majority of society understands the problem with terms like toxic masculinity. If we take the average level of this understanding as the human average, we can conclude that feminists are sub-human in their understanding and awareness. The problem of feminists being subhuman permeates their lexicon and behavior. Why are you so angry? You just don't understand the definition behind the term feminist subhuman. The fact i'm an academic who has created this term and defined it makes it beyond question that you are simply misinformed, instead of me demonizing you by utilizing institutional authority and playing word games.).

So at the very least, you've got some confederate flag waving person (Identifies as feminist) going around telling Kikes and Niggers they are his friends and he cares about them (Using feminist terminology.). Bonus points for the majority of them saying "I care about us getting along, and that's why we need to address the fact 90% of Murders are done by niggers." (Using faulty misandrist statistics they learned from the movement.).

But nah mate, that's obviously not a racist. I mean, they mean well, right? Can't judge them all because of the ones shooting up churches, that wouldn't be fair. They say they mean well! And anyway, lots of people behave that way. A wide range of diverse individuals, some of them are democrats, some republicans, some libertarians, some don't vote, and so on! They're not members of an organization or anything, so you're being unfair to them.

It's laughable how ridiculous the defences of the feminist movement are when you properly drill down to their behaviors.

That's not even going into how the foundational principles of feminism are to enact epistemic injustice against men by ruling out misandry as a topic of discussion, a state of affairs that lasted over 100 years before even *some* of them were forced to get a grip and even then they're still using concepts created which enforce epistemic injustice like "Patriarchy".

On the "Faulty misandrist statistics" point, you just demonstrated you suffer from this by not knowing the actual situation surrounding domestic violence. The reason you haven't heard this before and have only heard the opposite is you have joined a hate movement and they've filled your head with nonsense dude.

[Des-Bal]

Right, well. I'll have to look over all of this in detail and dig down the rabbit hole some other time, really. Should probably get some sleep before I got to therapy later....

For now, though, could we perhaps take a stand, inasmuch as we can, and just say that feminism is, by definition, a political stance of wanting men and women to be equals, with the practical effect in basically every modern human culture, where the latter are historically even if not STILL institutionally oppressed, and still struggle with inequalities in treatment and expectations and so on, being largely in the form of seeking to empower women?

We can just as easily have other terms for the kinds of people you describe, and I do admit they exist and they muddy the waters, no small portion of them likely purposefully so. "Matriarchalists" and/or "man-haters" for instance. Conflating the two is damaging to the cause of this equality due to popular perceptions of a movement that is at its core and origin a good and just one that stands for that cause and giving all sorts of awful people against it no shortage of ammo. It's also just one defensive front in the apparent ongoing war against meaning and truth. These days there are idiots in modern western, liberal democracies that will tell you that all three descriptors of such societies are bad when they are pretty much literally the three best things.... Ever. (Note how I say three, defining "modern western" as one term aside "liberal" and "democracy" in the process; I am under no illusion that the west becoming so enlightened as it is today happened at the dawn of time or anywhere close to it for that matter, nor that the path to here was anything short of long and immensely painful. Nor do I have the fantasy that the current western world is perfect, it's just a whole damn lot better than any alternative that exists at the same time as it or ever before.)

I think advancing women is the goal and that's clear in the way they behave and I do not think equality comes into play. When feminists talk about education they aren't interested in the fact that women and girls are over-represented in almost every area they want to talk about the few areas here that is not the case. When feminists talk about crime they're talking about the very few areas where women have things worse or more often almost as bad as men. The movement is at it's core, blind and stupid. It's entire framework makes incorrect assumptions so the entire beast gropes awkwardly in random directions that do not make people more equal and are destined to engender resentment and anger.

"Man-Haters" are a scapegoat so that whenever someone says "you're doing something stupid" feminists can respond "you're right we should purge the radicals, good thing they don't represent us." It was not a small minority that created the Duluth model of domestic violence, it's the whole shebang. Feminism is a bad thing, equality is good and they are not especially related. It's why people respond much more positively to equality than feminism.

