The NationStates Feminism Thread IV: Fight Like A Girl!

[Celritannia]

Depends on what you mean by feminism as an ideology. There will be differences between what people think about feminism, just as there will be people who think there are differences with what people mean by MRAs, or liberals, or communist or (insert group here).

There are things feminism does well, and there are things feminism doesn't do well. Same with MRAs.
But the bother causes of any group tend to be the loudest and put the rest of the group in a sour look.

As a governing ideology currently practiced in society and actually imposed, rather than purely imaginary.

You know. Real feminism. That feminism. Sig comes in handy:

The feminism that only exists in feminists heads is real, and the feminism that impacts society isn't real.

I'm not interested in capitalists waffling to me about how "real capitalism" works either and going glassy eyed about trickle down economics, no matter how much theory entirely divorced from reality they use to justify their predictions. Likewise i'm not interested in the platonic-essence interpretation of feminism plenty of feminists believe in rather than accept the reality of their ideology and how it actually works.

I question that quote tbqh.
I don't find it useful and tends to attack aspects of feminism that are indeed helpful. Whether you agree to that is up to you, but there are still genuine problems that women face.
Just as there are genuine problems men face.
Both groups have their place, both groups have legitimate concerns, and both groups have toxic parts to them. Just like any group.
Tribalism is indeed a dangerous thing, but it's what humanity seems to like.

"Plenty of X", a quote that focuses on generalisation.

[Ostroeuropa]

As a governing ideology currently practiced in society and actually imposed, rather than purely imaginary.

You know. Real feminism. That feminism. Sig comes in handy:

I'm not interested in capitalists waffling to me about how "real capitalism" works either and going glassy eyed about trickle down economics, no matter how much theory entirely divorced from reality they use to justify their predictions. Likewise i'm not interested in the platonic-essence interpretation of feminism plenty of feminists believe in rather than accept the reality of their ideology and how it actually works.

I question that quote tbqh.
I don't find it useful and tends to attack aspects of feminism that are indeed helpful. Whether you agree to that is up to you, but there are still genuine problems that women face.
Just as there are genuine problems men face.
Both groups have their place, both groups have legitimate concerns, and both groups have toxic parts to them. Just like any group.
Tribalism is indeed a dangerous thing, but it's what humanity seems to like.

"Plenty of X", a quote that focuses on generalisation.

There being problems women face won't get disagreement from me. I don't see how feminism is an appropriate mechanism to resolve those issues given the impact it has on men, especially as it often times cannot even solve the issues women face.

If we're drilling down to "Aspects" now then we're drifting further and further from feminism being a defensible position. "Aspects" of all ideologies can be defensible, and often crop up across the political spectrum. There's "Aspects" of fascism that are helpful in many goals. Why specifically is *this combination* of aspects defensible? I'm sure I can agree with you that some particular axioms and thoughts produced by feminism are at the very least benign. I don't object to those being taken and then used in some other form, absent the elements that poison the ideology. I've even argued the necessity for a WRA plenty of times.

"Plenty" is not a generalization dude. It's a meaningless "More than a few" you can read as much or little into as you like. I even used it again talking about myself, if you doubt that. I agree with you that tribalism can be toxic and is a problem facing our society. But I think we have very different ideas on where the current epidemic on it comes from, probably.

[Celritannia]

I question that quote tbqh.
I don't find it useful and tends to attack aspects of feminism that are indeed helpful. Whether you agree to that is up to you, but there are still genuine problems that women face.
Just as there are genuine problems men face.
Both groups have their place, both groups have legitimate concerns, and both groups have toxic parts to them. Just like any group.
Tribalism is indeed a dangerous thing, but it's what humanity seems to like.

"Plenty of X", a quote that focuses on generalisation.

There being problems women face won't get disagreement from me. I don't see how feminism is an appropriate mechanism to resolve those issues given the impact it has on men, especially as it often times cannot even solve the issues women face.

If we're drilling down to "Aspects" now then we're drifting further and further from feminism being a defensible position. "Aspects" of all ideologies can be defensible, and often crop up across the political spectrum. There's "Aspects" of fascism that are helpful in many goals. Why specifically is *this combination* of aspects defensible? I'm sure I can agree with you that some particular axioms and thoughts produced by feminism are at the very least benign. I don't object to those being taken and then used in some other form, absent the elements that poison the ideology. I've even argued the necessity for a WRA plenty of times.

"Plenty" is not a generalization dude. It's a meaningless "More than a few" you can read as much or little into as you like.

Of course you won't see it as an appropriate mechanism. You have a vendetta against them, and that's all you see.

You continue believing what you want to believe I guess.

[Ostroeuropa]

There being problems women face won't get disagreement from me. I don't see how feminism is an appropriate mechanism to resolve those issues given the impact it has on men, especially as it often times cannot even solve the issues women face.

If we're drilling down to "Aspects" now then we're drifting further and further from feminism being a defensible position. "Aspects" of all ideologies can be defensible, and often crop up across the political spectrum. There's "Aspects" of fascism that are helpful in many goals. Why specifically is *this combination* of aspects defensible? I'm sure I can agree with you that some particular axioms and thoughts produced by feminism are at the very least benign. I don't object to those being taken and then used in some other form, absent the elements that poison the ideology. I've even argued the necessity for a WRA plenty of times.

"Plenty" is not a generalization dude. It's a meaningless "More than a few" you can read as much or little into as you like.

Of course you won't see it as an appropriate mechanism. You have a vendetta against them, and that's all you see.

You continue believing what you want to believe I guess.

I've argued for why it is not an appropriate mechanism a number of times. It goes beyond me simply declaring it inappropriate because I don't like them. It's less about me wanting to believe it, and more about nobody being able to provide a convincing alternative that I don't immediately see a bunch of problems with. Have a good day Celrit.

[Celritannia]

Of course you won't see it as an appropriate mechanism. You have a vendetta against them, and that's all you see.

You continue believing what you want to believe I guess.

I've argued for why it is not an appropriate mechanism a number of times.

Same can be said for any group, tbf.

[Sundiata]

I oppose supremacists, be they gender/sexual, race, religion, whatever.

Could you outline why you believe the MRM to be supremacist?

Men are historically advantaged when compared to women. A men's movement makes sense in the context of maintaining or regaining that privilege.

[Celritannia]

Could you outline why you believe the MRM to be supremacist?

Men are historically advantaged when compared to women. A men's movement makes sense in the context of maintaining or regaining that privilege.

So men should always be superior to women?
How about have them equal?

[Ostroeuropa]

Could you outline why you believe the MRM to be supremacist?

Men are historically advantaged when compared to women. A men's movement makes sense in the context of maintaining or regaining that privilege.

