Spinoff: "Real women..."

[Els]

Feminism is the same, and I explain all the subsects of it in my prior post. Feminism, like other recent illegitimate social sciences based on victimization and polarization, creates all manner of faux subsects out of the vanity of the hot air blowing academicians and the desire to obfuscate its true aims. When a feminist suggests, "let's just change the standard of proof in rape cases to a preponderance of the evidence because no women ever lie about being raped," one minute, she can blithely tiptoe back out of the extremist camp and into "safe" noble "equality for women" first wave feminist camp for purposes of putting on a public face. It's just another societal example of women maintaining their supposed privilege to be inconsistent and still be taken seriously.

 

Sorry, doesn't work any more.

 

 

 

You couldn't possibly be so cosmically naive and unaware of the nature of politics as to think that policy statements made to the U.N. would contain anything other than generalized, innocuous language as opposed to specific legislative mandates. So the only conclusion is that you are creating just another field of strawmen.

 

Yawn, more paragraphs of the same unsubstantiated crap. Amusing how I asked for tangible proof of the ties between your favourite marxist doctrine and the current women's support groups, and your answer is that there appears to be some conspiracy theory behind the scenes that I am supposed to take your word on. Mmkay.

 

But OK, we can still derive discriminatory intent: the very first passage of those guidelines contains an exhortation towards even more affirmative action for women in an environment where such is patently discriminatory towards men. Men were disproportionately unemployed in the recession, more women in college by a sizable amount, no wage gap, no glass ceiing, yet when will the calls by feminists for affirmative action end? We all know the answer, NEVER. New bogus statistics will be created out of thin air (700,000 kids starving in my state), old bad statistical analysis will resurface, falsifying the existence of inequities in the workplace, it will never end.

 

To soserious' post, ironic that returning, mentally and emotionally scarred, if not physically disabled veterans will be discriminated against in women's favor, because men have some illusory advantage in the workplace. Supreme irony.

 

I could address each individually, they all stink, but will suffice with ANY legislation or policy that isolates the experience of one gender from the other, "Family violence is one of the most insidious forms of violence against women," for example, is wrong. Women commit a significant amount of domestic abuse, women commit a significant amount of domestic abuse against children. Yet the issue is couched divisively as one that only affects the female gender.

 

In fact, laws that identify one class of person by race, gender, etc., are patently unconstitutional on their face, yet since ERA and before, the feminists, in their perpetual screeching for 40 years for gender based laws that violate the 14th amendment, have clearly demonstrated that they don't give one sh-t about the rule of law, true gender equality or anything resembling peaceful gender relations. Thoughtful citizens possessing any degree of ethical character don't seek out special treatment under the law, especially if those laws damage the rule of law concept. Feminists simply don't care about such things only taketaketake. It's as if the rule of law and legislature is a table full of discounted dresses on black friday for them to shriek, fight and tear over.

 

For ignorant, street-level feminists, who generally have a less than sixth grade grasp of civics, politics and history, they don't even see the problems with gender specific laws. That's partially the fault of a pathetic federal education/indoctrination system populated with feminist morons who would just as soon do away with the Constitution entirely; lord knows they aren't going to be teaching it.

 

It's also their own fault. Suggest that VAWA is unconstitutional, and they get a "who? what? where?" deer in the headlights look. Most of them don't even know what VAWA is, the rest only read far enough to get to the peabrained "protect women = good" level of analysis characteristic of run of the mill feminists. Take the level of discourse to an even higher level and ask them why they think gender specific legislation is allowed under the 14th amendment and they short circuit for a minute and then try to rationalize back to peabrain land... "protect women = good." They don't even know what the 14th amendment is, let alone even the 19th. If they do know the 19th, it's the only one they know.

 

I find it interesting how you keep quoting individual self-proclaimed feminists, as if those women represented all of the whole. Dear, if what one man says is indicative of how the entire gender behaves, any woman who reads your posts would probably turn homosexual.

 

Equally interesting, how you interpret every movement to help women as an affront to men. Is this some sort of competition? If we help one demographic group, that means that we're being whatever-ist against the other groups that we don't include? How quaint. Child rights activists must be ageist, then. Maori activists must be racist... After all, if we can't form laws that 'help' only one gender, why are other demographic-specific laws allowed?

 

I'm alsp interested in finding out why you've evaded my previous question three times. Did it disappear in the huge gaping void that is your man-logic?

[NXS]

....They're only mentioning females getting abused because it's their JOB to help women!

 

No, they're stereotyping males and defining "gender based violence" as violence against women, the assumption is clear that only women are victims.

 

Gender violence = male perpetrators/women victims

 

Furthermore it's there job to help women because feminism is a well-funded machine at the highest levels of power. This committee has a huge influence on proposing legislation and implementation of procedures relating to gender among the member states.