[Thepeopl]

Begin 2007 maakte de Franse arbeidseconome Hélène Couprie de resultaten van een onderzoek bekend waaruit bleek dat wanneer Britse vrouwen in het huwelijk treden of gaan samenwonen hun huishoudelijke bezigheden met vijftig procent toenemen, terwijl die van de mannelijke wederhelft met negenentwintig procent afnemen. De mannen gaven als reden aan dat zij meenden dat vrouwen liever de controle over de huishouding willen, vrouwen zeiden zich eraan te ergeren dat mannen rommel niet opruimen.[4][5] In 2005 was de wekelijkse urenbelasting zorg en werk van vrouwen en mannen vanaf 25 jaar bijna gelijk: voor vrouwen 48 uur per week en voor mannen 49 uur.[6] Vrouwen besteden echter veel meer uren aan onbetaald werk zoals het huishouden, de zorg voor de kinderen en dergelijke, terwijl mannen meer tijd aan betaald werk spenderen. Bij jonge ouders met kinderen onder de vijf jaar is dat verschil het extreemst: vrouwen besteden 47 uur per week aan onbetaalde arbeid en 14 uur aan betaalde. Bij mannen is dat 23 en 39 uur.

Dutch again, hasn't been translated into English yet.

But the reason more women file for divorce in marriage .

Women in a marriage with children under 5 years spend 47 hours a week on unpaid work (household chores and caring for kids) and 14 hours on paid work.
While their men spend 23 hours on unpaid work and 39 on paid.

This was a french research on British families.

[Galloism]

Begin 2007 maakte de Franse arbeidseconome Hélène Couprie de resultaten van een onderzoek bekend waaruit bleek dat wanneer Britse vrouwen in het huwelijk treden of gaan samenwonen hun huishoudelijke bezigheden met vijftig procent toenemen, terwijl die van de mannelijke wederhelft met negenentwintig procent afnemen. De mannen gaven als reden aan dat zij meenden dat vrouwen liever de controle over de huishouding willen, vrouwen zeiden zich eraan te ergeren dat mannen rommel niet opruimen.[4][5] In 2005 was de wekelijkse urenbelasting zorg en werk van vrouwen en mannen vanaf 25 jaar bijna gelijk: voor vrouwen 48 uur per week en voor mannen 49 uur.[6] Vrouwen besteden echter veel meer uren aan onbetaald werk zoals het huishouden, de zorg voor de kinderen en dergelijke, terwijl mannen meer tijd aan betaald werk spenderen. Bij jonge ouders met kinderen onder de vijf jaar is dat verschil het extreemst: vrouwen besteden 47 uur per week aan onbetaalde arbeid en 14 uur aan betaalde. Bij mannen is dat 23 en 39 uur.

Dutch again, hasn't been translated into English yet.

But the reason more women file for divorce in marriage .

Women in a marriage with children under 5 years spend 47 hours a week on unpaid work (household chores and caring for kids) and 14 hours on paid work.
While their men spend 23 hours on unpaid work and 39 on paid.

This was a french research on British families.

So men work 62 hours per week to support the household while women work 61 hours per week to support the household? They need an extra hour to do every week so they spend one hour per week filing for divorce?

[Xeng He]

Begin 2007 maakte de Franse arbeidseconome Hélène Couprie de resultaten van een onderzoek bekend waaruit bleek dat wanneer Britse vrouwen in het huwelijk treden of gaan samenwonen hun huishoudelijke bezigheden met vijftig procent toenemen, terwijl die van de mannelijke wederhelft met negenentwintig procent afnemen. De mannen gaven als reden aan dat zij meenden dat vrouwen liever de controle over de huishouding willen, vrouwen zeiden zich eraan te ergeren dat mannen rommel niet opruimen.[4][5] In 2005 was de wekelijkse urenbelasting zorg en werk van vrouwen en mannen vanaf 25 jaar bijna gelijk: voor vrouwen 48 uur per week en voor mannen 49 uur.[6] Vrouwen besteden echter veel meer uren aan onbetaald werk zoals het huishouden, de zorg voor de kinderen en dergelijke, terwijl mannen meer tijd aan betaald werk spenderen. Bij jonge ouders met kinderen onder de vijf jaar is dat verschil het extreemst: vrouwen besteden 47 uur per week aan onbetaalde arbeid en 14 uur aan betaalde. Bij mannen is dat 23 en 39 uur.

Dutch again, hasn't been translated into English yet.

But the reason more women file for divorce in marriage .

Women in a marriage with children under 5 years spend 47 hours a week on unpaid work (household chores and caring for kids) and 14 hours on paid work.
While their men spend 23 hours on unpaid work and 39 on paid.

This was a french research on British families.

So men work 62 hours per week to support the household while women work 61 hours per week to support the household? They need an extra hour to do every week so they spend one hour per week filing for divorce?

I can see why women would want to be doing more paid work considering that paid is what has opportunities for advancement. You'd also have to see how it came about that women mostly stepped out of the workforce. Were these conversations they had, or automatic? Whose needs were more respected in the conversation, etc.

Ultimately we need more stay-at-home dad representation, that doesn't demean them.