The NationStates Feminist Thread III

[Corsahnim]

Isn't feminism supposed to stand for the EQUAL RIGHTS AND OPPORTUNITIES of both MEN AND WOMEN in society, rather than empowering one gender and forgetting the other, regardless of the advantages and disadvantages that such equality would have for either gender?

[Galloism]

Isn't feminism supposed to stand for the EQUAL RIGHTS AND OPPORTUNITIES of both MEN AND WOMEN in society, rather than empowering one gender and forgetting the other, regardless of the advantages and disadvantages that such equality would have for either gender?

It's complicated.

[Abruzzo e Sicilia]

Haha name jefff darn damiel back at it ahain with those orang nikes that everybidy likes

[Steelers0525]

Isn't feminism supposed to stand for the EQUAL RIGHTS AND OPPORTUNITIES of both MEN AND WOMEN in society, rather than empowering one gender and forgetting the other, regardless of the advantages and disadvantages that such equality would have for either gender?

I would hope so, however it is a very grey area I guess

[Donut section]

Apparently trump repeatedly refered to male victims during his thing on sexual assault.
(He always brought up both, but seperated children into its own category.)

He's not so bad sometimes you know. I think he's just a bit of a doofus

bit weird for someone with so many sexual assault allegations against him to campaign against sexual assault :/

Eh women throw out so many allegations against people they don't like especially politicians that's it's now just an extension of the "I have a boyfriend" meme.

[Costa Fierro]

Isn't feminism supposed to stand for the EQUAL RIGHTS AND OPPORTUNITIES of both MEN AND WOMEN in society, rather than empowering one gender and forgetting the other, regardless of the advantages and disadvantages that such equality would have for either gender?

Galloism said it's complicated. I'm saying that Third Wave feminism at least isn't about equality of opportunities but equality of outcomes, and to ensure those equal outcomes, women must receive more preferential treatment at the expense of men. That and the movement has an apparent love for outright misandry.

[The Williams Empire]

It seemed an innocuous enough speech delivered by Hillary Clinton during the 2017 MAKERS Conference.

"[I'm] proud to be a Maker, and proud to support Maker's Mission, to celebrate women's stories and to celebrate women's vital roles in the past, present, and future of our country. Despite all the challenges we face, I remain convinced that yes the future is female. Just look at the amazing energy we saw last month as women organized a march that galvanized millions of people all over our country and across the world. Now, more than ever, we need to stay focused on the theme of this year's conference. Be bold. We need strong women to step up and speak out. We need you to dare greatly and lead boldly," Clinton said in a message that was played for an audience at the opening of 'The 2017 MAKERS Conference'. "Please set an example for every woman and girl out there who is worried about what the future holds and wonders whether our rights opportunities and values will endure. And remember you are the heroes and history makers, the glass ceiling breakers of the future," Clinton said. 'MAKERS is a storytelling platform for the trailblazing women of today and tomorrow,' conference organizers say." (Sauce: Reuters)

The slogan, "The future is female", has been appropriated by various groups since the 1970s. It has even found its way into modern art, as in the case with Gaetano Pesce's 2006 mixed media piece by the same name.

(Image)
Gaetano Pesce, The Future is Female, 2006, Mixed media, 112x176cm

It's currently snowballing into controversy and social media fodder, however.

Hillary Clinton Draws Cheers and Criticism for ‘Future Is Female’ Line
by Mary Emily O'Hara (sauce)

"The future is female," Hillary Clinton announced in her latest speech, immediately setting off a passionate debate between her supporters and critics. But by using the phrase she also stepped into a virtual lesbian separatist history text — likely without having any clue about the story behind the slogan.

The former secretary of state and presidential candidate casually invoked the phrase in a video introducing this year's MAKERS Conference, an annual event hosted by AOL that brings together female leaders to create "a bold agenda," according to its website.

"Despite all the challenges we face, I remain convinced that yes, the future is female," said Clinton in the video. "Just look at the amazing energy we saw last month, as women organized a march that galvanized millions of people all over our country and across the world."

Clinton's use of the phrase sparked a flurry of passionate tweets from conservatives who cried sexism, while drawing praise from women's rights advocates — some of whom mocked the strong conservative outcry.

(Image)

The 1970's Revisited

If conservatives are upset now, wait until they find out that the phrase Clinton used actually grows out of 1970's lesbian separatist culture, and is enjoying a vibrant second life today.