 

Seriously, can you really be this dense? If the WCF states that its motto is to prevent the suffering of children all over the world, are they being ageist or generationist towards parents? Are they saying that adult victims of abuse and violence don't exist??

 

If they say suffering = suffering of children then that would be a more apt analogy.

 

If you truly cared about male abuse and violence victims, you would try and get support for them instead of simply seeking singlemindedly to tear down feminism. Even if you somehow manage to disband the UN women's rights committee, do you think that will solve abuse and violence against men?

 

Exposing feminism will go a long way towards helping men, the propaganda has been going on for decades now and thankfully a lot of men are starting to see through it. Disbanding the UN committee and all the other unchecked feminist bodies, or at least exposing them for the misandric bs will also go a long way.

 

You keep going on about balance and attempting to difuse the debate into different strands of feminism yet when I point out a feminist committee issuing misandric recommendations you've nothing to say about balance.

 

I'm not sure if you're a feminist or not but go on, tell us what exactly is in it for men and why men should support it? It's ideology has creeped into our schools, our media, our government services, our laws..... Yet you now seem to be saying that it's really only about women??? Why should this pervasive ideology have unlimited access without other perspectives?

[dasein]

that I am supposed to take your word on. Mmkay.

 

I'm under no illusion about your taking my word for anything regardless of what level of proof is offered. I could come up with an autographed copy of "Chairman Mao's Feminist Handbook" from Naomi Wolf's nightstand and it wouldn't matter to you.

 

I just enjoy the thought of others seeing my posts in proximity with yours for some reason. Maybe I have a crush.

[Els]

No, they're stereotyping males and defining "gender based violence" as violence against women, the assumption is clear that only women are victims.

 

Gender violence = male perpetrators/women victims

 

You have still yet to prove that their recommendations were misandrist. All you have quoted was some perceived form of misandry based on the fact that a WOMENS RIGHT GROUP neglected to show support for male domestic victims and omitted them from the statement. I am certain I could dissect ANY policy into some form of 'discrimination' if I wanted. Here, I'll give it a go later.

 

Furthermore it's there job to help women because feminism is a well-funded machine at the highest levels of power. This committee has a huge influence on proposing legislation and implementation of procedures relating to gender among the member states.

 

 

 

If they say suffering = suffering of children then that would be a more apt analogy.

 

 

 

Exposing feminism will go a long way towards helping men, the propaganda has been going on for decades now and thankfully a lot of men are starting to see through it. Disbanding the UN committee and all the other unchecked feminist bodies, or at least exposing them for the misandric bs will also go a long way.

 

You keep going on about balance and attempting to difuse the debate into different strands of feminism yet when I point out a feminist committee issuing misandric recommendations you've nothing to say about balance.

 

I'm not sure if you're a feminist or not but go on, tell us what exactly is in it for men and why men should support it? It's ideology has creeped into our schools, our media, our government services, our laws..... Yet you now seem to be saying that it's really only about women??? Why should this pervasive ideology have unlimited access without other perspectives?

 

Umm, nobody is twisting your arm into supporting feminism. Plenty of activist groups exist for everything imaginable - you don't necessarily need to support them all. There is a huge spectrum between supporting and proclaiming everything they do to be evil and the scourge of mankind, however, even the most innocuous of things.

 

 

 

So, as you feel that the world would have been better off without feminists and the principles they espouse, how about I ask you the question I asked dasein, since the inherent logic in it apparently blew his mind. Are you willing to support the sort of traditional SAHM that existed prior to the wave of feminist movement attempting to get women into the workplace?

 

I'm under no illusion about your taking my word for anything regardless of what level of proof is offered. I could come up with an autographed copy of "Chairman Mao's Feminist Handbook" from Naomi Wolf's nightstand and it wouldn't matter to you.

 

I just enjoy the thought of others seeing my posts in proximity with yours for some reason. Maybe I have a crush.

 

Of course it wouldn't matter, because it doesn't prove anything about other branches of feminism or the claims that you make of current womens' rights groups. I could point you to plenty of people who spout extreme misogynistic doctrine and call themselves 'real men' as well. What would be the point? You'd just applaud them and say 'well done, excellent statement'.

 

Yes, all of my posts at random times of the day have been responded to immediately by you. I feel so loved.

Edited November 17, 2011 by Elswyth

[A O]

The Men's Rights Movement seems overly concerned with being adversarial (which is very reminiscent of radical feminism)

The implication here is that the MRM is ‘all’ radical while feminism is, well, much more than that. Whether you realize it or not, you’re scoring points at the expense of the other side, thus making a mockery of the general theme of your argument.

