The NationStates Feminism Thread IV: Fight Like A Girl!

[Ostroeuropa]

just to provide an update of my general first impressions upon taking some samples from recent history, only 20% of ostro's posts analyzed so far can be considered to even arguably disprove feminist misinformation on this thread from a factual standpoint, 10% are outright objective misinformation/propaganda, and so far nobody (MRA or feminist) has actually unarguably disproved an argument from the opposing group. it's still a small sample size right now, so stay tuned!

I'd appreciate examples for the categories, this is exciting. I personally, going through the thread and discounting memeposts and chatting, saw the overwhelming majority of them as countering feminist misinformation.

Cool. Hopefully some of the posts get through to you.

Specifically these aspects:
immaturity, irresponsibility, or under-achievement.
Feminist ideology cultivates these things in women, and women enable this in eachother by validating the perspectives and prejudices at the root of these flaws and affirming the feminist identity as a positive one. Feminism also gives its adherents a sense of identity and feminists are co-dependent on eachother for this identity.

I mean sure, you don't have to respond.

It's a notable thing about feminism that seems to be one of its primary impacts, though i'll concede it need not be true in all cases. I struggle to see how "irresponsibility" isn't fundamental to it though, given that it is an ideological framework built on gynocentrism and framing the negative results of womens mentalities, prejudices, and behaviors as caused by something external to them.

An example would be the "Teach men it's okay to cry" example covered earlier in the thread and how that is an abdication of responsibility on the part of women.

[Cekoviu]

just to provide an update of my general first impressions upon taking some samples from recent history, only 20% of ostro's posts analyzed so far can be considered to even arguably disprove feminist misinformation on this thread from a factual standpoint, 10% are outright objective misinformation/propaganda, and so far nobody (MRA or feminist) has actually unarguably disproved an argument from the opposing group. it's still a small sample size right now, so stay tuned!

I'd appreciate examples for the categories, this is exciting.

i can include single clear examples of each category in the write-up, sure. it will take me a while to finish looking through the threads, running the analysis, writing up the report, and finding examples, especially since i have classes today.
i'm also considering adding bonus psychological profiles for the included users formulated from their posts here, thoughts?

[Ostroeuropa]

I'd appreciate examples for the categories, this is exciting.

i can include single clear examples of each category in the write-up, sure. it will take me a while to finish looking through the threads, running the analysis, writing up the report, and finding examples, especially since i have classes today.
i'm also considering adding bonus psychological profiles for the included users formulated from their posts here, thoughts?

Sure! I love a good effort post.

[Celritannia]

It's a notable thing about feminism that seems to be one of its primary impacts, though i'll concede it need not be true in all cases. I struggle to see how "irresponsibility" isn't fundamental to it though, given that it is an ideological framework built on gynocentrism and framing the negative results of womens mentalities, prejudices, and behaviors as caused by something external to them.

An example would be the "Teach men it's okay to cry" example covered earlier in the thread and how that is an abdication of responsibility on the part of women.

It is not fully true at all.
One could say you are fanning the flames of misinformation about feminism.

It is accurate to say feminism does have problems, I don't think anyone would disagree.
But you are turning those problems into something bigger than they are.

Feminism isn't all bad, just as MRA's are not all good.
Both will have extremes, but most will not be.

[Ostroeuropa]

It's a notable thing about feminism that seems to be one of its primary impacts, though i'll concede it need not be true in all cases. I struggle to see how "irresponsibility" isn't fundamental to it though, given that it is an ideological framework built on gynocentrism and framing the negative results of womens mentalities, prejudices, and behaviors as caused by something external to them.

An example would be the "Teach men it's okay to cry" example covered earlier in the thread and how that is an abdication of responsibility on the part of women.

It is not fully true at all.
One could say you are fanning the flames of misinformation about feminism.

It is accurate to say feminism does have problems, I don't think anyone would disagree.
But you are turning those problems into something bigger than they are.

Feminism isn't all bad, just as MRA's are not all good.
Both will have extremes, but most will not be.

I don't claim feminism is all bad. Nothing is "all bad", or nobody would support it. I merely claim that the ideas have particular negative outcomes, that those outcomes are baked into it, and that on balance, it is unjustifiable as a framework and should be discarded by society.

You're also viewing this in terms of "extremism" still rather than engaging with the actual ideas i'm laying out. It is *not only* in its products, but its fundamental form, that feminism is unjustifiable, to paraphrase Marx. The difference between the extremists and the moderates is the frequency and extent to which they use feminism as a tool for viewing the world, but *all usages have the same flaws*.

Ultimately it is about the persistent gynocentrism feminism encourages and how disparities are viewed through the lens of womens experiences, even when that is not an appropriate way to view them, because of the predisposition to that kind of view that feminism encourages.

There are *very limited* circumstances where it is appropriate as a framework, but I have never met a feminist who limits themselves to those circumstances. Furthermore, I once again remind you that it is a fundamentally misandrist act to identify feminism as an equality movement given the history of human rights abuses it has engaged in, and i'd suggest to you any curtailed version of it would probably be served well by adopting "WRA" as a monicker.