"The Future is Female" became re-popularized in 2015 by the lesbian-owned lifestyle brand Otherwild, which started producing a line of t-shirts and other items featuring the phrase in stark lettering against a plain background.

Otherwild owner Rachel Berks told NBC News that she first came across "The Future is Female" on the Instagram account [url=https://www.instagram.com/h_e_r_s_t_o_r_y/?hl=en[/url], a lesbian culture archive. The Instagram account admin had posted an archival photo of 1970's lesbian folk singer Alix Dobkin wearing a t-shirt with the phrase emblazoned across the chest. The photo was taken by Dobkin's then-girlfriend, Liza Cowan, who told ID magazine in December 2015 that she identified as a lesbian separatist and that the slogan "The Future is Female" was a "call to arms" and an "invocation."

Kelly Rakowski, who oversees the popular Instagram account (and its over 70,000 followers), told NBC News that she sees the phrase as a "feminist declaration."

"It's pretty wild to hear Hillary Clinton drop 'The Future is Female'," said Rakowski. "I never thought that what I unearthed in the depths of the internet would be such a broad, cultural sensation."

Berks reissued the design and the t-shirts took off; Otherwild expanded into pins, prints, bags, and even "Future is Female" coffee mugs. Knockoffs began to circulate as well, with controversy following model [url=http://www.dailydot.com/irl/cara-delevingne-otherwild-future-is-feminist/]Cara Delevingne after she began to sell her own bootleg version of the t-shirt[/url] in violation of Berks' copyright in 2015.

Berks told NBC News it was "surreal" to hear the words come out of Clinton's mouth.

"It feels somewhat surreal to hear Hillary speaking these words, but is not surprising, given the current political climate and as female-identified bodies and rights remain under unrelenting attack," said Berks. "'The future is female' became a rallying cry throughout the course of the election, and most notably for me, after the election."

Berks also noted that Clinton mentioned the Women's March. Berks attended the march herself, waving a "future is female" flag, and said that she was "floored" by the number of marchers holding handmade "future is female" posters.

Sales of the t-shirts raise money for Planned Parenthood, with 25 percent of proceeds going to the embattled reproductive health organization.

The Otherwild owner said she isn't surprised by the conservative backlash to Clinton's use of the phrase.

"They want us without health care, without sliding-scale clinics like Planned Parenthood, they want to rescind the Violence Against Women Act," Berks said of the characteristic Trump-era Republican agenda.

Twitter conservatives also mocked "The Future is Female" for talking about gender at all, with the editors of VDARE (a blog focusing on "patriotic immigration reform") pretending to be shocked by such old-fashioned notions.

(Image)

Rakowski acknowledged criticisms of the phrase, but said that its meaning went beyond flat readings of "male" and "female."

"I think the word female can be less structured in this definition," Rakowski told NBC News. "Reading between the lines for me, it's really saying 'Smash the Patriarchy'."

So what exactly is the problem with the slogan?

I'm by no means a conservative. However, I can understand why some people, including some egalitarian feminists, see the slogan as exclusionary if not outright misandry. Sarah Begley summed it up nicely in her Aug 12, 2014 Time Magazine article, "Ironic Misandry: Why Feminists Pretending to Hate Men Isn't Funny".

"If a man wore a tee shirt that said “misogynist,” even if he were a dyed-in-the-wool feminist, wearing it tongue-in-cheek, it would not be funny. It would be misguided.

What feminists really hate is the patriarchy—the web of institutions that systemically oppress women. And to tear it down, we need as many allies as we can get. Telling half the population that we hate them, even in jest, is not the way to do that. Feminism is still very much engaged in the battle for hearts and minds; appealing to the sense of humor of a very small minority of the population can be a good way to alienate the rest. That’s not to say that feminists should water down their true demands and complaints to appeal to broader swaths of the population. Nevertheless, to get folks on your side, you need an an appealing message. Humor can help. But ironic misandry is just bad PR."

The particular slogan, "The Future is Female", isn't an attempt at irony or humor. The purpose of any political slogan is to provide a statement designed to resonate in the minds of the citizens that observe them in an effort to increase awareness of your cause while also clearly stating what you stand for. Many people, especially those unaware of the history behind it or the intent to use it to support a women's healthcare cause, assess this particular slogan at face value: the future does not include men, nor is it for men or boys. It is quickly becoming a radical feminist "Pepe meme" in the eyes of the uninformed, especially as it has been continuously associated with fanatical demonstrators. (These are the 10% of any group that get the most attention because they offer the most contentious representation of that group, thereby casting the entire group in a bad light. It's the Big Red Effect we fight so hard to counter.)