 

So how do men start empowering themselves with regard to some of the disadvantages they're encountering in society, without building a gender war of it?

I think that’s a question everyone should be asking. That’s one of the problems of these types of debates; the truth is often well buried in a mire of half-truths, embellishments and outright lies. How do people empower themselves, well, look within first and foremost of course. Rarely does this happen, from both sides, when this topic arises.

 

 

Dismantle the gender war, which means dismantle feminism. We are getting around to it, give us 10-20 years, we have a busy schedule full of pressing matters. Lots of "man logic," "man science," "man statistics," "man math," "man history" incoming, or should I simply say lots of logic, science, statistics, math and history incoming? You all apparently don't do so well with our tools.

 

We don’t need to dismantle anything especially if men have the equivalent of what they’re attempting to eliminate. As for man logic, man logic does not equal acting in a similar manner to those you’re rallying against. That’s just replacing one faulty regime with another.

 

 

.

[Els]

We don’t need to dismantle anything especially if men have the equivalent of what they’re attempting to eliminate. As for man logic, man logic does not equal acting in a similar manner to those you’re rallying against. That’s just replacing one faulty regime with another.

 

 

.

 

Precisely. It's amusing how some believe that the solution to extreme feminist factions is to make one just like them.

[Woggle]

Precisely. It's amusing how some believe that the solution to extreme feminist factions is to make one just like them.

 

This is exactly what radical feminists did in the 70s and 80s and we saw how well that turned out so why would anybody want to emulate it?

[Els]

This is exactly what radical feminists did in the 70s and 80s and we saw how well that turned out so why would anybody want to emulate it?

 

Because apparently the 'dog needs to break out and chew off its master's leg' or something.

[NXS]

You have still yet to prove that their recommendations were misandrist. All you have quoted was some perceived form of misandry based on the fact that a WOMENS RIGHT GROUP neglected to show support for male domestic victims and omitted them from the statement. I am certain I could dissect ANY policy into some form of 'discrimination' if I wanted. Here, I'll give it a go later.

 

You're still pretending this is some womens' rights group, and not a committee at the highest levels of power and influence. Also it's clear from their interchangable use of "gender-based violence" and women victims that they are talking about the same thing. I've also shown that they use "men" in a negative and misandric way.

 

Umm, nobody is twisting your arm into supporting feminism. Plenty of activist groups exist for everything imaginable - you don't necessarily need to support them all. There is a huge spectrum between supporting and proclaiming everything they do to be evil and the scourge of mankind, however, even the most innocuous of things.

 

When an activist group gets unchecked access to power at the highest levels then it's a problem that affects the people they're hostile against. I guess you'd have no problem say with a white supremacist group having similar access.

 

So, as you feel that the world would have been better off without feminists and the principles they espouse, how about I ask you the question I asked dasein, since the inherent logic in it apparently blew his mind. Are you willing to support the sort of traditional SAHM that existed prior to the wave of feminist movement attempting to get women into the workplace?

 

I've no interest in what arrangements other consenting adults choose to make, it's when feminists, backed up by the jackboot of government, decide to stick their nose in the marriage against one of the parties that I have a problem.

[dasein]

We just want to turn the filth spewing smokestack OFF, not make our own smokestack.

 

As for man logic, man logic does not equal acting in a similar manner to those you’re rallying against. That’s just replacing one faulty regime with another.

.

 

Precisely. It's amusing how some believe that the solution to extreme feminist factions is to make one just like them.

 

My position couldn't be more clear, and has been repeated several times in this thread, in different variations, both colorful and straightforward.

[Els]

When an activist group gets unchecked access to power at the highest levels then it's a problem that affects the people they're hostile against. I guess you'd have no problem say with a white supremacist group having similar access.

 

I have no problems with the Maori activists group that indeed holds great power in the government of the country that I am currently in. Supremacist is NOT the same. I would certainly have trouble with a female SUPREMACIST group advocating, for instance, that we put men at the back of college grant priority lists.

 

 

I've no interest in what arrangements other consenting adults choose to make, it's when feminists, backed up by the jackboot of government, decide to stick their nose in the marriage against one of the parties that I have a problem.

 

A large part of the feminist mantra is equality in the workplace. Feminism and the advent of women leaving the home to work are inseparable. Plenty of other anti-feminist people here have said that.

 

What has made you so and the others so bitter that you spend countless hours of your time picking out the tiniest cues from social policies and cry 'discrimination!' at everything? Do you want to know what true gender discrimination is?

 

Look at the women in Saudi Arabia now, the women in China not too long ago. THAT is true gender discrimination. The radical feminists do not understand that, and neither will you.