[Celritannia]

It is not fully true at all.
One could say you are fanning the flames of misinformation about feminism.

It is accurate to say feminism does have problems, I don't think anyone would disagree.
But you are turning those problems into something bigger than they are.

Feminism isn't all bad, just as MRA's are not all good.
Both will have extremes, but most will not be.

I don't claim feminism is all bad. Nothing is "all bad", or nobody would support it. I merely claim that the ideas have particular negative outcomes, that those outcomes are baked into it, and that on balance, it is unjustifiable as a framework and should be discarded by society.

You're also viewing this in terms of "extremism" still rather than engaging with the actual ideas i'm laying out. It is *not only* in its products, but its fundamental form, that feminism is unjustifiable, to paraphrase Marx. The difference between the extremists and the moderates is the frequency and extent to which they use feminism as a tool for viewing the world, but *all usages have the same flaws*.

Ultimately it is about the persistent gynocentrism feminism encourages and how disparities are viewed through the lens of womens experiences, even when that is not an appropriate way to view them, because of the predisposition to that kind of view that feminism encourages.

But what you are arguing is heavily opinionated, though. You say "feminism is all about X, Y, & Z", when this isn't the case.

I have already stated before, I do see some of the problems feminism has brought, but that's not wholly true.

There will be problems men will face, and there will be problems women will face.
But instead of demonising one or the other, we should look at how to alter these things as whole than solely put blame on one thing.

[Ostroeuropa]

I don't claim feminism is all bad. Nothing is "all bad", or nobody would support it. I merely claim that the ideas have particular negative outcomes, that those outcomes are baked into it, and that on balance, it is unjustifiable as a framework and should be discarded by society.

You're also viewing this in terms of "extremism" still rather than engaging with the actual ideas i'm laying out. It is *not only* in its products, but its fundamental form, that feminism is unjustifiable, to paraphrase Marx. The difference between the extremists and the moderates is the frequency and extent to which they use feminism as a tool for viewing the world, but *all usages have the same flaws*.

Ultimately it is about the persistent gynocentrism feminism encourages and how disparities are viewed through the lens of womens experiences, even when that is not an appropriate way to view them, because of the predisposition to that kind of view that feminism encourages.

But what you are arguing is heavily opinionated, though. You say "feminism is all about X, Y, & Z", when this isn;t the case.

I have already stated before, I do see some of the problems feminism has brought, but that's not wholy true.

There will be problems men will face, and there will be problems women will face.
But instead of demonising one or the other, we should look at hoe to alter these things as whole than solely put blame on one thing.

I look at the products of feminism, the arguments that form them and so on, and criticize them. I also take that examination of the historical injustices feminism has caused and why, and note the same flaws present in the arguments modern feminists use.

I'd like to know in what respects you think modern feminism helps men, which arguments and perspectives, that makes you think that it isn't wholly true?

As for your closing remark, that is what I am doing. One of the ways society has to be altered is to marginalize feminism, to delegitimize it as a framework, and get people to acknowledge it was anti-male.

[Celritannia]

But what you are arguing is heavily opinionated, though. You say "feminism is all about X, Y, & Z", when this isn;t the case.

I have already stated before, I do see some of the problems feminism has brought, but that's not wholy true.

There will be problems men will face, and there will be problems women will face.
But instead of demonising one or the other, we should look at hoe to alter these things as whole than solely put blame on one thing.

I look at the products of feminism, the arguments that form them and so on, and criticize them. I also take that examination of the historical injustices feminism has caused and why, and note the same flaws present in the arguments modern feminists use.

I'd like to know in what respects you think modern feminism helps men, which arguments and perspectives, that makes you think that it isn't wholly true?

As for your closing remark, that is what I am doing. One of the ways society has to be altered is to marginalize feminism, to delegitimize it as a framework, and get people to acknowledge it was anti-male.

For one example though, you say that modern feminism is destroying the goals of working class boys in schools. I would argues that's the fault of the education system as a whole.

Feminism can help with giving advice to boys on how to treat women and not to be sexual predators.

How about alter feminism rather than delegitimising feminism.
Again, it is still necessary for women.

[Ostroeuropa]

I look at the products of feminism, the arguments that form them and so on, and criticize them. I also take that examination of the historical injustices feminism has caused and why, and note the same flaws present in the arguments modern feminists use.

I'd like to know in what respects you think modern feminism helps men, which arguments and perspectives, that makes you think that it isn't wholly true?

As for your closing remark, that is what I am doing. One of the ways society has to be altered is to marginalize feminism, to delegitimize it as a framework, and get people to acknowledge it was anti-male.

For one example though, you say that modern feminism is destroying the goals of working class boys in schools. I would argues that's the fault of the education system as a whole.

Feminism can help with giving advice to boys on how to treat women and not to be sexual predators.

How about alter feminism rather than delegitimising feminism.
Again, it is still necessary for women.