I don't think Clinton intended for this to spiral into chaos. I think this was a clueless misstep on her part. But what say you, NSG? Are people blowing this out of proportion? Do you see this slogan as exclusionary or sexist?

You do realize that liberals are the snowflakes right?

[Ostroeuropa]

1.

Men in the US have become more competitive with women since the 2016 election in negotiations according to a study.

The experiment's first simulation was conducted before the election (October), and researchers found that, in normal unstructured communication, men were less likely to use tough negotiation tactics when paired with female partners, and also that they were more likely to offer the higher reward of the game (the $15 payoff) to female partners.

The study writers and journalists reporting on it are framing it as:
"Men have become more aggressive against women since the 2016 election."

http://bigthink.com/usman-chohan/did-th ... -negotiate


What's hilarious about this is the particular game is zero sum.
(You and your opponent must both agree on who gets 15 bucks and who gets 5, or everyone leaves with 0.)

When the researchers repeated the simulation post-Election (late November), they found two important differences:

Individuals were less cooperative in general, more likely to use adversarial strategies, and less likely to reach an agreement
This was particularly driven by men acting more aggressively towards women

What's actually happened is a slight correction.
The amount of "Aggression" males displayed tripled, it shot from 10% to 30%. But it's still lower than male-male competition, which didn't change.

The journalists way of talking about that?

Male partners were much more likely to force the “hard commitment” on female partners, which in the simulation would be akin to saying “Here’s the $5, take it or leave it.” By contrast, there was no significant change in the level of aggression in male-male negotiation pairs.

Worth noting, going around male spaces talking about the study, the response is unanimous in agreeing it's due to the anti-male shit.

Also worth a double take?
Boys with sisters?
It's a predictor to being a republican voter.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... publicans/

They argue it's because gender roles and the boys grow up seeing girls do chores. No proof, ofcourse.

-----------------

2.

This one is also a spanner in the works.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/opin ... f-men.html

TL;DR

Some neuroscientists, some evolutionary psychologists etc, have come out to say that single parent households damage boys development more than girls, and the widespread broken family phenomena is one reason for large increases in the amount of mental health issues boys are displaying.

Beyond that, the researchers note:

The recent increase in dysfunctional behavior among non-college white men correlates with the substantial increase in the rate of white nonmarital births, up from 22.2 in 1993 to 35.7 percent in 2014. In 1965, the white nonmarital birthrate was 3.4 percent.

At the same time, the divorce rate for college graduates has declined from 34.8 percent among those born between 1950 and 1955 to 29.9 percent among those born between 1957 and 1964. In contrast, the divorce rate for those without college degrees increased over the same period from 44.3 percent to 50.6 percent.

In addition to this, it's noted that all of this is one predictor for domestically violent individuals.

Going further:

Starting day care at six weeks, Schore writes, is “the exact time of the initiation of the postnatal testosterone surge found only in males.” Schore notes that “research has documented that boys more so than girls raised in single-mother families show twice the rate of behavioral problems than do boys in two-parent families” and argues that a “mis-attuned insecure mother” can be “a source of considerable relational stress, especially when the immature male toddler is expressing high levels of dysregulated aggression or fear.”

...

the male infant’s attachment transactions with the father in the second year, when he is critically involved in not only androgen-controlled rough-and-tumble play but in facilitating the male (and female) toddler’s aggression regulation. This same period (18–24 months) involves the initiation of a critical period of growth in the left hemisphere, and so the “paternal attachment system” of father-son interactions would presumably forge an androgenic imprint in the toddler’s evolving left-brain circuits, including the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, allowing for his regulation of the male toddler’s testosterone-induced aggression.

Some other stuff too, but this one is pretty big imo. In combination with the refusal to countenance joint custody and lobbying against it, the case against feminism is pretty dire in my opinion.

Throw in the observations on white radicalization by Siyanda Mohutsiwa, that "Many of these radical white men were raised by single feminist mothers." and I think we're basically left with just waiting for the penny to drop.

Let's suppose for a moment there were a movement to put something in the water supply that had such catastrophic effects on a particular demographic.
I know, lead.

How much obstinate "Lead in the pipes is about availability of materials, not something sinister" would we put up with before we told these people "No".

[New Edom]

1.