 

I have, to be honest, more reason to be angry at gender discrimination than you do. My ancestors, mere decades ago, killed baby girls so that they might save their one-child quota for a boy. My aunts were given away by their own biological parents because there were no resources to keep them and the limited ones needed to be kept for the male child. My grandmother's mother beat her when she tried to attend school, and my grandaunt endured months of having her feet bound and the putrifying flesh molded into tiny stumps of feet, because of the dictates of society that women must have tiny feet in order to be marriageable. Because if a woman did not marry, she would die because no one would allow her to work and feed herself.

 

And yet you don't see me advocating that a baby boy should be killed for every baby girl killed in this manner, as the 'dog turning on his master'. Yet you don't see me spending hours of my time vilifying the people who did this on an internet forum. You don't see me turning into THEM.

 

Heck, my grandmother asked my father IN FRONT OF ME why he was not trying to get a boy. I have endured many double standards towards women in my culture, some enforced by LAW in the country in which I was born, that could very well have made me bitter against men. But I choose not to.

 

You, dasein, and soserious are doing for men exactly what Steinem and their ilk did for women. You simply foster bitterness and anger towards the activists who truly do just wish to help men with the issues they face in society, and you drive people from their cause.

 

If you don't see this, then, well, carry on, I guess. It's really no skin off MY back.

Edited November 18, 2011 by Elswyth

[Red Pill]

Hey, ladies. If I told you that feminists don't give a damn about other women when it comes to domestic violence, would you believe me?

 

Note: This piece is another 20-minute read, I'm afraid. But, by the end of it, you should begin to understand just how devious and dishonest is the domestic violence industry when it proclaims that women are the main victims of domestic violence.

 

The evidence I'm about to show you is absolutely clear that men make up the vast majority of domestic violence victims and, further, that the women who nowadays report domestic violence to the police are mostly the aggressors, not the victims.

 

Furthermore, as a husband or partner, you might well believe that you are in an 'equitable' relationship with your wife or your partner. But you would be very mistaken in this belief.

 

If she wants you out -- out of the house, out of the children's lives and out of the way -- then out you will go.

 

 

To any guy reading this, there's a question I want to ask you. If your girlfriend or wife handed you this contract, would you sign it?

 

"A woman can, at any time, dismiss her male partner, without justification, and have that partner imprisoned if he objects too strongly to his dismissal. For example, if he raises his voice in anger he may be arrested for "domestic violence". In any event, a woman can dismiss the man regardless of the circumstances, and at her sole discretion.

 

"She can fire him from his jobs as father and partner, whenever she wishes, no matter how long he has served the family, and even if he has done absolutely nothing wrong.

 

"Further, the woman can insist that the man is evicted from his own house, and never allowed to re-enter it. If she has children, a woman may further demand that her sacked partner must, under threat of imprisonment, forfeit part of any future income to the woman and her children for some considerable time into the future - and, in some instances, this is the case even if her children turn out not to be his."

 

How many incidents of DOMESTIC violence against women would take place annually if these were the terms and conditions that were set for all their male partners?

 

An enormous number, one would imagine.

 

But, here in the West, they are the terms and conditions for their male partners!

 

Is it really surprising to find, therefore, that the incidence of 'domestic violence' against women has hardly decreased in 20-30 years?

 

I say 'hardly decreased', but no one actually knows the true figures for domestic violence. The official figures are virtually meaningless in that they derive mostly from incidents that would paint us all as 'domestically violent.

 

The legal reality, however, is that domestic violence is now largely defined by the woman's attitude to whatever she claims to be experiencing at the time. And the problem with this -- apart from the sheer unfairness of it all from the point of view of the man -- is that her attitude is not something that is objectively definable, and neither is it 'fixed' -- in the sense that a woman's attitudes can change and fluctuate almost as much as the wind. Indeed, in the US, some 20 million women experience clinically severe emotional disturbances every single month through PMS, and about 5 million have significant personality disorders.

 

And sometimes, of course, a woman's real attitude isn't even 'observable' -- such as when she's exaggerating, lying, or 'confused', perhaps through drink, drugs, medicines.

 

Nevertheless, the number of deaths arising from domestic violence incidents, while not directly indicating the exact number of domestic violence incidents themselves, must surely reflect quite reasonably whether domestic violence is on the rise, or whether it is on the wane.

 

As such, the number of intimate partner homicides can give us a good insight into the patterns and incidence of domestic violence. This number can certainly be calculated objectively, and a woman's attitude -- about whether an act of domestic violence has actually taken place -- becomes something of a trivial irrelevance when the victim is actually dead.

 

Now, as a result mostly of feminist propaganda, prejudice and perjury about domestic violence for the past three to four decades, many countries have created increasingly draconian laws which have disempowered the male gender when it comes to their relationships -- in fact, just as described in the contract I outlined above.

 

But have these draconian laws worked?

