UK Politics Thread VII: Wake me DUP inside [can't wake UUP]

[Imperializt Russia]

Let us briefly contend that there is a pro-women bias in discussion of social issues, that commands undue levels of resources in tackling issues specifically affecting women, compared to those impacting men.
The MRM is a movement which argues that pro-women causes do command an undue level of resources and influence, and the balance should be redressed.

Now I ask you two questions.
1) what of the suggestion that this undue level of resources and influence is due to two main factors - one, the historic (up to very recent times, even being charitable to some anti-feminist arguments that we are already in an equal or near-equal society) extent of mistreatment and sidelining of women and this being a direct response to try and counteract this historic imbalance as quickly as possible?
And two, that more women, even now, are harmed more significantly than men in similar but opposite scenarios?
Going off the rape debate from earlier, obviously not covering man-forced-to-penetrate since I don't know of those estimates, rape estimates in the UK are approximately 80,000 rapes of women, versus 12,000 rapes of men. I could be wrong, but I know that these are relatively old estimates, and the rapist in almost all of these cases will have been presumed to be a man penetrating either a man or a woman.

2) that by its very nature of construction, an MRM will be host to and attractive to groups of anti-feminist persons, who may hold views so far as to be literally anti-woman, to oppose what they see as undue attempts by women to leave the box shaped for them by historically male-led society? And of the merely anti-feminist variety, that many of these people will simply believe that women face no particular disadvantage, structural or institutional or otherwise, and that the resources they currently command should not only be distributed differently or resources for men brought up to parity, should actually be rolled back?
Whether this may be because they genuinely believe women suffer no disadvantage and therefore have no need of these resources, or because they may claim this in order to enact an agenda of maliciously removing these resources from them?

[Ostroeuropa]

Let us briefly contend that there is a pro-women bias in discussion of social issues, that commands undue levels of resources in tackling issues specifically affecting women, compared to those impacting men.
The MRM is a movement which argues that pro-women causes do command an undue level of resources and influence, and the balance should be redressed.

Now I ask you two questions.
1) what of the suggestion that this undue level of resources and influence is due to two main factors - one, the historic (up to very recent times, even being charitable to some anti-feminist arguments that we are already in an equal or near-equal society) extent of mistreatment and sidelining of women and this being a direct response to try and counteract this historic imbalance as quickly as possible?
And two, that more women, even now, are harmed more significantly than men in similar but opposite scenarios?
Going off the rape debate from earlier, obviously not covering man-forced-to-penetrate since I don't know of those estimates, rape estimates in the UK are approximately 80,000 rapes of women, versus 12,000 rapes of men. I could be wrong, but I know that these are relatively old estimates, and the rapist in almost all of these cases will have been presumed to be a man penetrating either a man or a woman.

2) that by its very nature of construction, an MRM will be host to and attractive to groups of anti-feminist persons, who may hold views so far as to be literally anti-woman, to oppose what they see as undue attempts by women to leave the box shaped for them by historically male-led society? And of the merely anti-feminist variety, that many of these people will simply believe that women face no particular disadvantage, structural or institutional or otherwise, and that the resources they currently command should not only be distributed differently or resources for men brought up to parity, should actually be rolled back?
Whether this may be because they genuinely believe women suffer no disadvantage and therefore have no need of these resources, or because they may claim this in order to enact an agenda of maliciously removing these resources from them?

1. History is no excuse for current policy, and if the trajectory and mindsets of feminist institutions are not fit for modern society, they should be swept aside. Current institutions seeking to fix past problems are themselves a problem. Moreover, the feminist framework overemphasizes the historical imbalance much like it does the present imbalance. The rape stats can be shown to be equal when you define them appropriately. Beyond that, as I noted, the current paradigm also victimizes women.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... or/503492/

...while it is often assumed that inmate-on-inmate sexual assault comprises men victimizing men, the survey found that women state prisoners were more than three times as likely to experience sexual victimization perpetrated by women inmates (13.7 percent) than were men to be victimized by other male inmates (4.2 percent) (Beck et al., 2013).

.
In addition, female prison staff are more likely to commit rape than male prison staff, against both men and women. (Though women are more likely to be raped by male prison staff, most prison staff are men.)