This presumes a monolithic advantage in all places, times, and contexts. Is that your position? If so, it is questionable. If on the other hand you think that we can never use hammer because not everything is a nail, and thus anyone who owns a hammer can only possibly need it to bash someones skull in, that is also questionable.

Unless there's something i'm missing here, you seem to have a position I would regard as absurd.

So, do you think that there exists a context in which men are disadvantaged relative to women in that specific instance?

[Hirota]

Alright. What evidence do you have for these claims?

https://fstdt.com/F656
https://fstdt.com/W5L5
https://fstdt.com/RH65
https://fstdt.com/V9T5

I saw a random person on the internet claim something horrible about you.

Which obviously, because that's your (rather abysmally low) standard for evidence of fact, must be absolutely true.

[Crysuko]

https://fstdt.com/F656
https://fstdt.com/W5L5
https://fstdt.com/RH65
https://fstdt.com/V9T5

I saw a random person on the internet claim something horrible about you.

Which obviously, because that's your (rather abysmally low) standard for evidence of fact, must be absolutely true.

those are mere samples, there's an entire category which you ignored on your way to a low effort Zing.

[Sundiata]

So men should always be superior to women?

Is this a genuine question? I don't understand, I'm steering towards the direction of "no," but I'm not sure what you're asking exactly.

How about have them equal?

Well, as far as the basic human rights go, sure. However, I do think that fathers and mothers should have unique legal protections that pertain to their status. Husbands and wives too. Men and women? Maybe.

[Hirota]

I saw a random person on the internet claim something horrible about you.

Which obviously, because that's your (rather abysmally low) standard for evidence of fact, must be absolutely true.

those are mere samples, there's an entire category which you ignored on your way to a low effort Zing.

An even larger pile of dogshit remains a pile of dogshit. All you've done is brought four little nugs of dogshit.

[Crysuko]

those are mere samples, there's an entire category which you ignored on your way to a low effort Zing.

An even larger pile of dogshit remains a pile of dogshit. All you've done is brought four little nugs of dogshit.

So you’re just mudslinging. To the ignore list with you.

[Hirota]

An even larger pile of dogshit remains a pile of dogshit. All you've done is brought four little nugs of dogshit.

So you’re just mudslinging. To the ignore list with you.

<shakes head>

The point I'm making is that relying on any bunch of random people to inform your worldviews reflects more upon you than upon the group they are talking about. What makes these random group of people credible as an authority on the behaviour of another group of people?

You've not provided evidence, you've provided other peoples opinions. Maybe their opinions are well formed for good reasons based upon first hand experiences, yours thus far demonstrates nothing more than turd.

Alas, being blocked by someone with no apparent ability to coherently form their own opinions? I'm simply devastated.

[Celritannia]

So men should always be superior to women?

Is this a genuine question? I don't understand, I'm steering towards the direction of "no," but I'm not sure what you're asking exactly.

How about have them equal?

Well, as far as the basic human rights go, sure. However, I do think that fathers and mothers should have unique legal protections that pertain to their status. Husbands and wives too. Men and women? Maybe.

Of course, men and women should be equal as should husbands and wives.

[Galloism]

I'm going to regroup a couple things, lest anyone accuse me of editing his quote. It's just to group like things together.

5. sorry, this is retarded, and bear with me for a moment as i get Class Reductionist - the whole issue with this boils down to class issues, no disenfranchisement is caused by being a man, minority men are simply most commonly lower-class and the lower-class is the most likely to be unable to fulfill whatever measures are required by disenfranchising laws. im sure you can come up with some oppression narrative for that but if u magically took every one of the men who gets disenfranchised by these voter id laws and retroactively made them women while changing nothing else literally nothing would be different about it.
14. i'm going to victim blame here, honestly i think part of the blame is on men for this and some of the other law enforcement stuff you're up in arms about. men often intentionally try to present themselves as threats in ways that women simply don't, and also just commit more crimes. i guess u shouldn't stereotype but that's sort of what you have to do in on-the-spot life-or-death evaluations, from my understanding (ur the former cop though so if u say im wrong on that ill accept it). like, tranquilizations of lions vs. house cats, obviously lions are going to win even if half the time the lion wasn't actually doing any harm. because lions r simply more likely to do serious harm on average.
26. like the disenfranchisement thing this really has absolutely nothing to do with being male at all whatsoever like absolutely it should be ended but it also isn't oppression against men, it's oppression which primarily men happen to experience due to another common factor. these are two different things and it seems like u have trouble distinguishing those.

All of these items are related to criminal justice. When I was talking about voter suppression for [5], I was talking about voter suppression against men because they are men, which takes the form of felon disenfranchisement laws. Keep in mind, while this was intended to hit black men in particular (there's a very good documentary on how when we struck down grandfather clauses and vote tests a lot of misdemeanors got upgraded to felonies so we could keep disenfranchising the same group), it also hits men as a class in particular, to the point women have the majority of political power and have for decades.

For #14, you aren't wrong there's stereotyping at play. I made comment on this before:

The police do shoot more unarmed black men than unarmed white men. The question is does this happen because these cops are just racists out looking to kill black people or is there something else behind it?

Here is my theory. My theory is that the reason police shoot more unarmed black men is because they know they can get away with it. They know that the family is too poor to afford a lawyer and society will back them and not care about it, so they do it. They may be racists or they may just be total assholes who just wanted to fuck with someone or who got their ego hurt and wanted to "teach someone a lesson." But under my theory, while police brutality disproprionately affects black people as a group, the correlation between being black and police shooting you isn't direct. Alot of the problem is socioeconomic. The police aren't gonna be as quick to shoot a kid of any race in a place like Hyde Park because it's an upper middle class neighborhood and a police shooting would likely bring the full wrath of the people there (who have actual political and economic power) down on them. But let's say the police go to a trailer park that is mostly white. I think that just like in a poor black neighborhood, the police really wouldn't have qualms about killing someone in a trailer park or in Philadelphia's fishtown neighborhood because they know the response will be awfully similar. Along the lines of "who cares? It's a shithole neighborhood and the guy they shot was probably a bum and a criminal thug anyhow." We gotta stop police brutality, but we shouldn't simplify it to "it's just cops shooting black people cause they're black."

I like randomly accusing broad classes of people of sociopathy as much as the next everyone, but having been in law enforcement, let me shine a light on it.

There’s an informal “threat matrix” in human minds - all human minds. Try to imagine it as a number line, where at 1 you can fall asleep in their presence, and at 10 you shoot them.

Now, when you approach a car, or gathering, or something, you very quickly and, based on your own biases, create an “initial threat value”.

Let’s say it’s a group of white women - 3
A group of black women - 5
A group of white men - 7
A group of black men - 8

An action is taken that could be threatening. Reaching into a pocket, glove box, taking a confident step toward you, something. Whatever it is, you add +2 to your initial threat matrix.

