TheBigQuestion Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 The oppression of women by men isn't necessarily a lie. If anything, it's a very narrow and disingenuous perspective of a very important truth: Throughout the history of the Western world, the 99% lived, suffered, and died for an elite ruling class made up of the 1%. Women were expected to raise children and work the fields, and then work in factories once the industrial revolution started. Men were more likely to own property and vote, but it doesn't change the fact that 99% of them didn't. Men were often forced through conscription to fight and die in the battles that were almost entirely the result of the elites' political maneuvering. During most of the Industrial Revolution, both men and women toiled in the same horrific factories for a mere pittance of what they deserved. If anything, women eventually got better treatment in those environments because they seemed to be more successful at protesting and striking for better work conditions. As far as who had it worse, it really depends on your perspective. Do you value political speech and the right to own property more than the right to breathe? The way I see it, and the way history actually unfolded, everyone who wasn't rich or royalty got the shaft, regardless of gender. Whoever was rich had it pretty good, regardless of gender. Did women have it far worse than men in some ways? Sure. Did men have it worse than women in some ways too? Yes indeed. I just think it's completely disingenuous to only look at it from the perspective of the poor, suffering woman.
Taramere Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 A history of oppression of women at the hands of men is a lie? A ridiculous statement like that makes one want to read no further. However, I agree that many women go waaay overboard on the whole feminism thing. And, yes, there are women who "cry wolf" as regards sexual harassment or rape allegations. We had a case of a college student from another country being accused of rape. He was aquitted thanks to the hard work of one of our attorneys. A female attorney. The rape allegation thing is a nightmare for everybody. My rule of thumb is that if somebody tells me that they have been raped, for the purposes of giving them emotionally support I will assume they are telling the truth. When it comes to another person being charged as a result of their allegation, that's a whole different ball-game. The usual rules of evidence have to come into play. These situations are notoriously difficult, because it so often comes down to a simple "he said, she said." One girl I worked with years back disclosed to me that she had been set up in a situation where two boys and one other girl pressurised and ridiculed her into having sex with the boys. She hadn't felt able to stand up to them. She took the view that it wasn't rape, because the pressure had been psychological rather than physical. That would be an arguable point...but if the person themselves is saying that in their view they weren't raped even though they didn't really consent, then I think you just have to focus on counselling them into developing a more assertive attitude rather than saying "no, listen - you were raped." If the person doesn't honestly believe they were raped, even if it seems to others that they didn't give true, free consent, then that's pretty much an end to it as far as involving the criminal process goes....unless they lacked capacity due to, for instance, their age. Of course, counselling people into having a more assertive attitude in these situations (so that there's less likelihood of rape allegations and smearing resulting from sexual encounters where the matter of consent was particularly ambiguous) probably draws accusations of "cock-blocking" from some quarters. 'The matter of consent in sexual matters will never be resolved to everybody's satisfaction.
Taramere Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 (edited) The oppression of women by men isn't necessarily a lie. If anything, it's a very narrow and disingenuous perspective of a very important truth: Throughout the history of the Western world, the 99% lived, suffered, and died for an elite ruling class made up of the 1%. Women were expected to raise children and work the fields, and then work in factories once the industrial revolution started. Men were more likely to own property and vote, but it doesn't change the fact that 99% of them didn't. Men were often forced through conscription to fight and die in the battles that were almost entirely the result of the elites' political maneuvering. During most of the Industrial Revolution, both men and women toiled in the same horrific factories for a mere pittance of what they deserved. If anything, women eventually got better treatment in those environments because they seemed to be more successful at protesting and striking for better work conditions. As far as who had it worse, it really depends on your perspective. Do you value political speech and the right to own property more than the right to breathe? The way I see it, and the way history actually unfolded, everyone who wasn't rich or royalty got the shaft, regardless of gender. Whoever was rich had it pretty good, regardless of gender. Did women have it far worse than men in some ways? Sure. Did men have it worse than women in some ways too? Yes indeed. I just think it's completely disingenuous to only look at it from the perspective of the poor, suffering woman. I agree with a lot of this. I think that one of the most common sources of what people regard as "greater oppression of women than of men" relates to how powerful institutions have historically viewed women and their place in society. Often with a hostility that wasn't extended to men, unless those men were seen as being in league with women. Probably the greatest foe, for many women, was religion. Most especially in the times of Witch Hunts, when the Malleus Maleficorum was afforded great authority and credibility in its claims about witchcraft. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malleus_Maleficarum Those were crazy times. I doubt Western society has seen anything coming close to it since, in terms of a concerted campaign to "prove" the inherent evil of a particular gender....though I know that in the US, comparisons were drawn beween the McCarthy era and the times of the Witch Trials (though obviously that relates to political leanings rather than gender). I think there will always be groups seeking to prove that they are victims of insane witch hunts Hopefully civilised society, with its reliance on science rather than superstitious craziness, will never again see the kind of sheer madness that prevailed in those times of the Malleus Maleficorum. I would argue that although some men were convicted of witch-craft, they tended to be men who were seen as being "in league with" women...and that generally, the time of the Malleus Maleficorum was a time when women genuinely were oppressed as a direct result of gender hatred. I don't think all that hatred and madness occurred in a vacuum either. I know there's an area of conspiracy theorising which links feminism and this "illuminati". Proponents are keen to urge women to stand up against feminism as a dark force which seeks to destroy us all. I have a sense of the Illuminati or New World Order being like some Twenty First incarnation of the Devil that witches were seen to be handmaidens to back in the Fifteenth Century. Unseen dark forces that are regarded as pulling all our strings- and that employ women to do various bits and pieces of devilish work. Edited November 14, 2011 by Taramere
thatone Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 the guy i hired to help me do some work on my house is a retired electrician, he was telling me a story about how he was hired to salvage out the instruments from a 1940s power plant around here once, and saw the old time clock they used in the place. they had one pay scale for "white" one pay scale for "colored" one pay scale for "women". ...in that order. you all can debate the merits but history is pretty clear .