Men in the US have become more competitive with women since the 2016 election in negotiations according to a study.

The experiment's first simulation was conducted before the election (October), and researchers found that, in normal unstructured communication, men were less likely to use tough negotiation tactics when paired with female partners, and also that they were more likely to offer the higher reward of the game (the $15 payoff) to female partners.

The study writers and journalists reporting on it are framing it as:
"Men have become more aggressive against women since the 2016 election."

http://bigthink.com/usman-chohan/did-th ... -negotiate


What's hilarious about this is the particular game is zero sum.
(You and your opponent must both agree on who gets 15 bucks and who gets 5, or everyone leaves with 0.)

When the researchers repeated the simulation post-Election (late November), they found two important differences:

Individuals were less cooperative in general, more likely to use adversarial strategies, and less likely to reach an agreement
This was particularly driven by men acting more aggressively towards women

What's actually happened is a slight correction.
The amount of "Aggression" males displayed tripled, it shot from 10% to 30%. But it's still lower than male-male competition, which didn't change.

The journalists way of talking about that?

Male partners were much more likely to force the “hard commitment” on female partners, which in the simulation would be akin to saying “Here’s the $5, take it or leave it.” By contrast, there was no significant change in the level of aggression in male-male negotiation pairs.

Worth noting, going around male spaces talking about the study, the response is unanimous in agreeing it's due to the anti-male shit.

Also worth a double take?
Boys with sisters?
It's a predictor to being a republican voter.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... publicans/

They argue it's because gender roles and the boys grow up seeing girls do chores. No proof, ofcourse.

-----------------

2.

This one is also a spanner in the works.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/opin ... f-men.html

TL;DR

Some neuroscientists, some evolutionary psychologists etc, have come out to say that single parent households damage boys development more than girls, and the widespread broken family phenomena is one reason for large increases in the amount of mental health issues boys are displaying.

Beyond that, the researchers note:

The recent increase in dysfunctional behavior among non-college white men correlates with the substantial increase in the rate of white nonmarital births, up from 22.2 in 1993 to 35.7 percent in 2014. In 1965, the white nonmarital birthrate was 3.4 percent.

At the same time, the divorce rate for college graduates has declined from 34.8 percent among those born between 1950 and 1955 to 29.9 percent among those born between 1957 and 1964. In contrast, the divorce rate for those without college degrees increased over the same period from 44.3 percent to 50.6 percent.

In addition to this, it's noted that all of this is one predictor for domestically violent individuals.

Going further:

Starting day care at six weeks, Schore writes, is “the exact time of the initiation of the postnatal testosterone surge found only in males.” Schore notes that “research has documented that boys more so than girls raised in single-mother families show twice the rate of behavioral problems than do boys in two-parent families” and argues that a “mis-attuned insecure mother” can be “a source of considerable relational stress, especially when the immature male toddler is expressing high levels of dysregulated aggression or fear.”

...

the male infant’s attachment transactions with the father in the second year, when he is critically involved in not only androgen-controlled rough-and-tumble play but in facilitating the male (and female) toddler’s aggression regulation. This same period (18–24 months) involves the initiation of a critical period of growth in the left hemisphere, and so the “paternal attachment system” of father-son interactions would presumably forge an androgenic imprint in the toddler’s evolving left-brain circuits, including the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, allowing for his regulation of the male toddler’s testosterone-induced aggression.

Some other stuff too, but this one is pretty big imo. In combination with the refusal to countenance joint custody and lobbying against it, the case against feminism is pretty dire in my opinion.

Throw in the observations on white radicalization by Siyanda Mohutsiwa, that "Many of these radical white men were raised by single feminist mothers." and I think we're basically left with just waiting for the penny to drop.

Let's suppose for a moment there were a movement to put something in the water supply that had such catastrophic effects on a particular demographic.
I know, lead.

How much obstinate "Lead in the pipes is about availability of materials, not something sinister" would we put up with before we told these people "No".

Interesting studies. So in a sense, really, it could be argued that feminists are to some extent aware of these possibilities but resist what their implications are preferring an ideological explanation.

[Ostroeuropa]

Interesting studies. So in a sense, really, it could be argued that feminists are to some extent aware of these possibilities but resist what their implications are preferring an ideological explanation.