The white women you ask them to stop (5).
The black women you threaten them they must stop (7).
The white men you shove up against the wall, unstrap your gun, grab your taser, etc (9)
The black men you pull your sidearm (10).

And this is how men and black men in particular get shot so much.

The problem is, this type of stereotyping is wrong. You should not do a threat matrix based on race or sex, but based on the situation. But the human mind takes a lot of shortcuts, and some of them are deeply inappropriate.

Regarding the last item which is slavery of men, the biggest "common factor" is that men are more likely to be arrested, convicted, and sentenced for the same crimes as women, and serve longer sentences once there (extending their slavery). We need to correct this.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=2144002

8. sure! but keep in mind that birth control equality also means men and women should be sharing about the same amount of the burden in the birth control process, so you'd better be prepared to also start having to take pills that completely wreck your natural hormones juuuust like women have to. equality ain't all picnics and, uh, uncircumcised kids? that seems to be what you want, yeah?

Yes. Unironically. Because then men would be in control of their own reproduction. How much worse would women's life be without the pill? Same thing.

11. school to prison pipeline would be a good name for a band

True, but it's also a real thing.

15. ummmm could we maybe encourage parents to not beat any of their children? because the way u worded this leaves an enormous awful gaping loophole

I agree, but keep in mind, this is a men's issue primarily, and children are not beaten equally at all. Boys are beaten much much more than girls.

17. so true #EnsureZeroEmpathyFromDay1 #YourMurderIsNotMyProblem

The alternative is to teach women to put their own lives on the line for strange men they don't know, because by and large this doesn't happen now. Granted, I agree that would be a better result, but efforts in this regard have fallen flat, so it's time you at least stop giving if all you're going to get is nothing back.

23. i have never heard of this being a large scale phenomenon outside of abusive relationships, are you sure this is a thing. it seems very counterintuitive to me - like, personally, i certainly don't intend to do that when/if i get married. in fact, i'd much rather my husband have male friends than not, cuz i do Not want to have to listen to facts about sports or whatever male hobby he might be into. i'm fairly certain most women would share that perspective.

It's not that it's deliberate, mind you. It's that the spouse and marriage tend to squeeze more and more time out of the husband's schedule, and eventually the friendships get squeezed out. There's also a factor that men tend not to be able to maintain friendships very well over the phone as a statistical trend, and that men need to "do" things to socialize generally speaking, not just sit and talk.

It's not a scientific study, but here's an article from a reporter on the subject:

https://lithub.com/why-middle-aged-men- ... iendships/

27. sure yep i have never heard about that but absolutely shouldnt be the case

I read an article about it sometime back. It was interviewing a local who was treating war rape victims, and how she works and gets paid by some of these UN orgs when she helps women who are victims of war rape - which she estimated was about 60% of women that she helped with her org. Then she works for free for two days a week to help the men. All the men she treated were victims of war rape. The reporter was incredulous and said "all of the men?" and she responded "ALL of the men."

That stuck with me.

30. im very glad you brought this up because i actually have a massive vendetta against psychology and psychiatry. i've got general criticisms up the wazoo and, incidentally, i also feel like a couple aspects of the fields are detrimental to women's rights - i've written a whole article about this, actually. my criticisms are mostly focused on diagnoses and attempts at medical treatment for psychological problems, though, and i haven't though a whole lot about therapy, but i do think you raise a valid point there, so i may add that to my repertoire of Arguments Against Psychology.
31. ehhh i think thats sort of true but also it depends on what they're seeking help for. mental/neurological diseases that result from Doing something aren't stigmatized for men, like nobody's going to criticize a veteran for getting help for PTSD. it's more diseases that are considered Nuisances which dont contribute from anything and dont have any real origin like depression and anxiety that it's stigmatized. now i do think it's a problem that that's stigmatized for men and not for women, because anxiety and depression should be stigmatized for both genders actually. simply go outside and lift a weight or drink some chamomile tea (btw i'm allowed to say this because i'm diagnosed with both major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder yet i keep them in Check most of the time because im not a Loser).

So, I'm not really thinking we should throw out the baby with the bathwater on psychology/psychiatry. There's significant things that they have done for many people.

That being said, well... I have criticisms.

It is comparable. The idea that men don't seek help is one based on the idea that were they to seek it, it would be beneficial, rather than them learning over the course of their lives that the help is not geared for their needs and will not treat them equally.

Btw, as a man who was raped by a woman, and was told by two separate psychiatrists that “as a man” I needed to “take responsibility” for “my part” in being raped before I could “come to terms” with it, I found that the help was not beneficial.

Yeah.

Incidentally, this is a really common scenario. As a person who has worked with a number of male domestic violence victims after I discovered this stuff, I'll tell you right now this is a really common scenario.

well aware of that. that's precisely why i picked it. you took that juicy delicious bait and swallowed it hook, line, and sinker!

So, as you hit on, it's not a lie. It is of course self serving and lacks nuance, and she's using it in order to further her abuse by isolating him from his friends. Most domestic violence situations are mutual (as in, different spouses are the violent aggressor at different times). Now, you didn't specify whether he hit her back in self defense (Ie, she hit him and he hit her right back) or if it was sometime later it got to him and he hit her while she wasn't hitting him at the time (aggressor at that moment).

It's not right for her to use this as a method to isolate him from his friends and further her abuse, if that's the question.

i think you're approaching this from more of an analytical/legal perspective rather than an ethical one, which i probably should have anticipated. i was hoping more for the latter, but i'll work with it.

so then, let's recap in more general terms. given a party A which has consistently and over a long period of time abused a party B in multiple ways and party B having abused back in at least one relatively smaller incident following a long period of exposure to party A's abuse, for party A to claim party B was the primary aggressor while omitting details about the overall context of the situation in order to weaken the trust of party B's support system in party B and continue the pattern of abuse is in general unethical, though party B's action may or may not have been appropriate.

i'm very glad we seem to agree on this principle; this axiom is in fact an easy (if somewhat contrived) means of demonstrating the ethical problem with the arguments you and other MRAs propagate, party A being {men} as a general unit represented by any arbitrary man to which the relevant conditions apply and party B being {women} as a general unit represented by any arbitrary woman to which the relevant conditions apply; B's support system would of course be all those concerned with the well-being of the women around them. thus:
given men, a party which has consistently and over a long period of time abused women in multiple ways and any arbitrary woman having abused back in at least one relatively incident following a long period of exposure to male-perpetrated abuse, for any arbitrary man to claim women or any arbitrary woman are or is the primary aggressor while omitting details about the overall context of the situation in order to weaken the trust of those concerned with the well-being of the women around them in women and continue the pattern of abuse is in general unethical, though any arbitrary woman's action may or may not have been appropriate.

now of course, you may always invalidate the original axiom and fix this whole logical conundrum if you'd simply like to say that the female abuser actually wasn't in the wrong. i would LOVE to hear you say that.