dasein Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 If indeed this thread about real women should really be a discussion about the issue of misandry in the media, then I think the media story I've cited is in fact very relevant. Read back in the thread. I made one post relatively early that had nothing to do with feminism, then nine pages or so in, the thread started to become a feminist soapbox, not of my doing, and so I responded. You're a single issue poster. Your focus is against feminism. "Single issue poster," a new one on me. It isn't true, read my posts if you disagree. Prolific and verbose, a windbag? Guilty as charged. I don't get this kind of outlet in real life so please forgive my verbosity, and I don't mean that sarcastically. But so what if I were a "single issue poster?" What would that have to do with anything and what is the use of substituting that kind of meaningless character assessment for legitimate discussion? There are some feminism arguments I support, others I reject...but in the matter of taking interest and being concerned about men's issues my number one concern relates to men being the victims of violence...and the silence that often surrounds that. It's a legitimate issue, but introducing a specific example of an abusive men to men who are very obviously sensitive to and ranting about bad portrayals of men in the media? C'mon, what did you expect? Real women care a lot more about the safety and well being of the men in their lives than they do about crap relating to how men are portrayed in tv sitcoms. The importance of one issue does not trivialize the importance of the other. Remember we are talking about something that has been going on for decades. That the media portrays sexual offenders as being predominantly male is an issue. It calls for examination of whether these portrayals reflect the facts. Whether sex offenders really are more usually male. You seem more concerned with dismissing these reports as a misandrist conspiracy, than considering the matter of whether it is in fact true that sexual offenders are most usually male. Once more, the issue you want to discuss does not automatically trivialize the issue I want to discuss, and the two are in fact distinct issues. I could make the claim here that women commit at least half of all abusive acts against children, and that at least 20% of child sexual abuse allegations against men are false. As someone who speaks out against needless polarization, though, those arguments in a vacuum don't stand up, as most polarizing arguments do not, and they derail from the derail of misandry in the media. When it comes to bona fide paedophilia involving children who have not reached sexual maturity (and are often nowhere near it) the people involved are usually male. That's not misandrist, it's fact - which you will find in any peer reviewed study of paedophilia. Misandry would involve ranting "men are all paedophiles...it's awful...they're such monsters." It is not, however, misandry to state simple facts. You are missing the point. Only a tiny percentage of men are pedophiles, physically abusive, etc., yet a huge percentage of media portrayals of men are of evil men. If we aren't evil, then we are either out and out buffoons or mild incompetents. Media outlets also cover male bad acts to the nth degree and rarely give the same amount of coverage to female bad acts. That is misandry, equating the vast majority with the lowest common denominator and overblowing the bad acts of men. After logging off for the night, I watched a show on TV I wasn't familiar with otherwise, "The Closer." In that show, a middle aged female police inspector outsmarts her incompetent, ethically challenged male colleagues, about 10 roles... (TEN male roles, ALL thoroughly incompetent outside her wise direction), puts away the evil men, two in this episode despite the efforts of her incompetent colleagues to protect the evil men in something resembling an "old boy" conspiracy, while protecting women, in this episode two murdered $500 an hour prostitutes. All the female roles in the show, even the prostitutes are positively portrayed, ALL the male portrayals, other than her much younger stud BF, negative, stupid or even thoroughly reprehensibly evil. Nothing in between. The twanging soundtrack broadcasts every drama moment as if they weren't obvious, different twangs for "outsmarting all the men," "putting the bad men away," "the evil that men do." Just some random tv show. It is apparently a very popular show. The female audience responds to it, eats it up. This kind of thing has been going on for decades. All the while men have had to listen to shrill complaints of the "objectification of women in the media." No, I'm not going to discuss pedophilia with you here. If you like go make a thread elsewhere and I may join in, probably not. You've made it very clear, from your posts, that you are less concerned with truths and more concerned with attacking what you regard as the dark forces of feminism at every opportunity. Feminism has been telling us lies for many years whlle demanding a presumption of truth, I don't like