 

After all, billions upon billions of dollars have been spent annually on implementing them.

 

If they have worked, then the number of female deaths filled by acts of male domestic violence should have decreased over this period.

 

In fact, however, they have not. Well, not by much.

 

What has decreased significantly is the number of male homicide victims of domestic violence.

 

According to the figures from the US Justice Department, female homicide victims killed by intimate partners in 1976 numbered around 1600. By 1998 this had fallen to about 1300. In contrast, the number of corresponding male victims during the same period fell from 1400 to around 500.

 

It would seem, therefore, that 'feminist' policies have protected far more men from domestic violence than women!

 

http://www.personal.utulsa.edu/~kwaits/dv_statistics.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

But, of course, this is not surprising, because desperate women reacting impulsively do not now need to murder their partners to remove them from their homes. A call to the police will probably do the trick. Desperate men reacting impulsively, however, still have murder as one of the only real options if they 'absolutely must get rid of her -- right now.'

 

And so if feminists were truly concerned about domestic violence against women they would, of course, argue for policies that reduced the pressures on men to act violently. For example, they would argue for the creation of social and legal mechanisms through which men could refer their domestic complaints. Instead, they have done the very opposite. They have imposed The Contract.

 

And so the notion that feminists actually want to reduce domestic violence against women is laughable.

 

Indeed, the opposite is true. The more domestic violence there is -- or, more accurately, the more domestic violence that there appears to be -- against women, the more can feminists justify their jobs, their empires, their funding and their ideology. The last thing that they would want is to see domestic violence reduced.

 

As a result of all this, men who are facing desperate 'relationship' situations, perhaps often believing that they might be about to lose their homes and their children (and having nowhere to turn for effective help) might well explode into violence -- with much justification in my view -- whereas women who are feeling just as hostile (though, usually, with lesser real justification, since, for example, they are hardly likely to lose their homes or their children) can happily avail themselves of free and aggressive professional support.

 

Further, of course, women are calmed (and armed) with the comforting knowledge they will almost invariably win their cases.

 

The words, "I'm leaving you," emanating from the mouth of a woman has a significantly different meaning in comparison to when such words are spoken by a man; particularly when there is a home and children involved.

 

In short, women nowadays do not need to act violently. They can win hands down just by using the 'system'.

 

And they know it.

 

And this is why the number of male homicide victims has fallen dramatically, whereas that of female homicide victims has not.

 

Furthermore, the evidence suggests that it is mostly aggressing women who are using the system, not those women who are in genuine need of help.

 

If those women who called the domestic violence services for help were mostly the ones truly in fear of their lives and who were trying to save themselves from domestically-violent deaths, then the number of their deaths should have decreased over the years.

 

But this has just not happened.

 

And the reason for this is that, by and large, it is not the women who are fearing for their lives who are picking up their phones. It is, by and large, the aggressive women who, three to four decades ago, would have killed their partners, who are now picking up the phones.

 

The conclusion must be, therefore, that, statistically speaking, the systems currently in place mostly aid and abet violent women who want to rid themselves of their partners and do very little for those women who are in genuine need of protection.

 

And the evidence from women like Erin Pizzey -- the very FOUNDER of the Women's Refuge organization in the UK -- would also support this notion.

 

http://www.bennett.com/ptv/

 

 

Here is a quote from her ...

 

"Most of the women arriving at the refuge centres were MORE violent, even toward their children, than were the men they were supposedly escaping from."

 

Feminists, of course, would hotly deny all this, and would aid themselves in this deception by using the following 'trick' to fool their gullible followers. They would look at the recent 500 male deaths and compare it to the recent 1300 female deaths and conclude that this is evidence for the fact that men, in general, are more domestically violent than women.

 

But the historical data from 1976 scuppers this argument completely!

 

If the current low 500 count for male victims reflects a lower propensity for women to engage in domestic violence, then the 1400 count of three decades earlier must have reflected a much higher propensity for women to engage in domestic violence.

 

This would imply that women have become far less aggressive over that time span. But this flies completely in the face of reality. There is no question at all that women have become far more assertive and more aggressive over the recent years.

 

And so, all in all, the only realistic way to account for the homicide data is to acknowledge that aggressive women nowadays kill less often. And this is because they can nowadays use the state to aggress on their behalf by claiming to be victims of domestic violence.

 

Furthermore, if one talks to police officers 'off the record' it is quite clear from their sentiments that most calls relating to domestic violence come from women who are attempting to use the police services as an offensive weapon, not a defensive one.

 

As such, we can actually conclude from all this that it is men who make up the majority of victims of 'domestic violence'.

 

To clarify this further, consider the following.