So, this fails on two grounds.

1) You are applying a individualist situation into a group dynamic. This creates an apples to oranges comparison between two different types of problems.
2) Your supposition that this is a scenario that applies to the group dynamics in question is ALSO wrong and ahistorical.

To wit: women and have been beating their husbands and men beating their wives into time immemorial. Notably, the result of such a thing that you seem to be low-key defending is the older model of how we treated such situations. The older expectation is that men would dominate their wives and not the other way around, but when that did not happen (which we have no idea the prevalence of due to the following), society decided to side with the abuser and join in the abuse against the male spouse being beaten.

In renaissance France, men beaten by their wives would be made to ride a donkey backwards holding its tail while being subject to derision and contempt. In England, they used a cart instead but the principle was the same. When women beat their husbands, society enlisted to help them further their abuse. Yes, I have a source for this.

And today, well... things haven't changed all that much really.

Police
Table 4 displays the experiences that helpseekers had with the police (n=129). Chi-square analysis found no difference between the proportion of helpseekers and partners who were arrested and those who were placed in jail. We could not conduct a chi-square analysis on those who had charges dropped because the expected count in some cells was below 5. In 54.9% of cases, the partner was determined to be the primary aggressor. Among those 62 men, 41.5% said the police asked the helpseeker if he wanted his partner arrested; 21% reported the police refused to arrest the partner, and 38.7% indicated the police said there was nothing they could do and left. The coding of the qualitative accounts found that 25.4% of the men told stories of the police doing nothing and ignoring or dismissing them. Qualitative accounts of their experiences with police include:

“They determined she was the aggressor but said since I was a man it was silly to arrest her.”

“Told me to get her help. Told me to spend the night in a hotel.”

“They saw mw [sic] as a large male and…took her side. I was at the hospital with bruising and burned eyes from hot coffee thrown in them. They didn’t believe that she did this…and refused to arrest her… The next incident…the police…saw me bleeding they charged her with felony DV but later dropped it to misdemeanor assault because we are not married and do not live together.”

When we first started addressing the issue of domestic violence against women - which is important - one of the first things that domestic violence pioneers like Erin Pizzey noted was already at that time the women were just as violent as the men they left. And this was before we had widespread addressing of the domestic violence problem against women. So it's hard to know how old this is, but suffice to say, we have a long history of society siding with the abuser when the abuser was a woman, going back at least hundreds of years.

So it's not "recent".

and no point in arguing over this. it doesn't really mean anything in terms of the discussion at hand. i just thought it would be really fun to reassert my hatred of what you stand for using your own logic (maybe a liittle tiny bit stretched, but still). and it was!

Well, it was based on a false and ahistorical view of the problem, so...

Yeah, I guess you would be angry when you don't understand the history behind these things.

I'm not going to go into the pornography thing because that's a whole nother discussion with a lot of difficult problems.

oh so my refusal to discuss female-on-male rape, that was indicative of me not having empathy for the male victims. but you expect me to just let this slide? no no no, my friend. you aren't off the hook. either you don't care about the victims or pornography or you're going to talk about this issue. which is it, buster brown?

The industry as it stands is really bad for both men and women sex workers. But people trying to ban it are doing so from a place that women can't choose for themselves whether or not to engage in sex work because we don't respect that they should be allowed to make their own choices if they are choices we disagree with.

Basically... we need unions and enforcement when it comes to things like nonconsensual pornography. But it doesn't mean ban men and women from choosing lines of work we don't agree with.

But when it comes to rape, while I acknowledge - and agree - women have a lot of problems when it comes to rape, there is a differential in societal treatment of men raped by women vs women raped by men (and men raped by men and women raped by women). Women raped by men are, to your point, victim blamed an uncomfortable portion of the time. This is true! It's unconscionable.

Men are charged with wasting police time, filing a false report, or threatened with such if they try to report it. This happened so commonly in my support team that we now advise men who are raped to take an attorney (if they can afford one) or a savvy relative (if they can't) with them when they try to report to make sure they can actually make it through the reporting stage without getting arrested.

Put another way: if you said "hey, we need to do something to improve how victims are treated by police", that would be a positive act that relatively few people could disagree with. If you said "hey, we need to do something to improve how black victims are treated by police", that would be a positive act that mostly only racists would disagree with. If you said "hey, we need to do something about how white victims are treated by police", there would naturally be a lot of suspicion. This is because although white victims are sometimes treated badly by police, focusing on the group who already receives better treatment to get even better treatment is... weird and possibly racist/sexist.

and if the whole idea were "we need to make sure male victims of rape are treated fairly just like female victims" that'd be great. my point isn't and has never been that that idea is wrong. the point is that as i've already said, this is a red herring, hinging itself on the acceptance of a number of much less trivial and much more totally and completely wrong ideas.

Such as?

I actually don't agree with every principle. There's several things I think are off base.

which ones. you've got to say which ones otherwise you're just doing empty weasel words. its not like its a secret... or is it?

I really don't think the constant harping on false accusations is the right tack, except where those false accusations are part of a pattern of abuse (which happens - men getting raped by women sometimes report that women threaten that if they report they will charge them with rape, and they'll not only be raped but go to jail).

I also don't think the "social security unfairness" tack is a good one - that men pay more into social security and women get more out. A lot of this is actually a function of another factor: women live longer and are given more health resources. Another is that men are unfairly punished based on sex for missing work for family matters, and thus therefore far more of them work harder and wind up getting the financial rewards of that. Missing that is like when the street floods from a broken water main, and you focus on pumping the street out and ignore the water main. The big thing is that the water main is spilling water into the street.

Also, while I do agree that divorce remains a very difficult issue where men are discriminated against heavily by the system, their approach to the problem is simplistic to the point of being entirely unhelpful.

So, this is a lie. The one I just linked to you was the average of three studies (2010, 2011, and 2012), all of which got very similar (but no the same) results. I also did separate reports on 2010 and 2011 when they came out. Come on, at least read it.

When the same result gets repeated multiple times showing (roughly) the same thing, you should know reproducibility implies reliability.

what in the world do you mean just linked to me ?? i feel like i vaguely remember u linking some at some point but that had to have been like weeks ago and also i think i ended up busy with something else and forgetting to read them so honestly i had no idea that that was the case. i also have some issues with my memory and things tend to fall through the cracks pretty often so its also possible i may have read them and forgotten. can you do me the favor of simply linking again and then i will take a Look.

Just a few pages ago I copied my analysis of a 3 year summation of 3 successive studies.