being lied to. Spin it, rationalize it however you like. It's telling that you haven't offered one shred of proof for any of the things I've called "lies" in this thread. Nor have you honestly addressed my claims about misandry in the media, preferring instead to try to divert the discussion to a specific instance of male pedophilia and making unfounded claims about my posts and posting history as opposed to simply addressing the issues I raise. Par for the course. You've howled on several occasions about being compared to a Holocaust denier. Well, I had a brief and pointless argument on this board recently with somebody who is actually a Holocaust denier and makes no bones about it. and I should care because...? The subject matter might be different, but the notion of a conspiracy of lies aimed at stigmatising a certain group (Germans, men) comes from the same paranoid place that regards genuine victims with a kind of "they're not really victims, and I'll set out to prove it at any cost" mentality that is close to being some bizarre kind of envy, rather than with any empathy. ...and as usual, a mere fingernail scratch is all it takes. In other words, accept what feminists say wholesale without question or you're a paranoid holocaust denier. Sure, and I'm the "howler." I think you and I are clear on our relative positions, and we reached that clarity without my tossing a single personal insult in your direction, going on about the quantity or quality of your posts or posting history, or characterizing you as a human being in any way. OK then.
OrlandoMust Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 I know this Fourth Planet guy. As a matter of fact, I had to pay him off so that I can get permission to finish off the article that he wanted to finish. This Fourth Planet guy is the guy who you Neanderthals so willfully consume. And I, Orlando, will do the third, and final, part of his bankrupt analysis of a sensitive, charming article which appears on a website of one of my closest friends. I'm going to explain why us manginas are up here, and why you unfashionable pumpkins are down there. Honestly, with a title like How to Teach Boys How to Become Feminists, I don't know how any of you can't like it. Here's the article for those who have missed it http://www.thefrisky.com/2011-09-25/...-be-feminists/ I'll do what the Fourth Planet has done. The words in bold will be quotes from the article. The regular font will be me talking, giving my thoughts. We've come to our third suggestion ... Teach them that there is more to a girl than what she looks like. Discuss famous women who have done and are doing important things. A-greeeeeed. I mean, that's all I ever do in life. I talk about women and how I wish I was one. I regret that I wasn't born the right way. Oh, and I also spend about eighty hours a week apologizing for something I'm really, really, really, good at. And, no, that doesn't make me gay, you homophobe. Listen, we had this conversation last time. All the cool people are ending their sentences with "Dicky, dicky, dicky." So, you've gotta start. Let's continue with the article from Michelle Lolu, not Feminist Me Me Me Me Me. You know, before we get any further, why do you jerks even bother to listen to this Fourth Planet guy? I don't understand it. It offends intelligent, emotional adults. It gets under the skin of emotional, sensitive, touchy feely, delicate males like myself. It offends us to death. Why do you listen to this ape? Can't you just go to the zoo if you want that kind of entertainment? HA, HA, HA, HA, "Why can't you just go to the zoo?" HA, HA, HA! I'm such a comedian, am I? Do yourself a favor by ignoring him and come over to our side where the males are secure and where males can dress themselves with pizzazz. Wait a second. I lost my place in this conversation. Where were we? Oh, yeah. We were talking about either hair, skin, or nails because that's just about all of the conversation that I ever have with the girls. It had to be one of those three. No? Oh, yeah. We were talking about an article from my friend Michelle. She says, ... Make play dates... Play dates. That's perfectly normal. Make play dates in which there are boys and girls to play with. Making friends with girls can be an important part of how they will perceive women. Yeah. You should make plenty of play dates because that's what I do all the time with the women that I know, except for the most part, they hang up on me and report my text messages to AT&T ... but that's another story. I tell them that I'm NOT like the majority of hetrosexual males out there: I don't want to sleep with them, I love them for their intelligence, their jobs, their status. I love them for their wonderful and confident, like, aura -- or something. I want to know them for their personalities, like, from the inside and out. Ummmm, it's like I wanna know everything about them. It's like I'm a vampire because I want to suck the life out of them. But they just keep on, like, hanging up on me all the time. And then they keep on coming over to, like, "borrow money", which is more like they keep the money. And