I have no doubt that at least some feminists are aware and don't give a damn, viewing it as an opportunity for women to seize power. The destruction of the family unit is a major tenet in a lot of radical feminist discourse and these people hold influence.
Functionally, it is no different to deciding to poison part of the population in such a way as to give them brain damage.
These feminists are also the sort who would lie and obfuscate about it to con others, as they have in countless other ways on countless other issues for decades.

Some further feminists will fall for the con of tabula rasa that these misandrists have pushed. The "Male as default" thing is arguably projection from the feminist movement, as carefully observing will show you that in cases where men claim they don't work the same way or have different fears/needs/desires etc will always result in "Woman As Default" being the measuring stick. The mens differences are always rationalized away as stemming from sexism and how women work is asserted to be best and normal. This is how the social control element of feminism often manifests.

Not much different to just pumping boys full of hormones to make them more like girls and then wondering why we're suddenly burdened with millions of cases of gender dysphoria and body dysmorphia, then doubling down and saying it's because they didn't take enough, and obviously the way people "work" is to have this ratio of hormones. Someone started that lie, but it's still their fault for believing it after all the evidence is out.

Other feminists may recognize these problems, but I don't really see how that'd work and still be in keeping with the ideology. Presumably one could explain.
"Difference" feminism might do it enough.

[Jello Biafra]

In the majority of the western world it is illegal to be paid less for the same work, thus "the wadge gap" garbage being debunked.

In the majority of the western world murder is illegal, thus murder never occurs.

[Mattopilos II]

Isn't feminism supposed to stand for the EQUAL RIGHTS AND OPPORTUNITIES of both MEN AND WOMEN in society, rather than empowering one gender and forgetting the other, regardless of the advantages and disadvantages that such equality would have for either gender?

Well, yeah. And?

[Hirota]

Isn't feminism supposed to stand for the EQUAL RIGHTS AND OPPORTUNITIES of both MEN AND WOMEN in society, rather than empowering one gender and forgetting the other, regardless of the advantages and disadvantages that such equality would have for either gender?

Well, yeah. And?

And it would be good if a majority of the active militant remembered that.

[USS Monitor]

Haha name jefff darn damiel back at it ahain with those orang nikes that everybidy likes

Don't spam.

You do realize that liberals are the snowflakes right?

Unofficial warning for trolling.

Be careful with negative generalizations about broad groups like liberals or conservatives, as they can easily run afoul of the forum rules. For your reference, the complete rules can be found here.

[Proctopeo]

In the majority of the western world it is illegal to be paid less for the same work, thus "the wadge gap" garbage being debunked.

In the majority of the western world murder is illegal, thus murder never occurs.

Mmm, I love the smell of reductio ad absurdum in the morning.

[Tahar Joblis]

Why are women so afraid of male anger? asks the article.

The subtitle ends with it's become woven into our DNA. The argument, naturally, has nothing to do with some sort of biologically inherited factor predisposing women to be frightened when men are angry, but claims it is personally and/or culturally obtained by the experience of angry men becoming violent towards women ...

... completely ignoring the fact that angry men become violent towards men significantly more often.

If ... and that's a big if that the article doesn't even consider ... women are more often afraid of angry men than other men are ... then it doesn't have to do with greater experience, either on a personal level or some kind of class-collective level, of male violence.

It either really is related to hard-wired factors (which is not crazy - rats are more scared of male humans than female humans, the subtitle could easily be the most accurate part of the article) or is related to other social-cultural factors, like the fact that the article's author is a feminist and therefore her associates and related Twitter communications network disproportionately subscribe to an ideology that pushes negative stereotyping of men.

[Corsahnim]

Why are women so afraid of male anger? asks the article.

The subtitle ends with it's become woven into our DNA. The argument, naturally, has nothing to do with some sort of biologically inherited factor predisposing women to be frightened when men are angry, but claims it is personally and/or culturally obtained by the experience of angry men becoming violent towards women ...

... completely ignoring the fact that angry men become violent towards men significantly more often.

If ... and that's a big if that the article doesn't even consider ... women are more often afraid of angry men than other men are ... then it doesn't have to do with greater experience, either on a personal level or some kind of class-collective level, of male violence.

It either really is related to hard-wired factors (which is not crazy - rats are more scared of male humans than female humans, the subtitle could easily be the most accurate part of the article) or is related to other social-cultural factors, like the fact that the article's author is a feminist and therefore her associates and related Twitter communications network disproportionately subscribe to an ideology that pushes negative stereotyping of men.

I'm a guy and I'm truthfully more afraid of women beating on me, based on past experience.