So, just so you know, we've studied this when it comes to male access to resources in the DV space, where, keep in mind, a strong plurality of men are raped - by an intimate partner. Keep in mind, this discussion started because such things were exclusive to women in California, and it took a lawsuit to get them open to men.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3175099/

mmm ok yeah dv is a different beast from just plain sexual trauma clinics. alright i do see the problem.

Yeah, it's bad. And keep in mind around half of men who are raped are raped by their intimate partner.

[Celritannia]

Hey Gallo, will you spoiler your argument, please?

[Cekoviu]

blah blah blah Blah blah boring . u need some writing tips because this is pretty short and yet it feels like such a slog to read through. that's not because of the length or the content; gallo's writing is perfectly fine and its about the same in both respects.

i think it's your wanton use of periods and especially line breaks.

it really chops up the flow and makes it hard to read.

do you get the picture?

see how, when you're on the reader's side, this gets annoying? not to mention that it makes the text look way longer than it is. and that's great for if you're writing an essay and you need to pad it to reach the page limit. but we don't have a page limit here.

do you see what i did on that line? i used a lot of periods, but the difference there is that those are for emphasis. they divide the overall sentence into punchy clauses and they turn the periods into something that, instead of boring the reader and damaging the flow, actually draw in the reader and help communicate the significance of the content. that strategy doesn't necessarily have a place in this particular post, but it's something to think of the next time you start feeling like you want to add a bunch of full stops somewhere. in general, i would recommend just Slowing the Stop; remember that semicolons exist, commas exist, and em-dashes exist. there's plenty of punctuation out there for you, no need to let the period hog all your attention! also make sure to Think Before You Hit Enter: is that line break really necessary? do you have a good reason to start a new paragraph right there? if not, just keep on writing in that same paragraph and use some flow words if you feel like it's getting choppy, or maybe rewrite your clause if it doesn't fit in well.

something i also like to do to keep people reading is to reorder the contents of subordinate clauses like i did in the last two paragraphs — a bog-standard boring sentence would usually go "something that actually draw in the reader and help communicate the significant of the content instead of boring the reader and damaging the flow,." this is ugly and clunky and you start to lose the reader's interest, so what you do is you take that extra clause of "instead of boring the reader and damaging the flow" and you push it up to the start of the subordinate clause; what this does is it creates a preview for the reader of what's about to come in the sentence so they stay hooked. this could also improve your flow. you do a little mini version of this with "This ignores that it is in fact perpetrated by both sexes," but that's not quite enough. a couple other places could also benefit from a little attention. for example, you write:

Your rationale for why the "man" is the aggressor here even if he individually has not in fact harmed the woman can be moved out of the domestic violence realm

and this gets a little bit dull, especially once you get to the latter part of the sentence. what you can do to liven things up and hook the reader in a bit is to say:

Your rationale for why, even if he has not in fact individually harmed the woman, the "man" is the aggressor here can be moved out of the domestic violence realm...

one thing that you did well here was to create a little bit of what i like to call "incredulous emphasis," adding some emotional flair with your "men, all men, as a class" and you do a great callback to this with "women, all women" later on.

here's what i would suggest having written instead:



and no i am not responding to any of the arguments here, you specifically cut out the "no point in an argument" clause and i simply will not stand for that. all i will say is that you have badly misunderstood the entire point of the analogy and i will say no more. i'm happy to give you as many writing tips as you'd like, though! i also do chemistry, biology, and math tutoring at variable rates if you're in high school or a college freshman

On the previous page you ignored someone who pointed out you use contractions, do I really need to point out to you that I don't bother with grammar hygiene specifically because this is an internet forum and not an essay?

oh wow u can't even comprehend the distinction between "prescriptive grammar" and "techniques for improving flow" well that explains why this is such an issue

it looks like thjere have been a lot of posts and so i can't pull the posts i need to with the "topic review" thing so bear with me as i go through all the posts made overnight

[Galloism]

Hey Gallo, will you spoiler your argument, please?

I spoilered the spots where I quoted myself being a giant windbag to shorten it up to a more reasonable level. Does that help?

[Celritannia]

Hey Gallo, will you spoiler your argument, please?

I spoilered the spots where I quoted myself being a giant windbag to shorten it up to a more reasonable level. Does that help?

Aye, that helps.

[Proctopeo]

Aye. It also helps that "egalitarian" is rather open-ended, with there being no established dogma associated with the term.

are you larping as scottish now or what

Curse me kilts, I just like the word "aye".

It's neither convoluted nor a trap. You're mad about it because it outs a very damning fact that you're trying fruitlessly to deny: you don't actually care about male rape victims.

(i do, but for the sake of argument) so what if i dont? what r u gonna do about it?

Probably not much besides smh my head.

Only seems to be feminists who associate the label "egalitarian" with being an MRA, and even then, only some of 'em.

"only seems to be people who are correct who do [correct thing]"
well and i mean obviously there are other contexts to the word but in the context of gender issues it's pretty universally understood that egalitarians r simply MRA lite. im pretty sure MRAs who self-identify as such would tell u the same. though that's an assumption; i haven't asked any. perhaps we need to get ostro in here?

It's really not but go off I guess
maybe in whatever circlejerk you're getting this shit from (on reddit? tumblr?), but not universally

I believe his point is that many of your opinions have found themselves squarely within Poe's Law. That is to say, your posts read like a parody of feminist beliefs.

or maybe he is simply autistic(-adjacent) (or an aquarius?) and doesnt actually know what's going on or really understand the foundations of feminist theory. at least, that's the explanation i'm going with.

If the foundations of "feminist theory" are genuinely just... outright sexist bullshit like what you're parroting, then I think he has a right to think it's parody.

Could you outline why you believe the MRM to be supremacist?

the tendency for MRAs to be openly and egregiously sexist, their connection to incels who are hostile to women as a whole, and their tendency to be pugnacious towards those outside their movement

those are things pretty well exaggerated by feminists seeking to sustain a monopoly on liberation ideology (as you put it) - the MRM has no actual connection to incels, for example, with the two groups being hostile to each other
and the last one is something that's a much more substantial issue in feminism than in the MRM

but I do understand not wishing to be connected to a movement that's explicitly in favor of one gender or the other, since that's rather self-limiting

Alright. What evidence do you have for these claims?

https://fstdt.com/F656
https://fstdt.com/W5L5
https://fstdt.com/RH65
https://fstdt.com/V9T5

I'm sorry to say, but posts cherrypicked by a super biased website aren't compelling whatsoever

On the previous page you ignored someone who pointed out you use contractions, do I really need to point out to you that I don't bother with grammar hygiene specifically because this is an internet forum and not an essay?

oh wow u can't even comprehend the distinction between "prescriptive grammar" and "techniques for improving flow" well that explains why this is such an issue

it looks like thjere have been a lot of posts and so i can't pull the posts i need to with the "topic review" thing so bear with me as i go through all the posts made overnight

you're pretty clearly using this as a slightly more convoluted version of the age-old "you made a spelling error so I'll use that to ignore your entire argument" tactic lmao

[Cekoviu]

(i do, but for the sake of argument) so what if i dont? what r u gonna do about it?