1. How do you place the blame on the education system for boys specifically falling behind?

2. Completely disagree.
I'm just going to straight up ignore the "Treat women" point because it's for one thing, far too broad a statement, and for another, fundamentally does not help men, but you're too feminist to realize that managing men to make them suit womens preferences isn't "Helping men". It's controlling them.

Let's move to the sexual predator part;
Firstly, this advice is often packaged with propoganda and lies about rape statistics that erase male victims and demonize men. Secondly, if avoiding those pitfalls, it is subtly packaged the same way through linking rape to patriarchy and male domination, carrying the implication it is rooted in male mentalities and a desire to control women. Thirdly, discussions of consent do not require feminism to happen and are often better conducted without it. It has nothing of value to contribute, only detriment and distraction from the core principles of consent which should remain the focus of such instruction without distraction from irrelevant bits of information. You don't want people remembering the bit about marital rape that feminists love to bring up (And ignore wives raping husbands) but coming out of the class still confused on how consent works. There's other problems with it too, but those are sufficient I think.

3. Because there is no need to do so rather than drawing a clear line under it, acknowledging the harm it caused and granting its victims some form of recognition and closure. I'm not up for having the work the MRM has done appropriated in order to save a movement that has spent decades opposing it.

Again, it is still necessary for women.

How and why? If they can't think of a way to advocate for their issues without these terrible theories and ideas that keep producing such negative results, and without tying their own interests to a hate movement, that's kind of suggesting they are inferior in quite an important way. I have more faith in women than that.

But if it's true they legitimately can't think of a way to pursue their own interests without misandry, sexism and so on, then oh well. Men are not obliged to put up with it merely because women need it. An abusive spouse who can't cook for themselves should not be entitled to keep the other prisoner merely because they "Need" them. If women fall behind, so be it. The key is for men to recognize why feminism is hateful, to oppose it, undermine it, marginalize it, and stop listening to it or cooperating with feminists.

If that means men just outright stop cooperating with women because women can't think of any other ideas, well. Tough? Inherent in your suggestion is that men should do something purely because it benefits women, without regard for how it impacts men. That is the crux of the entire problem. "But women need it.". So what if they do?

I'd suggest that at that point men would just need to raise the next generation of girls more carefully to be able to do this kind of thing without feminism.

[Sundiata]

No they don't.

Opus Dei, for example, has a men's space and a women's space. The Catholic Church has not been shut down.

Of course, that's why it's called the vatican. And not the vaticannot

Honestly, I'm just not seeing what the big deal is. Maybe I'm old-fashioned but these "problems" with women that MRAs have are just not common among Catholics. In my opinion, the bias exhibited by MRAs is the consequence of a disorderly society. It's like, if you're not prepared to provide for a family, stop complaining about women, clean your room, carry your cross.

Do something! I mean, the world is pretty good to a man who works hard, keeps himself in shape, and treats the women in his life with respect. These guys are missing so much meaning in life by stewing in such misery.

[Ostroeuropa]

Of course, that's why it's called the vatican. And not the vaticannot

Honestly, I'm just not seeing what the big deal is. Maybe I'm old-fashioned but these "problems" with women that MRAs have are just not common among Catholics. In my opinion, the bias exhibited by MRAs is the consequence of a disorderly society. It's like, if you're not prepared to provide for a family, stop complaining about women, clean your room, carry your cross.

Do something! I mean, the world is pretty good to a man who works hard, keeps himself in shape, and treats the women in his life with respect. These guys are missing so much meaning in life by stewing in such misery.

You're ignoring a wide range of things here.

[Sundiata]

It's a notable thing about feminism that seems to be one of its primary impacts, though i'll concede it need not be true in all cases. I struggle to see how "irresponsibility" isn't fundamental to it though, given that it is an ideological framework built on gynocentrism and framing the negative results of womens mentalities, prejudices, and behaviors as caused by something external to them.

An example would be the "Teach men it's okay to cry" example covered earlier in the thread and how that is an abdication of responsibility on the part of women.

It is not fully true at all.
One could say you are fanning the flames of misinformation about feminism.

It is accurate to say feminism does have problems, I don't think anyone would disagree.
But you are turning those problems into something bigger than they are.

Feminism isn't all bad, just as MRA's are not all good.
Both will have extremes, but most will not be.

Both movements are pretty much the same in my opinion, egalitarians. Ultimately though, these movements aren't ends to themselves but a means. The lives of men, the lives of women, aren't about them.

[Sundiata]

Honestly, I'm just not seeing what the big deal is. Maybe I'm old-fashioned but these "problems" with women that MRAs have are just not common among Catholics. In my opinion, the bias exhibited by MRAs is the consequence of a disorderly society. It's like, if you're not prepared to provide for a family, stop complaining about women, clean your room, carry your cross.

Do something! I mean, the world is pretty good to a man who works hard, keeps himself in shape, and treats the women in his life with respect. These guys are missing so much meaning in life by stewing in such misery.

You're ignoring a wide range of things here.

I could go all the way back to the Protestant Reformation, even the Great Schism to highlight all of the things wrong with the world but I won't for the sake of concision.