This is due, in my view, to women simply never having been criticized for predatory behavior in positions of power. The prevalence of women in teaching positions combined with this lack of criticism is one major reason for rape stats showing parity between the genders. Properly accounting for definitions, between 38 and 53% of rape victims are male (53 being some outlier studies, as are the 38.), with 80% of male victims being female perpetrators. Note the 80% number in the atlantic article, then times 12,000 by 5. That is within expected parameters. Beyond that, Gallo has noted that men tend to repress it more over time, and when accounting for THAT, it equalizes entirely to 50/50.

The fact the feminist paradigm on issues of rape victimizes women reveals the fundamental lie at the heart of the movement. It does not seek to elevate women, but rather, harm men, or at least, that is the result of its axioms being accepted as valid ways to interact with reality. That women end up more likely to be raped in some scenarios as a result of the overbearing focus on demonizing males is not relevant to them, as it is alien to their framework and how they perceive these issues.

Only MRAs recognize prison rape as a womens issue. It must be resolved at the same time as resolving the sentencing gap to prevent an epidemic.
The only reason it isn't talked about is women have privilege when it comes to arrest, conviction, and sentencing.
But take 10 women prisoners and 10 men, and the women are more likely to have been raped, by other women too.

2. The MRM is ideologically opposed to traditionalism at a fundamental level, a key part of the worldview is that history also disadvantaged most males either much more than is acknowledged, or even relative to women. Returning to that is not something an MRA can advocate. Tradcon is a slur used against those types. It is incoherent to propose that giving the MRM lobbying power would result in traditionalism, and suggests unfamiliarity with their discourse.
Rolling them back isn't an option in places where we also expect funding. Some measures would be rolled back. Alimony for instance is a sexist institution.
Moreover, this criticism of the MRM amounts to saying "You'll be exactly like the feminists have been and monopolize all funding and attention to males.", well, then feminists will be there to counterbalance us if that turns out to be an eventuality. Your argument for keeping MRAs out should also apply to feminists. If you accept it as true (Which I don't, we have given no indication that we support sexist policies and funding gaps, unlike the feminist movement, which blew its shot.), you should advocate neither feminism nor the MRM have power, or both.

[Ostroeuropa]

Basically; feminists tried to portray predatory sexuality as due to masculinity.
That was wrong. It's a human thing. It stems from both dysfunctional childhoods (The single biggest predictor of rapists for both genders is violent childhoods), and holding positions of authority over others providing means.

As a consequence, women in positions of authority and power over others may well be more likely to be sexual predators due to lack of exposure and criticism, and this disproportionately victimizes males, but also causes women to be victimized in situations where a woman holds power over them. The reason it's either almost equal or close to equal despite women holding less positions of authority, is lack of criticism. With the current numbers, if we assume we progress toward 50/50 division of power positions, women will be most rapists and most rape victims will be male soon enough, with women more likely to be raped by other women than men, as is the case in schools and prisons. Currently, the numbers are almost equal or close to equal as a result of female predators going unopposed and allowed to repeatably offend, as well as some male predators balking at the possible consequences, something female ones need not.

However, since once something has been up and declared by feminists to be due to masculinity they will never admit they were wrong (Since it would immediately beg the question, why did they prejudge that to be the case, it continues and remains unresolved.)

The same issue that plagued the duluth model plagues the feminist understanding of rape and sexuality, that being, that the feminist ideology is a series of assertions and negative stereotypes about men, not an accurate analysis of reality. This is why they have failed to accurately predict phenomanae in the areas of rape, domestic violence, etc with their theories.

When a theory cannot accurately model reality, we call it "Wrong."

[Imperializt Russia]

Basically; feminists tried to portray predatory sexuality as due to masculinity.

While I'm sure some feminist thinkers have (I'm saying "thinkers" because even "activists" let alone sympathisers who are wrong and ill-informed, are still wrong) made such claims - radicals especially - this is never the view I have personally arrived at, nor seen particularly widely put forwards (except as misinterpretation).

Predatory sexuality is not caused by masculinity - in the case of male abusers, their predatory sexuality may be caused by or influenced by masculine expectations and behaviours.