 

-- We know that women are just as violent as men within their relationships - if not more so.

http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

 

-- The evidence -- as I have discussed -- shows that it is aggressing women (not fearful women) who are calling the domestic violence services.

 

In other words, men not only have to endure the same levels of direct physical aggression from their partners as do women (as per the first point above) they also have to endure the extra indirect aggression that arises from women using the state (as per the second point above) to aggress on their behalf -- something which does not get counted as 'domestic violence'.

 

And given that women, by the thousand every day, use the state to aggress against their partners on their behalf, it seems very clear that men suffer far more from 'domestic violence' than do women.

 

When feminists refer to the high number of annual calls made to domestic violence services in order to imply that huge numbers of women are being abused, the truth is that these huge numbers reflect mostly the number of women who are aggressing against men.

 

Furthermore, making matters worse for men, western societies have now clearly developed an overriding willingness to forgive women for their acts of violence -- and even homicide -- whereas the very opposite is true for men. It is men who are mostly blamed when it is they, themselves, who are the victims of direct physical domestic violence.

 

In other words, women can get away with it.

 

Women can nowadays provoke, irritate, shout and aggress against their men partners with relative impunity. They do not need to kill them. They can maintain their high levels of violence knowing that, whatever those levels might be, more or less, the price will remain relatively low. And women who do murder their partners rarely spend more than a few months in jail; if that.

 

In other words, women are very actively encouraged to be violent towards their men -- not only through direct action, but also through the state and its various agencies. Additional encouragement also emanates daily from the media, which continuously urge women to telephone various hotlines and what have you.

 

And the outcome has been that, for many years now, there has been a torrent of domestic violence and abuse being hurled against men throughout western countries -- not only directly, but also through the state.

 

And the homicide data unmasks part of the feminist agenda, because the policies that feminists would claim are designed to reduce domestic violence against helpless women clearly do nothing of the sort. And that's because these women get killed just as often as before.

 

But feminist policies have never really been concerned with the reduction of violence against women. For feminists to succeed in reducing violence against women would be like turkeys voting for Christmas. Their sole aim has always been -- simply and blindly -- to disempower men and to stir up hatred towards them.

 

Thus, when the feminist lobby keeps arguing the case that men are more domestically violent than women, and, further, that the injuries against women are often more serious than is the case for men (and this is, indeed, true -- just as the respective homicide rates would predict) it would be well to remind them that such injuries would occur far less often if the male perpetrators were able to pick up their phones instead.

 

Regretfully, however, the feminists just will not allow men to receive support in their times of domestic crisis. They continually argue that men do not need such support despite the evidence showing that domestic violence against many truly vulnerable women would be reduced by this. And, as usual, the feminists have been given their way, and so there is hardly any support for men who need help in times of crisis.

 

And this is yet further evidence that exposes the true agenda of feminism. It is not about protecting 'weak and vulnerable' women, it is about empowering the aggressive ones.

 

There is one final point to be added to all this with regard to non-homicide domestic violence, and this is the way in which it is so prejudicially defined. As mentioned earlier, it tends to be defined by the woman's attitude to whatever she happens to be experiencing at the time. And so, for example, shouting, name-calling, pushing and shoving -- extremely common and trivial events in themselves alone -- can be sufficient to bring about the most draconian actions against men for 'domestic violence'. And this is true even when there is no evidence to support the woman's claims or when she's lying.

 

But when, for example, women make false or exaggerated accusations of 'abuse', whether allegedly against themselves or their children, or when they purposefully engage in activities denying the fathers access to their children, or when they have their men ejected from their homes under false pretences, well, the authorities simply do not categorize any of these acts as 'domestic violence', even though they are crimes that are far, far worse than most of the acts which they do categorise as domestic violence.

 

As one man told me years ago, "Yes, I must have slapped her about five times over the last three months that we were together, but I was hit by her far more often. And that was nothing compared to what she's doing to me now. Every hour without my children is another slap in my face, and I haven't been allowed to see them for nearly six months."

 

Well, that is a lot of 'slap-equivalents' over a six month period -- about 2000 would be my guess. But they do not count at all in the 'domestic violence figures'.

 

Even threatening to withhold money from a woman in the US and UK can be considered to be an act of 'domestic violence'.

 

But when a woman threatens a man with the notion that he will never see his children again, this is not considered to be an act of 'domestic violence'.

 

And neither is it 'domestic violence' to deny a man access to his own home and children.

 

And yet, apart from serious physical injury, what could be more 'domestically' violent than being thrown out of your own home and cut off from your children?

 

The reality is, therefore, that while the objective academic research shows that males and females are victims of non-homicide domestic violence in roughly equal rates, this is only the case because most of the worst actions that women direct against men are simply not counted as acts of domestic violence by the researchers.