[Estanglia]

Of course, that's why it's called the vatican. And not the vaticannot

Honestly, I'm just not seeing what the big deal is. Maybe I'm old-fashioned but these "problems" with women that MRAs have are just not common among Catholics. In my opinion, the bias exhibited by MRAs is the consequence of a disorderly society. It's like, if you're not prepared to provide for a family, stop complaining about women, clean your room, carry your cross.

Do something! I mean, the world is pretty good to a man who works hard, keeps himself in shape, and treats the women in his life with respect. These guys are missing so much meaning in life by stewing in such misery.

Not really.

It's not even just a gender thing, the world's pretty shitty to people even if they try their absolute best. You can try your absolute hardest and still get pushed down, whether by individials or society as a whole.

[Ors Might]

Of course, that's why it's called the vatican. And not the vaticannot

Honestly, I'm just not seeing what the big deal is. Maybe I'm old-fashioned but these "problems" with women that MRAs have are just not common among Catholics. In my opinion, the bias exhibited by MRAs is the consequence of a disorderly society. It's like, if you're not prepared to provide for a family, stop complaining about women, clean your room, carry your cross.

Do something! I mean, the world is pretty good to a man who works hard, keeps himself in shape, and treats the women in his life with respect. These guys are missing so much meaning in life by stewing in such misery.

Yeah all those men are lucky, performing dangerous and back breaking labor, having the law side with their female abusers, and people lauding boys for being sexually abused by their female teachers. What a fucking life.

[The Reformed American Republic]

No, not the entire Catholic Church.

Their upper ranks do seem much more interested in keeping it quiet than actually fighting it...

Never thought I would agree with you, but I do here.

[Celritannia]

For one example though, you say that modern feminism is destroying the goals of working class boys in schools. I would argues that's the fault of the education system as a whole.

Feminism can help with giving advice to boys on how to treat women and not to be sexual predators.

How about alter feminism rather than delegitimising feminism.
Again, it is still necessary for women.

1. How do you place the blame on the education system for boys specifically falling behind?

2. Completely disagree.
I'm just going to straight up ignore the "Treat women" point because it's for one thing, far too broad a statement, and for another, fundamentally does not help men, but you're too feminist to realize that managing men to make them suit womens preferences isn't "Helping men". It's controlling them.

Let's move to the sexual predator part;
Firstly, this advice is often packaged with propoganda and lies about rape statistics that erase male victims and demonize men. Secondly, if avoiding those pitfalls, it is subtly packaged the same way through linking rape to patriarchy and male domination, carrying the implication it is rooted in male mentalities and a desire to control women. Thirdly, discussions of consent do not require feminism to happen and are often better conducted without it. It has nothing of value to contribute, only detriment and distraction from the core principles of consent which should remain the focus of such instruction without distraction from irrelevant bits of information. You don't want people remembering the bit about marital rape that feminists love to bring up (And ignore wives raping husbands) but coming out of the class still confused on how consent works. There's other problems with it too, but those are sufficient I think.

3. Because there is no need to do so rather than drawing a clear line under it, acknowledging the harm it caused and granting its victims some form of recognition and closure. I'm not up for having the work the MRM has done appropriated in order to save a movement that has spent decades opposing it.

Again, it is still necessary for women.

How and why? If they can't think of a way to advocate for their issues without these terrible theories and ideas that keep producing such negative results, and without tying their own interests to a hate movement, that's kind of suggesting they are inferior in quite an important way. I have more faith in women than that.

But if it's true they legitimately can't think of a way to pursue their own interests without misandry, sexism and so on, then oh well. Men are not obliged to put up with it merely because women need it. An abusive spouse who can't cook for themselves should not be entitled to keep the other prisoner merely because they "Need" them. If women fall behind, so be it. The key is for men to recognize why feminism is hateful, to oppose it, undermine it, marginalize it, and stop listening to it or cooperating with feminists.

If that means men just outright stop cooperating with women because women can't think of any other ideas, well. Tough? Inherent in your suggestion is that men should do something purely because it benefits women, without regard for how it impacts men. That is the crux of the entire problem. "But women need it.". So what if they do?

I'd suggest that at that point men would just need to raise the next generation of girls more carefully to be able to do this kind of thing without feminism.

1. Because the education system has not altered since it's inception of giving children grades to become workers. Education currently is nothing more than a glorified memory test, and the results make a school look good for applications.
It does not benefit the students.
I would argues when you finish school at 16 (UK) or 18 (US), you are able to better your education.

But this is a topic for another thread.

2. So teaching men not to oversexualise women is a bad thing?
Okay...

3. Because women are still not equal to men, especially with same payment for the same job, or being able to gain higher positions in the work place.

Firstly I did not say women should raise boys, so you are taking that out of perspective.
I am saying feminism can help boys see the problems some men have not yet understand.
Educating respect as a whole, for both boys and girls is essential.

It's up to you if you want to keep demonising feminism, but it does not really help your cause for Men's rights if this is all you are going to be doing.

Perhaps you should hold back on saying I am "too feminist".