No, it is obviously not the sole cause of predatory sex offending behaviour and anyone who says it is is either dogmatic or dumb.

I feel bad for responding to this one line given the effort you did put into your response, but it is 11pm and I am already in my pyjamas.

I just felt that particular assertion did need challenging.

[Ostroeuropa]

Basically; feminists tried to portray predatory sexuality as due to masculinity.

While I'm sure some feminist thinkers have (I'm saying "thinkers" because even "activists" let alone sympathisers who are wrong and ill-informed, are still wrong) made such claims - radicals especially - this is never the view I have personally arrived at, nor seen particularly widely put forwards (except as misinterpretation).

Predatory sexuality is not caused by masculinity - in the case of male abusers, their predatory sexuality may be caused by or influenced by masculine expectations and behaviours.

No, it is obviously not the sole cause of predatory sex offending behaviour and anyone who says it is is either dogmatic or dumb.

I feel bad for responding to this one line given the effort you did put into your response, but it is 11pm and I am already in my pyjamas.

I just felt that particular assertion did need challenging.

No worries. I search my name sometimes if you want to bring it up later here or in the fem thread.
Specific to the UK, this issue is perpetuated by the aforementioned rape definition being wrong, but i suspect you'll want to go deeper into it and not tie to the UK.
I think the view is more widespread than you'd like to admit.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ding-women
+
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/25/opin ... inity.html
For example.

[Souseiseki]

Brexit SHOCK warning: Britain will be WORSE OFF out of the EU under ALL Brexit scenarios (express.co.uk)

hmm

that's a weird headline for the express

[The Blaatschapen]

Brexit SHOCK warning: Britain will be WORSE OFF out of the EU under ALL Brexit scenarios (express.co.uk)

hmm

that's a weird headline for the express

Worse off in economic terms it means.

Well, I could have told you that. Everybody could have.

[Souseiseki]

Brexit SHOCK warning: Britain will be WORSE OFF out of the EU under ALL Brexit scenarios (express.co.uk)

hmm

that's a weird headline for the express

Worse off in economic terms it means.

Well, I could have told you that. Everybody could have.

the problem is the SHOCK part, if they already knew it and are willing to accept it as part of their brexit at any costs it doesn't make sense they'd write it like that

[Souseiseki]

EU wa shock

[Ifreann]

Brexit SHOCK warning: Britain will be WORSE OFF out of the EU under ALL Brexit scenarios (express.co.uk)

hmm

that's a weird headline for the express

Worse off in economic terms it means.

Well, I could have told you that. Everybody could have.

Everybody did, as I recall.

[Salandriagado]

Yes it fucking does. Part 4 lays out the penalty for someone with a penis forcing someone with a vagina into having PIV sex: it is "imprisonment for life". Part 5 lays out the penalty for exactly the same action except with the owners of the penis swapped: it is "imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years". Last time I checked, "life" was oftentimes longer than "10 years".

(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section, if the activity caused involved—
(a)penetration of B’s anus or vagina,
(b)penetration of B’s mouth with a person’s penis,
(c)penetration of a person’s anus or vagina with a part of B’s body or by B with anything else, or
(d)penetration of a person’s mouth with B’s penis,is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

So yes, forcing someone else to penetrate you can net you a life sentence.

Oops, I got confused about who A and B were.

[Trumptonium]

express

SHOCK claim:

People do not solely vote on headline GDP figures.

Else there wouldn't be any left-wingers in this country. Like many on the left value human life over aggregate income, many on the right value freedom and sovereignty over aggregate income.

[Nioya]

Those DUP guys are really scary, am I right?

[Imperializt Russia]

the problem is the SHOCK part, if they already knew it and are willing to accept it as part of their brexit at any costs it doesn't make sense they'd write it like that

SHOCK claim:

People do not solely vote on headline GDP figures.

Else there wouldn't be any left-wingers in this country. Like many on the left value human life over aggregate income, many on the right value freedom and sovereignty over aggregate income.

The freedom and sovereignty to be personally exploited by commercial interests with no meaningful avenue for repercussions, that is.

I'm not even talking about "waah, surplus value is stolen wages" here, I'm talking about the basic end-point of a "free market". No choice for the consumers, only the corporations.