Women can be just as violent as men.

[Giovenith]

Why are women so afraid of male anger? asks the article.

The subtitle ends with it's become woven into our DNA. The argument, naturally, has nothing to do with some sort of biologically inherited factor predisposing women to be frightened when men are angry, but claims it is personally and/or culturally obtained by the experience of angry men becoming violent towards women ...

... completely ignoring the fact that angry men become violent towards men significantly more often.

If ... and that's a big if that the article doesn't even consider ... women are more often afraid of angry men than other men are ... then it doesn't have to do with greater experience, either on a personal level or some kind of class-collective level, of male violence.

It either really is related to hard-wired factors (which is not crazy - rats are more scared of male humans than female humans, the subtitle could easily be the most accurate part of the article) or is related to other social-cultural factors, like the fact that the article's author is a feminist and therefore her associates and related Twitter communications network disproportionately subscribe to an ideology that pushes negative stereotyping of men.

I'm usually not afraid when most men become angry, and when I do, it generally has less to do with the fact that they're a man and more to do with either me knowing them well enough to consider their anger serious or them having some measure of authority over me (in which case I guess it's more fear of punishment than of the man himself), which would equally apply to when women of these two conditions get angry. Of course there's that part in the back of my head that says, "Well if a man completely snaps he could totally kick your ass," but then I remember that most people could kick my ass because I'm pretty shrimpy and not very aggressive, so that slight fear devolves into, "Oh well. I'll just have to endure and then press charges later." I fear being attacked like I fear choking or dying in a car crash. Could it happen? Sure. Is it going to happen? Eh, probably not, usually not if I try my best to have common sense.

Honestly, I think learning not to fear men is a huge step in actually viewing men as equals. Most women I see who are afraid of men are either A) Needlessly submissive to them, don't stick up for themselves and often get into abusive relationships, or B) Needlessly demonize them, believe that society needs to protect women from them and often subscribe to RadFem doctrines. The same thing can happen with sexism against women, though that usually doesn't revolve around fear of physical force so much as it does fear of them "brainwashing" men with their wily ways. Both forms come from turning the sexes into fantastical caricatures rather than viewing them as normal, boring people who by in large aren't capable of much harm.

[New Edom]

Why are women so afraid of male anger? asks the article.

The subtitle ends with it's become woven into our DNA. The argument, naturally, has nothing to do with some sort of biologically inherited factor predisposing women to be frightened when men are angry, but claims it is personally and/or culturally obtained by the experience of angry men becoming violent towards women ...

... completely ignoring the fact that angry men become violent towards men significantly more often.

If ... and that's a big if that the article doesn't even consider ... women are more often afraid of angry men than other men are ... then it doesn't have to do with greater experience, either on a personal level or some kind of class-collective level, of male violence.

It either really is related to hard-wired factors (which is not crazy - rats are more scared of male humans than female humans, the subtitle could easily be the most accurate part of the article) or is related to other social-cultural factors, like the fact that the article's author is a feminist and therefore her associates and related Twitter communications network disproportionately subscribe to an ideology that pushes negative stereotyping of men.

You know my observation from this, after reading the article itself, is that there's a huge culture shock almost no one really talks about. Women have entered the previously male areas of the work force in unprecedented numbers in little more than a century, and it seems naive ot me to expect that that's an easy thing to do and that it will not cause culture clash. In spite of the best efforts of some people to make it seem like it should be easy, men and women are different, and culture is an important part of that difference. This is a good example: women witness the anger of men they don't know well and are frightened.

What's foolish about this observation is that men are too. The difference is that men are constantly told that they need to be brave in the face of it and handle themselves well. One thing you almost never see in popular media is the notion that a smaller guy should not be able to defend himself in some manner from a larger guy. Part of why we admire Marty McFly in "Back to the Future" is that although he's a shorter skinny guy he's clever and agile at dealing with bullies. By contrast, any woman, even if she's an Olympic athlete, is beieved to be a victim the moment a man treats her unfairly or becomes angry with her, let alone actually getting physical.

This, to me, is culture clash. The earlier feminists were largely pioneers and trailblazers of change. The ones who came up in the 60s were protesting that they should be treated differently, and when they were welcomed into the work force--I say welcomed because overwhelmingly they have been--things didn't work the way they imagined. They found that in the masculine world different standards for beaviour exist. And they've been going on a fifty years plus campaign to change civilization to suit them, believing that because they are more comfortable with feminine culture they culture overall must entirely become feminine so that they feel safe.