Probably not much besides smh my head.

seething so hard rn

"only seems to be people who are correct who do [correct thing]"
well and i mean obviously there are other contexts to the word but in the context of gender issues it's pretty universally understood that egalitarians r simply MRA lite. im pretty sure MRAs who self-identify as such would tell u the same. though that's an assumption; i haven't asked any. perhaps we need to get ostro in here?

It's really not but go off I guess
maybe in whatever circlejerk you're getting this shit from (on reddit? tumblr?), but not universally

tumblr? LMAO did u time travel here from 2016?
and ostro just agreed with me that they're MRAs so make of that what you will

or maybe he is simply autistic(-adjacent) (or an aquarius?) and doesnt actually know what's going on or really understand the foundations of feminist theory. at least, that's the explanation i'm going with.

If the foundations of "feminist theory" are genuinely just... outright sexist bullshit like what you're parroting, then I think he has a right to think it's parody.

boy if i had a nickel for every time i've been called sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic by people who've run out of arguments...

oh wow u can't even comprehend the distinction between "prescriptive grammar" and "techniques for improving flow" well that explains why this is such an issue

it looks like thjere have been a lot of posts and so i can't pull the posts i need to with the "topic review" thing so bear with me as i go through all the posts made overnight

you're pretty clearly using this as a slightly more convoluted version of the age-old "you made a spelling error so I'll use that to ignore your entire argument" tactic lmao

no, i noted in the original post he's quoting that i didn't care to argue the point and i haven't done so with gallo either for the same underlying reason. it's just that ostro's writing style simply really gets on my nerves and i figured i'd use my response as a chance to help with that.

[Cekoviu]

btw, my little pico de gallo, i am going to respond to u, i am simply still working on writing it. it's a lot of effort and im just taking a break and dealing with the lightweights

[Crysuko]

Probably not much besides smh my head.

seething so hard rn

It's really not but go off I guess
maybe in whatever circlejerk you're getting this shit from (on reddit? tumblr?), but not universally

tumblr? LMAO did u time travel here from 2016?
and ostro just agreed with me that they're MRAs so make of that what you will

If the foundations of "feminist theory" are genuinely just... outright sexist bullshit like what you're parroting, then I think he has a right to think it's parody.

boy if i had a nickel for every time i've been called sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic by people who've run out of arguments...

you're pretty clearly using this as a slightly more convoluted version of the age-old "you made a spelling error so I'll use that to ignore your entire argument" tactic lmao

no, i noted in the original post he's quoting that i didn't care to argue the point and i haven't done so with gallo either for the same underlying reason. it's just that ostro's writing style simply really gets on my nerves and i figured i'd use my response as a chance to help with that.

A cavalcade of non-arguments as smug as they are hollow.

[Cekoviu]

5. sorry, this is retarded, and bear with me for a moment as i get Class Reductionist - the whole issue with this boils down to class issues, no disenfranchisement is caused by being a man, minority men are simply most commonly lower-class and the lower-class is the most likely to be unable to fulfill whatever measures are required by disenfranchising laws. im sure you can come up with some oppression narrative for that but if u magically took every one of the men who gets disenfranchised by these voter id laws and retroactively made them women while changing nothing else literally nothing would be different about it.
14. i'm going to victim blame here, honestly i think part of the blame is on men for this and some of the other law enforcement stuff you're up in arms about. men often intentionally try to present themselves as threats in ways that women simply don't, and also just commit more crimes. i guess u shouldn't stereotype but that's sort of what you have to do in on-the-spot life-or-death evaluations, from my understanding (ur the former cop though so if u say im wrong on that ill accept it). like, tranquilizations of lions vs. house cats, obviously lions are going to win even if half the time the lion wasn't actually doing any harm. because lions r simply more likely to do serious harm on average.
26. like the disenfranchisement thing this really has absolutely nothing to do with being male at all whatsoever like absolutely it should be ended but it also isn't oppression against men, it's oppression which primarily men happen to experience due to another common factor. these are two different things and it seems like u have trouble distinguishing those.

All of these items are related to criminal justice. When I was talking about voter suppression for [5], I was talking about voter suppression against men because they are men, which takes the form of felon disenfranchisement laws. Keep in mind, while this was intended to hit black men in particular (there's a very good documentary on how when we struck down grandfather clauses and vote tests a lot of misdemeanors got upgraded to felonies so we could keep disenfranchising the same group), it also hits men as a class in particular, to the point women have the majority of political power and have for decades.

again u need to think about, is this oppression against men or is this oppression that hits more men because of external factors? i simply see no reason to believe that those measured would be implemented on the basis that they would disenfranchise men. it's simply that felons are an easy group to disenfranchise if what you actually want to do is disenfranchise ethnic minorities but you don't want to be honest about it; the fact that they're male is not why they're chosen.

additionally, constituting the majority of the voter base does not mean having the majority of political power in any way, shape, or form. did black people in apartheid south africa have the majority of political power?

For #14, you aren't wrong there's stereotyping at play. I made comment on this before:

I like randomly accusing broad classes of people of sociopathy as much as the next everyone, but having been in law enforcement, let me shine a light on it.

There’s an informal “threat matrix” in human minds - all human minds. Try to imagine it as a number line, where at 1 you can fall asleep in their presence, and at 10 you shoot them.

Now, when you approach a car, or gathering, or something, you very quickly and, based on your own biases, create an “initial threat value”.

Let’s say it’s a group of white women - 3
A group of black women - 5
A group of white men - 7
A group of black men - 8

An action is taken that could be threatening. Reaching into a pocket, glove box, taking a confident step toward you, something. Whatever it is, you add +2 to your initial threat matrix.

The white women you ask them to stop (5).
The black women you threaten them they must stop (7).
The white men you shove up against the wall, unstrap your gun, grab your taser, etc (9)
The black men you pull your sidearm (10).

And this is how men and black men in particular get shot so much.

The problem is, this type of stereotyping is wrong. You should not do a threat matrix based on race or sex, but based on the situation. But the human mind takes a lot of shortcuts, and some of them are deeply inappropriate.

alright

Regarding the last item which is slavery of men, the biggest "common factor" is that men are more likely to be arrested, convicted, and sentenced for the same crimes as women, and serve longer sentences once there (extending their slavery). We need to correct this.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=2144002

this is only possible to view as a common factor if you're living in an alternate reality where men are committing serious crimes at the same rate as women. the rate disparity in who commits what crimes is fundamentally what leads to any sort of sentencing disparity later on, those factors simply slightly amplify this at each stage (your own paper admits this). and men are just vastly more likely to commit serious crimes in the first place. like, to the point that the author had to drop multiple large categories of crimes because their perpetrators are over 95% male and they lacked enough data to compare the sexes.