[Trumptonium]

SHOCK claim:

People do not solely vote on headline GDP figures.

Else there wouldn't be any left-wingers in this country. Like many on the left value human life over aggregate income, many on the right value freedom and sovereignty over aggregate income.

The freedom and sovereignty to be personally exploited by commercial interests with no meaningful avenue for repercussions, that is.

I'm not even talking about "waah, surplus value is stolen wages" here, I'm talking about the basic end-point of a "free market". No choice for the consumers, only the corporations.

I mean, that's a political choice. Not the default effect.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Those DUP guys are really scary, am I right?

They are cunts yes.

[Dumb Ideologies]

So yes, forcing someone else to penetrate you can net you a life sentence.

Oops, I got confused about who A and B were.

Don't blame you. This reads like the weirdest and creepiest set of self-assembly instructions.

[HMS Barham]

Let us briefly contend that there is a pro-women bias in discussion of social issues

Begging the question. Modern culture is virulently anti-woman in that most women want a stable marriage and children, something that feminism denies them. Ostroeuropa is anti-woman because he is a radical feminist.

[HMS Barham]

express

SHOCK claim:

People do not solely vote on headline GDP figures.

Else there wouldn't be any left-wingers in this country. Like many on the left value human life over aggregate income, many on the right value freedom and sovereignty over aggregate income.

Back in the day, leftism claimed to be the materialist faction, and claimed that their ideas would maximise the size of the economy, and argued that that was the main reason someone should be a leftist. It is not clear to me why anyone is still a leftist.

[HMS Barham]

Those DUP guys are really scary, am I right?

They want to drag us, kicking and screaming, back to 1995.

[Vassenor]

To the surprise of no one the Daily Mail is demonstrating its intense hatred of the concept of Parliamentary Sovereignty.

[Crysuko]

SHOCK claim:

People do not solely vote on headline GDP figures.

Else there wouldn't be any left-wingers in this country. Like many on the left value human life over aggregate income, many on the right value freedom and sovereignty over aggregate income.

Back in the day, leftism claimed to be the materialist faction, and claimed that their ideas would maximise the size of the economy, and argued that that was the main reason someone should be a leftist. It is not clear to me why anyone is still a leftist.

I'm a syndicalist which is a branch of leftism, and it makes me roll my eyes when people hammer on about the economy and nought else. The system I believe in dexribes the dissolving of the central government and end of production for exchange, governance happens on a council level and good are manufactured per need as opposed to per profit.

[Ostroeuropa]

Let us briefly contend that there is a pro-women bias in discussion of social issues

Begging the question. Modern culture is virulently anti-woman in that most women want a stable marriage and children, something that feminism denies them. Ostroeuropa is anti-woman because he is a radical feminist.

Congratulations.
This may be the spiciest post in the history of the forum, i'd wager it's something that literally nobody agrees and irritates everyone without a sense of humor.
It is fractal spiciness. At every conceivable resolution, it's a wind up. Let's count the ways this could wind someone up, even if you agree with some points.

1. Feminism is synonymous with anti-woman
2. Ostroeuropa is a radical feminist
3. Ostroeuropa is anti-woman
4. Modern culture is anti-woman
5. Most women want a stable marriage and children
6. Feminism denies women a stable marriage and children
7. Denying pro-woman bias

I am awed and humbled by it, and I simply have to put it into my sig, you are officially the first entry into the spicy posts hall of fame. We should all be proud of our country that this momumentous event happened in our thread. Three olypmics, the largest empire, and now this.

[Tananat]

Might also qualify as the most inaccurate post in history.

In other news, I'm pleasantly surprised that the tone taken by the Daily Mail is one of a disappointed school teacher rather than the rage and implied calls to violence over the Brexit rebellion one might've expected by that rag.

[Ostroeuropa]

Might also qualify as the most inaccurate post in history.

In other news, I'm pleasantly surprised that the tone taken by the Daily Mail is one of a disappointed school teacher rather than the rage and implied calls to violence over the Brexit rebellion one might've expected by that rag.

Maybe they had a bunch of investors shouting at Murdoch for actually pulling it off rather than merely brinkmanshipping it and have been told to tone it down.