sometimes it's like ... ... okay, get that thought out of your head. Introduce them to female characters through books, movies, etc. Research shows that a majority of these characters are male, so it will be up to you to provide a variety. Well, I've noticed that and I've taken my own approach, which was to write a book. It's called Beverly -- The Strong, Independent Woman Who Out-Earns and Out-Spends All of Her Male Peers. If you were a three or a four year-old, that's all you would want to read, too. I mean, think about the title. That just screams toddler awareness, doesn't it? Teach them that “feminism” means promoting women’s rights and interests. So let's all do it. I think we're all on board, you've heard me talk about it, and I'm bringing more and more of you over to the correct side. You need to come over and join us in the struggle. Discuss how being a feminist does not mean women hate men or that women think men are the enemy. Okay. But when it become obvious that they do in fact hate men, -- as I've noticed that they have (even me) -- you have to pretend that they don't in the name of social justice. There's this one feminist I know. She always calls me her slave. I don't like it, but then again I always pay her to do it. So what am I supposed to do? I have a motto that some of you want to emulate: Life. We didn't choose it, but it's time to get down on your knees. There's more here, but my thong is feeling a bit scrunchy right now. So I guess it's time for me to bid you ado. So if you want to hear more from me, or Captain Dickey, Flipper, or any other propeller head then come on over to cupofpercolatingmanginas.com and you can get yourself an education while you're there.
dasein Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 Often with a hostility that wasn't extended to men, unless those men were seen as being in league with women. No, the same hostility was extended to similarly situated men, regardless of the perception of their being in league with women or not. Probably the greatest foe, for many women, was religion. Most especially in the times of Witch Hunts, when the Malleus Maleficorum was afforded great authority and credibility in its claims about witchcraft. And here's how history is distorted for the purposes of feminist polarization. Witch hunts are indeed a form of religious persecution that arguably disproportionately affected women. However, the context is, as usual with feminist "history," conveniently incorrect. The proper context for examining the effects of historical Christian church persecution of heretics is actually... historical Christian church persecution of heretics. In the correct context, that includes the broader scope of the Inquisition, the persecution and extermination of groups such as the Cathars and Albigensians, and the more common day-to-day persecution of mostly lower class folks by the Church over hundreds of years. Historical examination of the proper context leads to the conclusion that ALL PEOPLE of both genders were in fact oppressed by the Church in one way or another. As to a number count of which gender had it worse, I have no idea, and suggest that such headcounts would offer a skewed vision of history, even if it turned out true that men suffered three times as much oppression as "heretics" as women did. Many of those victims left behind loving spouses and children of both genders. Were those families not equally victims? Feminism doesn't think so. There are two people in a dungeon in iron maidens, one female, one male. the female is being tortured as a witch, the man as a heretic. Feminism asks us to focus on the plight of the woman and ignore the man's, and has been asking, no TELLING, us to do this for decades. Feminism, to perpetuate the illusion of female oppression at the hands of men, ALWAYS talks about the witch, and NEVER talks about the poor guy right next to her being treated just as badly. Then uses this convenient distortion to make a faulty case that women have been disproportionately oppressed. This is the essence of wrongful polarization. Moreover, the same analysis can be applied to most any specific claim of historical oppression of women. In most cases, while women were being oppressed in some way, men were being oppressed in exactly the same ways, in equal or even greater numbers. By convenient and inaccurate choice of perspective and context, feminists seek to change the focus from the true oppressors, power holding elites of both genders, to men as a gender. This in essence, is a lie. Now I'm not attributing any evil intent to taramere, the conditioning and indoctrination are so complete that today, this kind of distortion seems as natural as breathing. Yet a distortion it remains.
dasein Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 you all can debate the merits but history is pretty clear . As far as black history, agreed. As far as gender history, we can play a conjecture game as to what a sign in an old plant really means, and we can also conjecture that this was because women were given less dangerous positions within the plant and were paid less as a result. Equally conjecture.