 

And so it is that the truth about non-homicide domestic violence is that, when one includes all those actions that can be legitimately counted as 'abusive' -- and these should include those abuses by the state at the behest of women -- it is men who make up the vast majority of the victims of non-homicide domestic violence - not women!

 

Furthermore, if governments were genuinely keen to reduce the number of women's injuries and deaths from domestic violence, the evidence is quite clear. They need to provide help to men.

 

And the fact that they do not do this demonstrates just how bogus are their concerns for women victims of domestic violence.

 

And this is because their real aim is to encourage women both to hate men (hence all the lies about domestic violence) and to refrain from establishing long, stable relationships with them.

 

----

 

Also, check this out.

http://www.mediaradar.org/press_release_20070129.php

[A O]

My position couldn't be more clear, and has been repeated several times in this thread, in different variations, both colorful and straightforward.

If you want to act for men, then do so by not acting like a the people you're rallying against. You want to dismantle feminism, fine, then dismantle the male rights movement while you're at it. Favouritism should not be an option for either movement. Addressing the imbalances can take place without the need to tip the scales wholly, one way, or embellishing the influence the other gender may have had on a given situation. That sort of behavior smells suspiciously a lot like....well, I think you get the point. Arguments and issues can be solved without the need to resort to such antics, unless of course, certain segments of both factions want to keep things trucking along, as is, for their own personal benefit.

 

 

.

[Woggle]

I don't condone this tit for tat mentality because it does nothing but cause more division but I can see where it comes from.

 

When you feel you are the object of hatred when you have done nothing to a woman to warrant it it makes you want to lash out back in the other direction. I have grown since but I felt similar after my first divorce when despite the fact that I had done nothing to deserve it I was told that I deserved what my ex did to me and I found many of the women around almost took glee in seeing her tear me apart. I know I am not the only man to have gone through something similiar.

How do you expect a man to react to this? There are plenty of men who are not dogs and not overgrown and god knows what other slurs misandrists use against us but some people act like we don't exist.

 

Many of the biggest anti-feminists were once very supportive of it but after seeing how many involved really do hate men they change their views. My father is an example. He used to be an Alan Alda type but after dealing with my mother he outright says he wished he would have just married stepford wife. I don't agree with him but I don't judge him for how he feels.

 

I am now mature enough to realize that the answer to hatred is not more hatred but back when I was going through it all feminists were the enemy to me. They were a force to be victorious against if men were ever to grow our balls back.

[Mme. Chaucer]

Red Pill,

 

Is the condensed essence of your essay that women no longer have to murder their husbands to be free from marriage to them, now that "feminism" has arrived to enable them to initiate divorces?

 

I also got some kind of idea that you think that women would not be able to have jobs if domestic violence against women was significantly reduced, so therefore, we all want domestic violence to thrive?

 

I'm sorry. Facepalm.

[Wolf18]

Feminists just have no argument.

 

Name one successful matriarchal society? I can name a thousand Patriarchal ones. Oh but gender is a social construct because some tribe that never invented the wheel in the Amazon allows for female tribesman

 

If western culture does not regain its patriarchy, it will collapse under its own stagnation to virile and masculine cultures like the Islamic or Chinese ones. And you know what's funny? Our women will be the first ones to welcome the new conquerors with open arms, as women have a latent desire to be ruled by a strong masculine system. Don't believe me? Look at the statistics of Islamic converts in Britain, the majority is actually made up of white western women.

[Els]

China is strong because of its population's resilience, determination and efficiency. Not because of the discrimination its culture levies against women. That has only been its weakness, especially now that young men in China outnumber women more than 2:1 due to all the baby girls who have been killed simply because they were female. Thousands of lives lost due to gender discrimination, and though it has been (mostly) stopped, the effects remain. Many men there live lonely lives, unable to find a mate because women are outnumbered so greatly.

[Els]

Seeing as I've made a resolution on another thread to stop coming to ones like these, I shall have to follow the footsteps of the reasonable people before me and bow out. I know that some of the people here will take that as an admission of defeat, are narcissistic enough to believe that people simply disappear one by one before their relentless onslaught because they are unable to counter the argument. You may go on believing that, when you are left speaking only to each other and to the virtual echoes in the thread, when people have gotten tired of spending good time and reasonable logic formulating posts in response to someone who is not truly interested in reasoning, but only in saying whatever he can to 'win'.

 

Personally, I am tired of feeding the vitriol and bitterness here, and I confess that I now view the actual mens' rights activists with new skepticism, if this is the sort of mentality that they are propagating.

[Wolf18]

China is strong because of its population's resilience, determination and efficiency. Not because of the discrimination its culture levies against women. That has only been its weakness, especially now that young men in China outnumber women more than 2:1 due to all the baby girls who have been killed simply because they were female. Thousands of lives lost due to gender discrimination, and though it has been (mostly) stopped, the effects remain. Many men there live lonely lives, unable to find a mate because women are outnumbered so greatly.