The problem is that it doesn't work that way. A world with empirical external factors that impose the standards for behaviour require at times things like a stiff upper ip, physical courage, stubborn determination and a thick skin. It is clear that women are capaable of such things, so it seems to me that if women want to be part of public life they need to accept that. I think a lot of women who do go into professions requiring such traits do accept it, but unfortunately feminists are increasingly telling the world, and women and men, that it is not okay. It is pure decadence and foolishness that politica leaders listen to them.

[Mattopilos II]

In the majority of the western world murder is illegal, thus murder never occurs.

Mmm, I love the smell of reductio ad absurdum in the morning.

Well, it makes a good point - something written into law doesn't mean said thing is removed. That is the trap liberals seem to fall into.

[Mattopilos II]

Well, yeah. And?

And it would be good if a majority of the active militant remembered that.

Yes, yes it would. Geographic location I have noticed affects how they seem to act, so I guess it comes down to where they are that the attitudes are more or less... nuanced. Guess it depends where you tend to find feminist idols and that schtick, and what said idol "preaches".

[Jello Biafra]

Why are women so afraid of male anger? asks the article.

The subtitle ends with it's become woven into our DNA. The argument, naturally, has nothing to do with some sort of biologically inherited factor predisposing women to be frightened when men are angry, but claims it is personally and/or culturally obtained by the experience of angry men becoming violent towards women ...

... completely ignoring the fact that angry men become violent towards men significantly more often.

If ... and that's a big if that the article doesn't even consider ... women are more often afraid of angry men than other men are ... then it doesn't have to do with greater experience, either on a personal level or some kind of class-collective level, of male violence.

It either really is related to hard-wired factors (which is not crazy - rats are more scared of male humans than female humans, the subtitle could easily be the most accurate part of the article) or is related to other social-cultural factors, like the fact that the article's author is a feminist and therefore her associates and related Twitter communications network disproportionately subscribe to an ideology that pushes negative stereotyping of men.

Kind of stuck in the middle of the article was the quote "“Not every woman has been harmed by a man she trusted, but every woman KNOWS someone who has,”
Is it typical that when men are the victims of violence from men, they trust these men?

[Marado]

Why are women so afraid of male anger? asks the article.

The subtitle ends with it's become woven into our DNA. The argument, naturally, has nothing to do with some sort of biologically inherited factor predisposing women to be frightened when men are angry, but claims it is personally and/or culturally obtained by the experience of angry men becoming violent towards women ...

... completely ignoring the fact that angry men become violent towards men significantly more often.

If ... and that's a big if that the article doesn't even consider ... women are more often afraid of angry men than other men are ... then it doesn't have to do with greater experience, either on a personal level or some kind of class-collective level, of male violence.

It either really is related to hard-wired factors (which is not crazy - rats are more scared of male humans than female humans, the subtitle could easily be the most accurate part of the article) or is related to other social-cultural factors, like the fact that the article's author is a feminist and therefore her associates and related Twitter communications network disproportionately subscribe to an ideology that pushes negative stereotyping of men.

Kind of stuck in the middle of the article was the quote "“Not every woman has been harmed by a man she trusted, but every woman KNOWS someone who has,”
Is it typical that when men are the victims of violence from men, they trust these men?

Of course not.

[Des-Bal]

Kind of stuck in the middle of the article was the quote "“Not every woman has been harmed by a man she trusted, but every woman KNOWS someone who has,”
Is it typical that when men are the victims of violence from men, they trust these men?

1. It's entirely possible that in the history of the world some man involved with drugs has not been robbed or beaten by someone they considered a friend but I can't attest to ever hearing of it.
2. What are we calling trust? If we're talking about the context of sexual relationships then no, because most men don't have sexual relationships with other men and you're picking at a point that doesn't amount to much.

[Marado]

Kind of stuck in the middle of the article was the quote "“Not every woman has been harmed by a man she trusted, but every woman KNOWS someone who has,”
Is it typical that when men are the victims of violence from men, they trust these men?

1. It's entirely possible that in the history of the world some man involved with drugs has not been robbed or beaten by someone they considered a friend but I can't attest to ever hearing of it.
2. What are we calling trust? If we're talking about the context of sexual relationships then no, because most men don't have sexual relationships with other men and you're picking at a point that doesn't amount to much.

Number two was a bit off. It's not very common, anyways.