Mme. Chaucer Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 Regarding false rape allegations: Yes, it's a terrible crime to falsely accuse someone of rape. I believe that false rape allegations are ultimately at least as harmful to women as to men, if not more so generally speaking. Excluding, of course, the victims of such allegations, who are the most damaged in such a scenario. I have Googled far and wide to find statistics that are not affiliated with any gender related organizations centered on men OR women, and a conservative estimate for unreported rapes is 60%; for reports of rape that were discovered to be false: 8%. Rapes go unreported for many reasons. High on the list are shame, and the fear that the victim won't be believed. Women who falsely accuse men of rape are making it more difficult for other women to report rape. This is not to minimize the horrible destruction wrought by false allegations on the victim. I would like people reading this to acknowledge that there are certainly several women among us who have been the victim of rape, physical abuse, or child abuse by a man. And, sadly, that there are certainly some men here who have been victimized by a man as well. My point is NOT to villainize men. Nor, to say that women don't abuse children, or men or other women. But it's stupid to pretend that the "privileges" that have traditionally been afforded to people just because they were born a male have, unfortunately, often been extended to "looking the other way" when they commit abuse. Also, I would like to express my extreme DISLIKE of hearing the recent reporting of crimes of sexual abuse against boys by men as being "misandrist." You MRA guys start to sound like you are NOT acting in service of men, but in trying to protect a "good old boys" kind of network when you speak like that. It does not take a feminist, a nazi, a man hater, or a left wing whacko to acknowledge that more than one instance of men banding together to protect other men's "fooling around" with little boys in the service of a "higher good" (sports and religion, in the cases I'm talking about) have been very prevalent in the media. Despite all the efforts to conceal these situations. Children of either gender are very unlikely to be able to stand up to people (of either gender) in positions of power over them (adults) who are abusing them. Are we supposed to agree to minimize the evil of child abuse in order to "protect" men and their rights? Or, to "protect" the abuses of power available to people who have a lot of power? Who still, in a great majority of institutions and organizations (notably for this discussion, the Catholic church and sports coaching) happen to be men?
dasein Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 Thank you for the thoughtful reply, and for acknowledging that false rape accusations are a real issue. Certainly, I acknowledge that rape, including the underreporting of rape is also a real issue. I will reply more fully later, but for now: Were you aware that the prevailing academic feminist position is that no women ever falsely claim rape? That the real false reporting number is 2%, and that is statistically insignificant? The 2% number was completely debunked nearly 10 years ago in a conclusive law review article as entirely sourceless, yet a decade later, that is still the prevailing academic position. Why is this important to all of us? There is a continuing move afoot to reduce the standard of proof in rape cases based on the "fact" that no women every falsely report rape despite the sources you found to the contrary. Well, I have to go, more later. Regarding false rape allegations:
TheBigQuestion Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 Feminism's biggest issue is that it epitomizes identity politics. Whatever its actual tenets may be, whatever the intentions of its theorists are, its net effect upon society has been one of creating divisions. Like any political movement, it cherry-picks historical facts and chooses narrow and parochial perspectives because focusing on the big picture would make the plight of the movement appear less important. Like any political movement centering around being part of a special interest group, it paints the members of that group as being victimized, regardless of how much actual victimization is taking place, regardless of if anyone who has been responsible for said victimization is even alive to place blame upon. There's a reason why the vast majority of men do not and never will self-identify as feminists, and it has nothing to do with appearing macho or even being against what most of the more responsible strands of feminism espouses. Feminism, whatever its true intentions, has the effect of demonizing men. Just as an interesting anecdote. There are certain feminists out there that actually believe that white men by definition cannot be discriminated against based on gender simply because they are the most privileged class. This is a belief system that has considerable support in academic circles, and from my understanding is a fairly moderate belief for modern day feminists. I don't think I need to point out how a belief like this perpetuates a victim mentality while simultaneously denigrating the rights afforded to men.
NXS Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 Here's some research on sexual exploitation of youth: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/svjfry09.pdf About 4.3% of youth (1,150) reported having sex or other sexual contact with facility staff as a result of some type of force; 6.4% of youth (1,710) reported sexual contact with facility staff without any force, threat, or other explicit form of coercion. • Approximately 95% of all youth reporting staff sexual misconduct said they had been victimized by female staff. In 2008, 42% of staff in state juvenile facilities were female. http://www.nursing.ubc.ca/PDFs/ItsNotWhatYouThink.pdf • Males were just as likely to be sexually exploited as females. Among younger street-involved youth (ages 12-18), a greater percentage of males were exploited (34% vs. 27% of females in 2006). Among older street-involved youth (ages 19-25), a higher percentage of females reported sexual exploitation (53% females vs. 32% males). • Both men and women sexually exploit youth. Although the majority of youth (70%) had been exploited by males, half of youth (50%) had also been exploited by females. I checked that list for the 10 Hottest Sex Offenders list and it seems to have been take down alright. Here's the explanation: http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2011/05/hot_sex_offenders_list.php In an attempt to catch attention (and yes, eyeballs and clicks), I thought of the ten hottest female sex offenders. "Hottest" because it's a Web-headline staple for such listicles. I also wrote an over-the-top intro, trusting that the outrageous headline (Anything putting "hottest" near "sex offenders," I thought, would clearly show over-the-topness) would indicate this was fully intended to shock. That's why I made the conscious decision to include the victims' ages: To show that "normal-looking" people, people you could pass any day on the street -- or who you might think are "hot" -- are capable of monstrous things. Every one of the women on that list were paedophiles, some of them were sentenced for sex crimes with babies as young as two, others had multiple victims.