[Ostroeuropa]

1. How do you place the blame on the education system for boys specifically falling behind?

2. Completely disagree.
I'm just going to straight up ignore the "Treat women" point because it's for one thing, far too broad a statement, and for another, fundamentally does not help men, but you're too feminist to realize that managing men to make them suit womens preferences isn't "Helping men". It's controlling them.

Let's move to the sexual predator part;
Firstly, this advice is often packaged with propoganda and lies about rape statistics that erase male victims and demonize men. Secondly, if avoiding those pitfalls, it is subtly packaged the same way through linking rape to patriarchy and male domination, carrying the implication it is rooted in male mentalities and a desire to control women. Thirdly, discussions of consent do not require feminism to happen and are often better conducted without it. It has nothing of value to contribute, only detriment and distraction from the core principles of consent which should remain the focus of such instruction without distraction from irrelevant bits of information. You don't want people remembering the bit about marital rape that feminists love to bring up (And ignore wives raping husbands) but coming out of the class still confused on how consent works. There's other problems with it too, but those are sufficient I think.

3. Because there is no need to do so rather than drawing a clear line under it, acknowledging the harm it caused and granting its victims some form of recognition and closure. I'm not up for having the work the MRM has done appropriated in order to save a movement that has spent decades opposing it.



How and why? If they can't think of a way to advocate for their issues without these terrible theories and ideas that keep producing such negative results, and without tying their own interests to a hate movement, that's kind of suggesting they are inferior in quite an important way. I have more faith in women than that.

But if it's true they legitimately can't think of a way to pursue their own interests without misandry, sexism and so on, then oh well. Men are not obliged to put up with it merely because women need it. An abusive spouse who can't cook for themselves should not be entitled to keep the other prisoner merely because they "Need" them. If women fall behind, so be it. The key is for men to recognize why feminism is hateful, to oppose it, undermine it, marginalize it, and stop listening to it or cooperating with feminists.

If that means men just outright stop cooperating with women because women can't think of any other ideas, well. Tough? Inherent in your suggestion is that men should do something purely because it benefits women, without regard for how it impacts men. That is the crux of the entire problem. "But women need it.". So what if they do?

I'd suggest that at that point men would just need to raise the next generation of girls more carefully to be able to do this kind of thing without feminism.

1. Because the education system has not altered since it's inception of giving children grades to become workers. Education currently is nothing more than a glorified memory test, and the results make a school look good for applications.
It does not benefit the students.
I would argues when you finish school at 16 (UK) or 18 (US), you are able to better your education.

But this is a topic for another thread.

2. So teaching men not to oversexualise women is a bad thing?
Okay...

3. Because women are still not equal to men, especially with same payment for the same job, or being able to gain higher positions in the work place.

Firstly I did not say women should raise boys, so you are taking that out of perspective.
I am saying feminism can help boys see the problems some men have not yet understand.
Educating respect as a whole, for both boys and girls is essential.

It's up to you if you want to keep demonising feminism, but it does not really help your cause for Men's rights if this is all you are going to be doing.

Perhaps you should hold back on saying I am "too feminist".

1. This is a general problem with the education system, but does not explain why it specifically results in lower grades for boys than girls and a worsening of this gap over time. You have not actually confronted the issue of the boys crisis in education.

2. Try re-reading the reply to see why this framing you just used is problematic.

3. *Sigh*. This is a result of men having less rights and protections than women to work-life balance and a family life. If those are the "Womens Issues" (They're not womens issues any more than "Black people have more muscles than us (after we force them to pick cotton)" is a white persons issue.) you want resolved, then women need the MRM, not feminism. If we address the way men are dehumanized and devalued, ensure legal protections for them at home and family life, and force institutions to give them the same considerations they do women, these disparities disappear. There is no actual thing women need to advocate for, no change or rights they need expanded, no way they need to be treated differently, the environment is already perfectly suited to their needs. But I do note you disagreed with the MRM proposal on one way to achieve this, presumed joint custody. This is an example of why feminism is antithetical to progress, because it appropriates mens issues and spins them as womens issues.

[Celritannia]

1. Because the education system has not altered since it's inception of giving children grades to become workers. Education currently is nothing more than a glorified memory test, and the results make a school look good for applications.
It does not benefit the students.
I would argues when you finish school at 16 (UK) or 18 (US), you are able to better your education.

But this is a topic for another thread.

2. So teaching men not to oversexualise women is a bad thing?
Okay...

3. Because women are still not equal to men, especially with same payment for the same job, or being able to gain higher positions in the work place.

Firstly I did not say women should raise boys, so you are taking that out of perspective.
I am saying feminism can help boys see the problems some men have not yet understand.
Educating respect as a whole, for both boys and girls is essential.

It's up to you if you want to keep demonising feminism, but it does not really help your cause for Men's rights if this is all you are going to be doing.

Perhaps you should hold back on saying I am "too feminist".

1. This is a general problem with the education system, but does not explain why it specifically results in lower grades for boys than girls and a worsening of this gap over time. You have not actually confronted the issue of the boys crisis in education.