8. sure! but keep in mind that birth control equality also means men and women should be sharing about the same amount of the burden in the birth control process, so you'd better be prepared to also start having to take pills that completely wreck your natural hormones juuuust like women have to. equality ain't all picnics and, uh, uncircumcised kids? that seems to be what you want, yeah?

Yes. Unironically. Because then men would be in control of their own reproduction. How much worse would women's life be without the pill? Same thing.

thats awesome. have fun convincing men to do that

11. school to prison pipeline would be a good name for a band

True, but it's also a real thing.

i'm sorry but citing the ACLU = immediate disqualification from being treated as a serious person with genuine motivations

17. so true #EnsureZeroEmpathyFromDay1 #YourMurderIsNotMyProblem

The alternative is to teach women to put their own lives on the line for strange men they don't know, because by and large this doesn't happen now. Granted, I agree that would be a better result, but efforts in this regard have fallen flat, so it's time you at least stop giving if all you're going to get is nothing back.

thats not really how "giving" works ? like sure it would be lovely if we all had the courage to defend one another but we don't & just because one group can't/won't do it back doesn't mean they deserve to die?

23. i have never heard of this being a large scale phenomenon outside of abusive relationships, are you sure this is a thing. it seems very counterintuitive to me - like, personally, i certainly don't intend to do that when/if i get married. in fact, i'd much rather my husband have male friends than not, cuz i do Not want to have to listen to facts about sports or whatever male hobby he might be into. i'm fairly certain most women would share that perspective.

It's not that it's deliberate, mind you. It's that the spouse and marriage tend to squeeze more and more time out of the husband's schedule, and eventually the friendships get squeezed out. There's also a factor that men tend not to be able to maintain friendships very well over the phone as a statistical trend, and that men need to "do" things to socialize generally speaking, not just sit and talk.

It's not a scientific study, but here's an article from a reporter on the subject:

https://lithub.com/why-middle-aged-men- ... iendships/

mmm, i see. well this is just a new concept to me so allow me to ruminate on it and think about how to approach it.

27. sure yep i have never heard about that but absolutely shouldnt be the case

I read an article about it sometime back. It was interviewing a local who was treating war rape victims, and how she works and gets paid by some of these UN orgs when she helps women who are victims of war rape - which she estimated was about 60% of women that she helped with her org. Then she works for free for two days a week to help the men. All the men she treated were victims of war rape. The reporter was incredulous and said "all of the men?" and she responded "ALL of the men."

That stuck with me.

well i'm not quite sure that this shows what you think it does; really, this can easily lend itself to men being victimized at a lower rate and just not falling victim to other serious issues that affect women. i'll admit this is an area where i don't know a whole ton so i'm not sure if that's right, but that anecdote doesn't really mean a whole lot on its own. i will say that because war rape is typically a means of inflicting large-scale indiscriminate terror on members of specific ethnic groups or nations, rather than being for sexual reasons, i wouldn't be surprised or anything if it was applied equally to men and women, unlike ordinary rape. or even more to men, since they're more likely to be the ones actively fighting. i just don't think you've presented a strong argument for any statistical trend here.

but again, regardless of the exact percentages, it's unconscionable for the UN to only be funding assistance of female vics here, especially since it's a category of rape that's got pretty much nothing to do with gender.

30. im very glad you brought this up because i actually have a massive vendetta against psychology and psychiatry. i've got general criticisms up the wazoo and, incidentally, i also feel like a couple aspects of the fields are detrimental to women's rights - i've written a whole article about this, actually. my criticisms are mostly focused on diagnoses and attempts at medical treatment for psychological problems, though, and i haven't though a whole lot about therapy, but i do think you raise a valid point there, so i may add that to my repertoire of Arguments Against Psychology.
31. ehhh i think thats sort of true but also it depends on what they're seeking help for. mental/neurological diseases that result from Doing something aren't stigmatized for men, like nobody's going to criticize a veteran for getting help for PTSD. it's more diseases that are considered Nuisances which dont contribute from anything and dont have any real origin like depression and anxiety that it's stigmatized. now i do think it's a problem that that's stigmatized for men and not for women, because anxiety and depression should be stigmatized for both genders actually. simply go outside and lift a weight or drink some chamomile tea (btw i'm allowed to say this because i'm diagnosed with both major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder yet i keep them in Check most of the time because im not a Loser).

So, I'm not really thinking we should throw out the baby with the bathwater on psychology/psychiatry. There's significant things that they have done for many people.

That being said, well... I have criticisms.

i'm a Loooot less generous towards them but i can't blame u really, i didn't get to that point until recently

well aware of that. that's precisely why i picked it. you took that juicy delicious bait and swallowed it hook, line, and sinker!

i think you're approaching this from more of an analytical/legal perspective rather than an ethical one, which i probably should have anticipated. i was hoping more for the latter, but i'll work with it.

so then, let's recap in more general terms. given a party A which has consistently and over a long period of time abused a party B in multiple ways and party B having abused back in at least one relatively smaller incident following a long period of exposure to party A's abuse, for party A to claim party B was the primary aggressor while omitting details about the overall context of the situation in order to weaken the trust of party B's support system in party B and continue the pattern of abuse is in general unethical, though party B's action may or may not have been appropriate.

i'm very glad we seem to agree on this principle; this axiom is in fact an easy (if somewhat contrived) means of demonstrating the ethical problem with the arguments you and other MRAs propagate, party A being {men} as a general unit represented by any arbitrary man to which the relevant conditions apply and party B being {women} as a general unit represented by any arbitrary woman to which the relevant conditions apply; B's support system would of course be all those concerned with the well-being of the women around them. thus:
given men, a party which has consistently and over a long period of time abused women in multiple ways and any arbitrary woman having abused back in at least one relatively incident following a long period of exposure to male-perpetrated abuse, for any arbitrary man to claim women or any arbitrary woman are or is the primary aggressor while omitting details about the overall context of the situation in order to weaken the trust of those concerned with the well-being of the women around them in women and continue the pattern of abuse is in general unethical, though any arbitrary woman's action may or may not have been appropriate.

now of course, you may always invalidate the original axiom and fix this whole logical conundrum if you'd simply like to say that the female abuser actually wasn't in the wrong. i would LOVE to hear you say that.

So, this fails on two grounds.

1) You are applying a individualist situation into a group dynamic. This creates an apples to oranges comparison between two different types of problems.
2) Your supposition that this is a scenario that applies to the group dynamics in question is ALSO wrong and ahistorical.