NXS Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 The oppression of women by men isn't necessarily a lie. If anything, it's a very narrow and disingenuous perspective of a very important truth: Throughout the history of the Western world, the 99% lived, suffered, and died for an elite ruling class made up of the 1%. Women were expected to raise children and work the fields, and then work in factories once the industrial revolution started. Men were more likely to own property and vote, but it doesn't change the fact that 99% of them didn't. Men were often forced through conscription to fight and die in the battles that were almost entirely the result of the elites' political maneuvering. During most of the Industrial Revolution, both men and women toiled in the same horrific factories for a mere pittance of what they deserved. If anything, women eventually got better treatment in those environments because they seemed to be more successful at protesting and striking for better work conditions. As far as who had it worse, it really depends on your perspective. Do you value political speech and the right to own property more than the right to breathe? The way I see it, and the way history actually unfolded, everyone who wasn't rich or royalty got the shaft, regardless of gender. Whoever was rich had it pretty good, regardless of gender. Did women have it far worse than men in some ways? Sure. Did men have it worse than women in some ways too? Yes indeed. I just think it's completely disingenuous to only look at it from the perspective of the poor, suffering woman. I wonder how many of those poor oppressed women went down with the Titanic.
Mme. Chaucer Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 The oppression of women by men isn't necessarily a lie. If anything, it's a very narrow and disingenuous perspective of a very important truth: Throughout the history of the Western world, the 99% lived, suffered, and died for an elite ruling class made up of the 1%. Spousal abuse, rape, child abuse all are drastically increased by poverty. According to your logic, it really doesn't matter, since all those poor people are suffering from poverty together, and the suffering of one of them at the hands of another one of them, in this case relative to a power imbalance between those individuals, is insignificant. Sorry, I'm not buying it. Oppression and / or abuse of people with power over those in weaker positions is just as wrong whether we are talking about the "ruling class" smashing the rest of the population, or individuals.
Woggle Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 Feminism in and of itself is a positive force but when you see women getting giddy at having their penis cut off it doesn't exactly give feminism a good image. It is perfectly natural to be against whatever is against you and a large number of men see feminism as an anti-male movement. When people view something as being against them they start seeing it as the enemy and when they see it as the enemy they don't even want to discuss things. They just want to be victorious over the enemy.
Taramere Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 (edited) Here's some research on sexual exploitation of youth: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/svjfry09.pdf That really is shocking. I wonder what the vetting process is for these employees, and why there isn't a better system of supervision to prevent individual members of staff spending long periods of time alone with children. My notion of female sex offenders has always tended to be a) the stereotypical one of the Victorian bawd who acted as procuress and held down some poor "novice" prostitute so that she could be raped (based on accounts of prostitution at that time). Actually, when I imagine that, the face of an old boss of mine comes to mind. Then b) the situation where a teacher or somebody else with care of a young teenage boy has sex with him, and it provokes a mixed reaction of anger, outrage and that element of "go on my son...what boy wouldn't be happy with that!" from some quarters. I totally agree with you that the role of women in sex offending needs to be examined with fresh eyes. Googling, I find this case...which I remember hearing snippets about on the radio. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/oct/18/tracy-dawber-paedophile-colin-blanchard It's like a breakdown of the last thing you can cling to. The notion that children will be safe in the care of a female. There are times I've been out, and a man has asked me to take his daughter into the loo to solve that "men can't go into the ladies, and don't want to take their little daughters into the gents) problem. I've never really thought about it, but the fact that there are women out there involved in child abuse, and the associated increased perception of women as potential sexual abusers raises issues about whether I'm prepared to place myself in any kind of situation where an allegation could arise. Which is of course an issue men working with children have faced for a long time. Here's an article about methods used to encourage women to consume pornography. http://www.netnanny.com/learn_center/article/122 I don't know how much credibility there is in that article...but here's a news story I've found that describes something