Purgatio wrote:Ostroeuropa wrote:
Arguably yes, VAW is a misandrist concept given that the overwhelming majority of violence is suffered by men, and VAW has been pushed to the point that it distorts public perceptions of violence and they believe women suffer more of it. It's also misandrist in issues like female genital mutilation in that it seperates those concerns from genital mutilation as a whole in an attempt to segregate the discussion, resulting in men being left uncovered. This is also the case for forced marriages in most cases.
More specifically, the concept that if men are allowed into womens spaces, violence against women will be the result, is a misandrist concept without any backing to it.
Not really, I think there are valid concerns that an end to sex-segregated spaces could lead to problems like exhibitionism, indecent exposure, and voyeurism, which have occurred in the past from men to women, examples of which can easily be found in the news. I wouldn't say there is 'no backing' to it either, there are specific examples of people like Katie Dolatowski who have assaulted natal women in sex-segregated bathrooms and spaces.
And its not inherently-misandrist to recognise certain cases where women suffer disproportionate types of violence, be it sexual harassment or rape or domestic violence (and I'm well aware that its controversial to suggest that women are disproportionately likely to suffer rape or DV, I've done papers on this in university and a lot of the debate centres on how you define these concepts, which statistics you cite etc. etc., suffice to say whatever your view is on that matter, my point is its not inherently-misandrist to think that women disproportionately suffer certain categories of violence, because its not suggesting that male victims of those same types of violence should be ignored or are unimportant).
I disagree, I think it is misandrist to say women suffer disproportionate types of violence where an honest evaluation of those statistics doesn't bare that out, especially as this is merely the first step in then criticizing men and masculinity while lauding women and femininity, which is itself merely a step towards them censorship and imposition of a pro-female, anti-male narrative and dynamic, as well as discrimination against men.
If I define murder in a way that excludes almost all cases of it except when Jews do it and then pump a bunch of money into claiming Judaism causes murderous violence and all the other stuff, that would be anti-Semitism.
By defining terms in such a way that excludes male victims of rape and DV in order to claim women suffer it more, that is in fact suggesting male victims of those types of violence are unimportant and should be ignored in that discussion. It also has relevance in terms of public funding, and so on.
We've seen the results of this hate movement being allowed to operate in this way, male victims being more likely to be arrested than female perpetrators, a total lack of investment, and a public tolerance of violence from women against men as "turning the tables" and so on.
Recognizing these concepts as misandrist in and of themselves and in terms of producing systemic misandry and unjust negative outcomes for men is important.
You claim they're not demonizing men, but then note that they're cooking the books to come to these conclusions. Would it be demonizing Jews to cook the books in order to claim Judaism causes murderous violence and 90% of murderers are Jews?
Or would it just be "Controversial".