To wit: women and have been beating their husbands and men beating their wives into time immemorial. Notably, the result of such a thing that you seem to be low-key defending is the older model of how we treated such situations. The older expectation is that men would dominate their wives and not the other way around, but when that did not happen (which we have no idea the prevalence of due to the following), society decided to side with the abuser and join in the abuse against the male spouse being beaten.

boring + still holding to my not engaging! except for this part:

In renaissance France, men beaten by their wives would be made to ride a donkey backwards holding its tail while being subject to derision and contempt. In England, they used a cart instead but the principle was the same. When women beat their husbands, society enlisted to help them further their abuse. Yes, I have a source for this.

thats freaking hilarious how can u be opposed to that

And today, well... things haven't changed all that much really.

yeah they have!!! i don't see these things happening!! i want to see men riding donkeys backwards around my neighborhood!!

oh so my refusal to discuss female-on-male rape, that was indicative of me not having empathy for the male victims. but you expect me to just let this slide? no no no, my friend. you aren't off the hook. either you don't care about the victims or pornography or you're going to talk about this issue. which is it, buster brown?

The industry as it stands is really bad for both men and women sex workers. But people trying to ban it are doing so from a place that women can't choose for themselves whether or not to engage in sex work because we don't respect that they should be allowed to make their own choices if they are choices we disagree with.

Basically... we need unions and enforcement when it comes to things like nonconsensual pornography. But it doesn't mean ban men and women from choosing lines of work we don't agree with.

people's choices don't happen in a vacuum. they're always going to affect others and sometimes they'll be themselves affected by something not chosen. this so strongly applies to sex work that the term "choice" can hardly be used with respect to it in any situation. many women who've created onlyfans or done other camming sort of things often profess to have chosen, but in actuality were lied to by representatives of the company they're working for about economic benefits to it. essentially, those are pyramid schemes, and we don't act like people who get swindled into pyramid schemes are totally responsible for it. others are young and naive and don't quite understand how deeply harmful it is to them, but later come out with details of their negative experiences, like mia khalifa. and pretty much every woman in our society is absorbing through osmosis the pervasive commodification and objectification of women throughout her entire life and learning that that's how she's meant to be, basically just internalizing the male gaze. so "choices" to engage in sex work are often also informed by that unconscious self-hatred and are a manifestation of male control even when they outwardly appear to be choice.

then even assuming that hypothetically we somehow had a woman with no prior conditioning who genuinely just decided it would be fun to do pornography (and i do want to stress that this is imaginary and impossible in our society, but for the sake of argument), the problem is that that still has an effect on others even if not her. the media she produces will still teach the consumers that women are sex objects, it'll be just one singular entry in the dozens a man will browse through masturbating. there's fundamentally no way to make pornography ethical.

what you're doing is trying to weasel out of the fact that not only does there exist a form of legalized rape which outclasses any examples you can come up with of male victims of traditional rape and abuse being derided in terms of sheer scope, but it's also a multibillion dollar global industry which seeps into multiple aspects of everyday life, and it exists because of men. and no matter how hard you try you cannot spin that as women oppressing men without sounding like elliot rodgers, so you're just glossing past it.

and if the whole idea were "we need to make sure male victims of rape are treated fairly just like female victims" that'd be great. my point isn't and has never been that that idea is wrong. the point is that as i've already said, this is a red herring, hinging itself on the acceptance of a number of much less trivial and much more totally and completely wrong ideas.

Such as?

like i already said, you're trying to get people to agree with the concept that men are oppressed by a female-centric social milieu.

I actually don't agree with every principle. There's several things I think are off base.

which ones. you've got to say which ones otherwise you're just doing empty weasel words. its not like its a secret... or is it?

I really don't think the constant harping on false accusations is the right tack, except where those false accusations are part of a pattern of abuse (which happens - men getting raped by women sometimes report that women threaten that if they report they will charge them with rape, and they'll not only be raped but go to jail).[/quote]
well that's good at least.

I also don't think the "social security unfairness" tack is a good one - that men pay more into social security and women get more out. A lot of this is actually a function of another factor: women live longer and are given more health resources. Another is that men are unfairly punished based on sex for missing work for family matters, and thus therefore far more of them work harder and wind up getting the financial rewards of that. Missing that is like when the street floods from a broken water main, and you focus on pumping the street out and ignore the water main. The big thing is that the water main is spilling water into the street.

honestly i'm not sure if i've ever seen an MRA bring up this point. i could picture them doing so but i've never seen one point to this as a huge issue.

Also, while I do agree that divorce remains a very difficult issue where men are discriminated against heavily by the system, their approach to the problem is simplistic to the point of being entirely unhelpful.

LOL i suppose i should expect that opinion from you given your occupation. i'm curious as to what you think they get wrong, if you agree on the principle that it's discriminatory against men.

but honestly like if those three are it, that's just not enough to make you not an MRA. none of those beliefs are integral - maybe the divorce one, but you seem to be disagreeing more with their rhetoric than their conclusions on that - to MRAism, just beliefs held by a majority of MRAs. like, going back to the analogy with me and radical feminism - i very much disagree with the way that most radfems tend to approach the distinction or lack thereof between gender and sex, i find the common approach to be inelegant and not nuanced enough given the newness and ambiguity of the subject. but also that still doesn't mean i'm not a radical feminist, because that approach is not inherently tied to radical feminism, it's just something that most radical feminists tend to take. so sure i'm a dissident with respect to that but i'm sure anyone who sees my opinions on other gender-related issues will clearly identify me as a radical feminist and they wouldn't really be wrong.

what in the world do you mean just linked to me ?? i feel like i vaguely remember u linking some at some point but that had to have been like weeks ago and also i think i ended up busy with something else and forgetting to read them so honestly i had no idea that that was the case. i also have some issues with my memory and things tend to fall through the cracks pretty often so its also possible i may have read them and forgotten. can you do me the favor of simply linking again and then i will take a Look.

Just a few pages ago I copied my analysis of a 3 year summation of 3 successive studies.

oh ok i straight up never saw that that's the problem. this thread moves fast.

anyway this is profoundly dishonest and also just plain stupid. your own statistics demonstrate that men experience every form of victimization (merging 'forced to penetrate' with plain rape) at about half the rate that women do when you aren't cherrypicking specific years. you've just magically decided that unstable yearly data is more reliable because of the assumption, which you don't back up with any examples or data, that men would lie to the survey about lifetime experiences but not yearly experiences.

mmm ok yeah dv is a different beast from just plain sexual trauma clinics. alright i do see the problem.

Yeah, it's bad. And keep in mind around half of men who are raped are raped by their intimate partner.

well yeah duh that's the same for women too