2. Try re-reading the reply to see why this framing you just used is problematic.

3. *Sigh*. This is a result of men having less rights and protections than women to work-life balance and a family life. If those are the "Womens Issues" (They're not womens issues any more than "Black people have more muscles than us (after we force them to pick cotton)" is a white persons issue.) you want resolved, then women need the MRM, not feminism. If we address the way men are dehumanized and devalued, ensure legal protections for them at home and family life, and force institutions to give them the same considerations they do women, these disparities disappear. There is no actual thing women need to advocate for, no change or rights they need expanded, no way they need to be treated differently, the environment is already perfectly suited to their needs. But I do note you disagreed with the MRM proposal on one way to achieve this, presumed joint custody. This is an example of why feminism is antithetical to progress, because it appropriates mens issues and spins them as womens issues.

1. The boys crisis is an Educational crisis, the 2 are not separate.

2. regardless what you say, more men are prone to rape women.
Am I saying women don't rape men? Of course not.
But you are trying to divert the problem,

3. No, this is the result of men being the bread winner until recently.
Women and men should have equal pay, and women and men should be able to access higher positions based on merit, and not if a woman is pregnant.
Does your argument say women should get equal pay for the same job? This should happen, if a woman has a family or not.

This can also be boiled down to the modern work ethic, the 9 to 5 job, 5 day a week which does not allow much family time.

So a lot of the problems you are highlighting are societal, rather than directly related to feminism.

Also, I neither agreed nor disagreed with MRM on joint custody. So don't assume anything.

This is an example of why feminism is antithetical to progress, because it appropriates mens issues and spins them as womens issues.

Ironic...

[Fahran]

Firstly, this advice is often packaged with propoganda and lies about rape statistics that erase male victims and demonize men.

The CDC statistics on sexual violence do not make any serious effort to erase male victims or demonize men and largely align with the common feminist narratives regarding the sexual victimization of women. The fundamental assertion of relevance in our conversation is that 1 in 5 women will experience rape or attempted rape in her life time. The CDC seems to use a more technical definition of rape as involving penetration and concludes that 1 in 38 men will experience rape or attempted rape in his life time. However, importantly, the CDC also includes the statistic that 1 in 3 women and 1 in 4 men will experience sexual violence involving physical contact.

The CDC linked to the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2015 Data Brief and by going through the presented data we get a little more elucidation on the statistics and the methodologies employed to obtain them, including a definition of rape that likely is similar to the one employed by the CDC. The survey defines rape as:

Any completed or attempted unwanted vaginal (for women), oral, or anal penetration through the use of physical force (such as being pinned or held down, or by the use of violence) or threats to physically harm and includes times when the victim was drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent. Rape is separated into three types: completed forced penetration, attempted forced penetration, and completed alcohol- or drug-facilitated penetration. Among women, rape includes vaginal, oral, or anal penetration by a male using his penis. It also includes vaginal or anal penetration by a male or female using their fingers or an object. Among men, rape includes oral or anal penetration by a male using his penis. It also includes anal penetration by a male or female using their fingers or an object.

Your initial thought regarding the definition is likely the same as mine - it seems discriminatory and meant to suggest that women are more likely to be victimized when that's not necessarily the case. Then we get to the interesting part.

Includes times when the victim was made to, or there was an attempt to make them, sexually penetrate someone without the victim’s consent because the victim was physically forced (such as being pinned or held down, or by the use of violence) or threatened with physical harm, or when the victim was drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent. Among women, this behavior reflects a female being made to orally penetrate another female’s vagina or anus or another male’s anus. Among men, being made to penetrate someone else could have occurred in multiple ways: being made to vaginally penetrate a female using one’s own penis; orally penetrating a female’s vagina or anus; anally penetrating a male or female; or being made to receive oral sex from a male or female. It also includes male and female perpetrators attempting to force male victims to penetrate them, though it did not happen.

The survey then reports that 1 in 5 women experienced rape or attempted rape, matching the CDC statistic, and, additionally, that 1 in 14 men are forced or coerced into engaging in penetration against their will. When we combine rape and forced to penetrate statistics, 22.5% of women will be victimized and 9.7% of men will be victimized. This means women are about 2.3 times more likely to experience rape even defining it in the most inclusive terms. Around 43% of women experience contact sexual violence at some point. Around 25% of men experience contact sexual violence at some point. The fact that terms have clear definitions in this survey serves to minimize as much as can be expected the problem of men not reporting their victimization.

The last serious objection I can countenance for the survey is the sampling bias, specifically with regard to sexual victimization among poor, non-white men under the age of twenty five. Lara Staple's study The Sexual Victimization of Men in America: New Data Challenge Old Assumptions places especial emphasis on the criminal justice system, juvenile detention facilities, and prisons and how the exclusion of inmates might skew statistics. This is extremely relevant given that an estimated 9% of American men will be incarcerated at some point during their lives. The study in question is a bit dated and largely critiques CDC studies from 2010-2012. The data I borrowed from the CDC is from 2015 and addresses a few of the gripes.