similar. http://www.swedishwire.com/politics/11604-23-swedish-women-convicted-in-child-porn-case- To clarify, I'm not supporting the notion that women who become addicted to porn online are victims. I don't know the ins and outs of that case, or what mental health problems those particular women had...but I think it would be fair to say that there are plenty of women out there who are perfectly capable of thinking for themselves and who are more than happy to talk about their appetite for porn. I've sometimes seen women posting about getting off on watching violent porn. So are women generally developing more of a taste for that which is violent and abusive....and if so, is this as a result of feminism? Or an increased availability of drugs? Increasing popularity of sexual fetishism that might involve the woman taking a dominant and aggressive role? Or have there always been a fair percentage of violent and abusive women in society? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7380400.stm Edited November 14, 2011 by Taramere
Wolf18 Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 I don't find arguments against feminism distasteful per se. Any movement or political belief system should be open to challenge. What I find distasteful is that you seem to regard every report of a crime, where the perpetrator or alleged perpetrator is male, as being part of a misandrist/feminist conspiracy. That, to me, is where the burial of truth begins. And the media report I mentioned is particularly relevant to the subject of truths being buried..[/Quote] The problem isn't reporting the crime, it's always giving the female involved the benefit of the doubt. A fair society studies objective facts before coming to a conclusion, not acting as soon as the fair maiden drops her handkerchief. You've made it very clear, from your posts, that you are less concerned with truths and more concerned with attacking what you regard as the dark forces of feminism at every opportunity. You've howled on several occasions about being compared to a Holocaust denier. Well, I had a brief and pointless argument on this board recently with somebody who is actually a Holocaust denier and makes no bones about it. [/Quote] That's right Big Sister, the outrage isn't in the fact that feminism and holocaustians use these phenomenon for political and economic interests, the outrage is people who dissect them and present facts that may go against popular beliefs. In that thread about the Holocaust by the way, you didn't even answer my post, simply dismissed the big wall of facts as a "Waste of your time". Perhaps some people have an agenda in disproving various concepts of feminism ,this is true, but you are equally agenda driven when you dismiss various valid claims and criticisms without even reading them. The subject matter might be different, but the notion of a conspiracy of lies aimed at stigmatising a certain group (Germans, men) comes from the same paranoid place that regards genuine victims with a kind of "they're not really victims, and I'll set out to prove it at any cost" mentality that is close to being some bizarre kind of envy, rather than with any empathy. [/Quote] Males are more likely to commit violent crime, but domestic abuse is split right down the middle . Men do not report female physical abuse because of how embarrassing or because it doesn't do much damage, but the criminal intent is there. I've had 2 girls I was seeing attack me physically, I simply yelled and held them back in return but it would still be considered an assault, I simply think that it would've been too much. Women are not victims, you just use the label to garner sympathy and further various anti-male political causes. THroughout history men did their best to shelter women from the bloodiest of wars and social upheavels, women are no more victims as men are. Males and Germans are media/society approved targets. You say the media is fine in portraying males as violent abusers, but I bet if people started making public correlations about any other protected "victim" group, such as the Chinese being overrepresented in gambling crimes, blacks doing a disproportionate amount of violent crime, Jews doing a disproportionate amount of white collar crime, homosexuals having a much higher rate of drugs and suicide, etc, the very same people who target males would be up in arms.
Taramere Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 In that thread about the Holocaust by the way, you didn't even answer my post, simply dismissed the big wall of facts as a "Waste of your time". I should not have engaged with you at all on that issue. I'm not saying any more about it. You can rant and rave about it all you like, but that's not a topic I'm going to debate.
Wolf18 Posted November 15, 2011 Posted November 15, 2011 If you're not willing to defend your point of view (Whether here or elsewhere) then don't have an opinion. If you want to have blind zealotry towards one of the new order's dogmas, that's your problem, but don't have the nerve of taking some kind of moral or intellectual high ground when you do it
donnamaybe Posted November 15, 2011 Posted November 15, 2011 Feminism in and of itself is a positive force but when you see women getting giddy at having their penis cut off it doesn't exactly give feminism a good image. It's good you can see the difference that many in this thread fail to notice.