Importantly, for adult prison populations, we can observe that a significant portion of the victimization doesn't come from prison staff but, rather, from other inmates. This is true for both men and women. In juvenile populations, however, we observe that boys are more likely to be victimized by staff whereas girls are more likely to be victimized by fellow inmates. The difference here is quite stark owing to the fact that men and boys are far more likely to be incarcerated. That said, the occurrence of sexual violence remains in many ways gendered - even or especially when it occurs in this context.

Staple even goes so far as to conclude:

Finally, a gender-conscious analysis of sexual victimization as it affects both women and men is needed and is not inconsistent with a gender-neutral approach to defining abuse. Indeed, masculinized dominance and feminized subordination can take place regardless of the biological sex or sexual orientation of the actors. We therefore advocate for the use of gender-conscious analyses that avoid regressive stereotyping, to which both women and men are detrimentally subject. This includes an understanding of how gender norms can affect the sexual victimization of all persons.

She's not stating that we need a gender neutral approach, but rather that we need to dispense with the antiquated agent-object dichotomy and regressive stereotypes. Even in cases of same-sex sexual violence, power dynamics and gender remain important considerations in understanding these criminal behaviors. As a slight aside, I think Staple exaggerates the problematic nature of the disparity in the CDC data a bit given the occurrence of victimization among inmate populations cannot possibly bridge the disparity I referenced earlier between the occurrence of rape where men are victims (including where they're forced to penetrate the perpetrator) and where women are victims. Rather, Staple's argument is to mute that disparity somewhat and give us more accurate picture of sexual victimization among men in particular.

In conclusion, a lot of the commonly cited figures regarding the sexual victimization of women seem accurate, especially when the studies give us their definitions and methodologies. I don't think accusing researchers of lying in a generalized way is accurate, especially not when peer challenges exist in the form of studies and articles critical of one another's findings.

Secondly, if avoiding those pitfalls, it is subtly packaged the same way through linking rape to patriarchy and male domination, carrying the implication it is rooted in male mentalities and a desire to control women.

Sexual violence, even in instances where men are both the perpetrators and the victims, does seem rooted in patriarchal power dynamics since it often serves, especially in the context of incarcerated populations, to assert dominance over the victimized person. That said, while I cannot get a precise statistic on the breakdown by gender of perpetrators who victimize men, the numbers seem to imply that women are more likely to victimize men than men are to victimize men on the whole. It's quite probable that female perpetrators of sexual violence operate in a distinct psychological way to male perpetrators.

Studies can offer us a broad profile of the sorts of men who engage in sexual violence among the general population. A sense of entitlement, narcissism, peer pressure to pursue sexual conquests, lack of empathy, acceptance of rape myths, and negative or derogatory attitudes towards women are all risk factors that predispose young men to sexually aggressive behaviors. Since women are socialized differently, the social pressures and mental processes might function a little differently - though lack of empathy, acceptance of rape myths, narcissism, and negative attitudes towards men might still be present. The main difference would be the pressure to pursue sexual conquests in my view, but, again, I'd need better studies to corroborrate that suspicion.

I do think a decent portion of male-perpetrated sexual violence is linked to patriarchy, male domination, and the way men and boys are socialized. Interviews with rapists living out in the general population and observances of prison populations seem to corroborrate rather than refute that assertion. The question here isn't whether that argument is correct or not, but how it reflects on the psychology and behavior of those who engage in female-perpetrated sexual violence. In short, are female rapists different from male rapists in any psychological, sociological, or behavioral respect?

Thirdly, discussions of consent do not require feminism to happen and are often better conducted without it. It has nothing of value to contribute, only detriment and distraction from the core principles of consent which should remain the focus of such instruction without distraction from irrelevant bits of information. You don't want people remembering the bit about marital rape that feminists love to bring up (And ignore wives raping husbands) but coming out of the class still confused on how consent works. There's other problems with it too, but those are sufficient I think.

In teaching consent, taking gendered socialization into consideration might serve to improve the effectiveness of the lesson, especially when such lessons are presented in gendered spaces. Teaching consent among fraternity men seems to result in decreases in risk factors that make men susceptible to committing sexual violence and one element of that is the manner in which men are socialized. To give a more anecdotal example, a common refrain among the fraternity to which I'm a sweetheart is "real men don't rape."

Naturally, as we collect more data on female perpetrators of sexual violence, we can tailor such programs to us as well. Dispelling myths about male sexuality in particular strikes me as a worthwhile practice. It's not uncommon for women to believe that men are ALWAYS interested in sex for instance and that would constitute a so-called rape myth among women in much the same way that "sometimes women play hard to get" constitutes a rape myth among men.

Removing gendered elements from the conversation could significantly impair our ability to address problematic attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors that lead to sexual violence because the assumption is that sexual assailants are an anti-social outlier and/or that they all have the same fundamental psychology and motivations. We have no evidence to actually suggest that at the moment and quite a bit to suggest that the opposite might in fact be true.

[Celritannia]

Fahran, I am impressed. Did you have this prepared in advance?

[Fahran]

Fahran, I am impressed. Did you have this prepared in advance?