dasein Posted November 15, 2011 Posted November 15, 2011 (edited) Feminism in and of itself is a positive force. It's good you can see the difference that many in this thread fail to notice. No political movement founded on victimization politics, polarizing people against one another, is a positive force. Another big lie of feminism is that it's all about equal rights for women. That's what they tell us rubes hoping some of us will be gullible enough to fall for it. Lots do apparently, I did for years. No more. Feminism is simply another form of Animal Farm where some animals are more equal than others. Yet another lie is that there are some "bad" militant feminists off in a coven somewhere and all the rest are "good" and well-intentioned. The whole doctrine stinks, is poisonous, and is packed with lies from every angle. The mainstream of feminism is actually a coven of extremists, not the other way around. Feminism gets people onboard with an innocuous watered down message that it simply stole from empirical philosophers and the founding fathers of the U.S. Feminism is actually just a later variant of Marxism. Saying "I am a feminist" is equivalent to "I am a Marxist." Just substitute "women" and "men" for "labor" and "capital" and voila marxism >>> feminism. You see, Marxism didn't work as well as hoped to mobilize the "proletariat," so once the true believers set up shop here in the U.S. they selected new targets, women, minorities, youth. And surprise surprise, 50 years later we have convenient strands of victimization politics available and pervasive among women, minorities, youth. (Lurkers, notice that instead of any reasoned argument or response, I'm about to be equated to a proponent of McCarthyism, in addition to holocaust denier, UFOlogist, conspiracy theorist... no matter how much I document the trends in the prior paragraph, the level and quality of their response will never deviate from that nonargument) Would wager 90% of "feminists," male and female, can't articulate any of the mainstream academic beliefs of feminism because if they could, if they knew the true intent and actual talking points of the doctrine, they would be extremely hesitant to say "yes I am a feminist." Most feminists have the same actual level of understanding of the doctrine they claim to support as flag waving patriots who support their country at all costs while being utterly ignorant of that country's true policies. So the questions I have are you SURE you are a feminist? Can you articulate why you are a feminist with words other than "equal rights for women?" because those words aren't in fact feminist words, but of the rule of law, much older than feminism. Besides those words, what EXACTLY does feminism mean to you? Edited November 15, 2011 by dasein
Woggle Posted November 15, 2011 Posted November 15, 2011 Feminism began as a liberation movement and it did a lot of good but what it has devolved into today is a completely different animal. You can blame the objects of the misandrists hate though for lashing out at feminism as a whole.
donnamaybe Posted November 15, 2011 Posted November 15, 2011 Feminism began as a liberation movement and it did a lot of good but what it has devolved into today is a completely different animal. You can blame the objects of the misandrists hate though for lashing out at feminism as a whole. Well, some people are obviously not as intelligent as you. You can discern the difference between what feminism was meant to be and what it has become in some circles today. Unfortunately, it is always those with extremist views that screw everything up for the rest of us. That goes for the rabid feminists as well as the blind who refuse to acknowledge that women used to be considered lower class than men. Additionally, there are obviously some "men" who continue to believe so to this day.
dasein Posted November 15, 2011 Posted November 15, 2011 Feminism began as a liberation movement and it did a lot of good That's the window dressing, woggle, it isn't true, never was. Feminism is, as TBQ says an example of an "identity politics" or as I call it "polarization politics." The aim has always been to corral as much political power as possible, there was never any intent whatsoever to stop at "equal." You ever hear an FDA spokesperson respond to questions of why it takes new drugs so long to get approved, that public safety is their goal? And then you notice that there is all sorts of money going back and forth between big pharma and the government for the purpose of limiting competition? Same... exact... thing with feminism. You ever hear a political party talk about how important U.S. defense is and how our military is antiquated to the point of being ineffective? then notice all the money and patronage positions going back and forth between the government and defense contractors? Same exact thing as feminism. You ever notice how every time there's a bailout of Wall Street banks yet somehow NONE of the bailout money gets into the hands of the banks' customers or the rank and file employees, yet a few months later they need more bailing out or there will be an economic catastrophe? Same exact thing. Feminism and it's subsidiary interests have become large industries in the U.S. every bit as powerful as big pharma, defense and Wall Street, interested only in enhancing their positions and profits at any cost, same with postsecondary education. Unfortunately, mainstream feminism derives its "profits" by demonizing men and stripping rights from men as a side effect. Believing that feminism started out as some warm-fuzzy championing of equality is like believing those BigAg, BigBank, or BigOil ads where they go on and on about how they are just continuing a noble heritage of serving the little guy.
dasein Posted November 15, 2011 Posted November 15, 2011 Well, some people are obviously not as intelligent as you. You can discern the difference between what feminism was meant to be and what it has become in some circles today. Unfortunately, it is always those with extremist views that screw everything up for the rest of us. That goes for the rabid feminists as well as the blind who refuse to acknowledge that women used to be considered lower class than men. Additionally, there are obviously some "men" who continue to believe so to this day. See woggle? They have no answer other than "you aren't intelligent," "you aren't a real man," "you are blind," "you are an extremist," etc. to those who disagree with them. They can't rationally defend the tenets of feminism because they don't even know what they are, let alone whether there is any factual, historical underpinning for their claims. They just rattle out the same old trite characterizations of those who have broken free of the lies. Feminism in that respect is like a cult. If you don't drink the koolaid, there's something wrong with you, you aren't intelligent enough to see the truth even though no "truth" is demonstrable or proveable. This culty BS has worked on men and women for 40-60 years, people are waking up. Don't drink the koolaid.
Recommended Posts