I just wrote it up. I do think Ostro has a point about out of context statistics and instances of pop feminist misandry, but, within the context of more recent studies, the issue, at least in my mind, is that we're not asking enough questions about the women who commit rape. That doesn't mean the answers we've developed regarding the men who commit rape are necessarily wrong or that the statistics on the women who have been victimized are necessarily wrong. The data we actually have seem accurate. We just need to fill in the picture more.

[Celritannia]

Fahran, I am impressed. Did you have this prepared in advance?

I just wrote it up. I do think Ostro has a point about out of context statistics and instances of pop feminist misandry, but, within the context of more recent studies, the issue, at least in my mind, is that we're not asking enough questions about the women who commit rape. That doesn't mean the answers we've developed regarding the men who commit rape are necessarily wrong or that the statistics on the women who have been victimized are necessarily wrong. The data we actually have seem accurate. We just need to fill in the picture more.

It's why I support a balanced approach, focusing on both issues that affect men, and issues that affect women.

We don't need to heighten one and lower the other.

[Ostroeuropa]

1. This is a general problem with the education system, but does not explain why it specifically results in lower grades for boys than girls and a worsening of this gap over time. You have not actually confronted the issue of the boys crisis in education.

2. Try re-reading the reply to see why this framing you just used is problematic.

3. *Sigh*. This is a result of men having less rights and protections than women to work-life balance and a family life. If those are the "Womens Issues" (They're not womens issues any more than "Black people have more muscles than us (after we force them to pick cotton)" is a white persons issue.) you want resolved, then women need the MRM, not feminism. If we address the way men are dehumanized and devalued, ensure legal protections for them at home and family life, and force institutions to give them the same considerations they do women, these disparities disappear. There is no actual thing women need to advocate for, no change or rights they need expanded, no way they need to be treated differently, the environment is already perfectly suited to their needs. But I do note you disagreed with the MRM proposal on one way to achieve this, presumed joint custody. This is an example of why feminism is antithetical to progress, because it appropriates mens issues and spins them as womens issues.

1. The boys crisis is an Educational crisis, the 2 are not separate.

2. regardless what you say, more men are prone to rape women.
Am I saying women don't rape men? Of course not.
But you are trying to divert the problem,

3. No, this is the result of men being the bread winner until recently.
Women and men should have equal pay, and women and men should be able to access higher positions based on merit, and not if a woman is pregnant.
Does your argument say women should get equal pay for the same job? This should happen, if a woman has a family or not.

This can also be boiled down to the modern work ethic, the 9 to 5 job, 5 day a week which does not allow much family time.

So a lot of the problems you are highlighting are societal, rather than directly related to feminism.

Also, I neither agreed nor disagreed with MRM on joint custody. So don't assume anything.

This is an example of why feminism is antithetical to progress, because it appropriates mens issues and spins them as womens issues.

Ironic...

1. Why is the education crisis disproportionately impacting boys. This is like you saying "It's an issue of police militarization, we don't need to talk about racism."

2. This is highly debatable.

3. Women already receive more pay than men, right up until they have a child. The reason women take on more work-life balance than men do is that men are institutionally prevented from doing so. Men on part time work receive less pay than women on part time work. This, in addition to maternal gatekeeping, is the actual root of the issue. Nothing else is relevant and we can see that by comparing young women and young men, seeing women are paid more, part time men and part time women, women are paid more, and the only place women are paid less is *women who have children*.

[Celritannia]

1. The boys crisis is an Educational crisis, the 2 are not separate.

2. regardless what you say, more men are prone to rape women.
Am I saying women don't rape men? Of course not.
But you are trying to divert the problem,

3. No, this is the result of men being the bread winner until recently.
Women and men should have equal pay, and women and men should be able to access higher positions based on merit, and not if a woman is pregnant.
Does your argument say women should get equal pay for the same job? This should happen, if a woman has a family or not.

This can also be boiled down to the modern work ethic, the 9 to 5 job, 5 day a week which does not allow much family time.

So a lot of the problems you are highlighting are societal, rather than directly related to feminism.

Also, I neither agreed nor disagreed with MRM on joint custody. So don't assume anything.



Ironic...

1. Why is the education crisis disproportionately impacting boys. This is like you saying "It's an issue of police militarization, we don't need to talk about racism."

2. This is highly debatable.

3. Women already receive more pay than men, right up until they have a child. The reason women take on more work-life balance than men do is that men are institutionally prevented from doing so. Men on part time work receive less pay than women on part time work. This, in addition to maternal gatekeeping, is the actual root of the issue. Nothing else is relevant and we can see that by comparing young women and young men, seeing women are paid more, part time men and part time women, women are paid more, and the only place women are paid less is *women who have children*.

1. Equating 2 completely different topics.
Education affects everyone.
All boys, working class boys? Rich boys? Fatherless boys? Orphans boys?

2. I think Faharn has covered this elegantly.

3 (a) Provide evidence women get more pay than men FOR THE SAME JOB before pregnancy.
(b) This is because of society, not because of feminism.
(c) Provide evidence men on part time work receive less pay than women for part time work FOR THE SAME JOB.
(d) Women who have children should not be paid less.