 

So what? Millions of male and female children are aborted in America too, whose crying for them?

 

You say young men outnumber women? So ? That just means more soldiers for China. Men there may live lonely lives, but so do men here. Atleast prostitution isn't as obnoxiously expensive and dangerous as it is in America.

 

Things aren't that different here, identity politics just make you think so.

[Els]

So what?

 

Thank you for revealing the true depth of ugliness that resides in your personality by brushing aside the killing of children based on gender. I'm not interested in speaking to one so heartless any further.

[Woggle]

I don't think we need a patriarchal society but feminists need to realize that they don't have to bring men down in order to bring women up. It is not good for society when men and women have as much animosity between them as they do now.

[Wolf18]

Thank you for revealing the true depth of ugliness that resides in your personality by brushing aside the killing of children based on gender. I'm not interested in speaking to one so heartless any further.

 

Well if you're going to walk around wanting to be offended, then be my guest and leave this thread. My point is that the same people who bring up that the Chinese used to kill female babies usually support things like abortion.

[dasein]

My point is that the same people who bring up that the Chinese used to kill female babies usually support things like abortion.

 

Well, if you can blame a man for killing it, it's a "baby."

If a woman killed it though, it's always a "fetus."

[Taramere]

The implication here is that the MRM is ‘all’ radical while feminism is, well, much more than that. Whether you realize it or not, you’re scoring points at the expense of the other side, thus making a mockery of the general theme of your argument.

 

I really hope it isn't "all radical". However, it's up to MRM to present itself as a credible, reasonable movement, rather than for others to adhere to the belief that it isn't radical despite being bombarded with evidence to the contrary by its more agitated representatives.

 

I regard the radical feminism, 70s and early 80s style, as angry, adversarial and controlling. More moderate strands of feminist thinking reject this approach and are more interested in supporting women to address conflicts between their desire for equality and their attachment to some of the institutions radical feminists rejected (for example, feminist theologists).

 

Moderate feminism critiques radical (and vice versa). It's a watered down version of the way moderate worshippers of a faith will critique the militant terrorist elements. The desire to separate from those elements is urgent, because otherwise the "lie down with dogs, get up with fleas" adage may apply.

 

I don't see the radical elements of MRA being challenged. I think the comment you made to dasein after posting this one to me was the first time I have seen anybody who expresses sympathy with the MRM challenge dasein for the way he conducts himself on this board. Here he is commenting on my post where I discussed the MRM concerns about domestic violence against men, and suggested ways of helping affected men:

 

just because we have had to look at the swinish fat asses of feminists grunting at the trough for decades that doesn't justify getting our asses in there and grunting right along beside them.

 

Here's me talking about the issue of male DV victims...

 

The issue of violence and sexual abuse: I think that there needs to be increased emphasis on specialist training with regard to helping men who make disclosures. To have a strong appreciation of the additional obstacles they may have (in comparison to women) in disclosing these issues and asking for help. Some of those obstacles being connected to traditional notions of men being "strong and silent".

 

Here's dasein's response.

 

In other words, domestic abuse is men's fault for not speaking out enough:sick:. Do you know what happens to a man in the U.S. who calls the police after getting popped in the head by his wife or GF? In most cases, he goes to jail. It has less than nothing to do with some tendency in men to be masculine and strong and silent, and everything to do with men being well aware of discrimination. And no, no more "specialist training" is required. The social work industry in this country is enough of a discriminatory sewer as it is without putting more power and decisionmaking capacity into those incompetent, mostly female, and utterly biased hands.

 

It's a pretty typical dialogue between me and an MRA type, I'm afraid. If you think I'm being unfair and haven't given the MRM a fair go then you then you're free to think that....but I think I've seen all I need to of it by now.

[soserious1]

Precisely. It's amusing how some believe that the solution to extreme feminist factions is to make one just like them.

 

 

Affirmative action when it benefited only women was just fine and dandy with feminists wasn't it? Quota's guaranteeing women preference in getting all manor of perks was justified as fair compensation for the generations of discrimination women had faced based solely on their gender.

 

 

Now we have generation after generation of men come forward presenting the case that they were selected to face injury,dismemberment or death solely based on the fact that they were male. Men FORCED into our armed services under threat of imprisonment for non-compliance. Men discriminated against solely based on their gender.

 

Suddenly, now Affirmative Action is a bad system? millions of men faced the most serious consequence of all ie: death but the thought of somehow attempting to compensate men as a class for the discrimination they've suffered is wrong ?

 

Fact: Men and only men were required to register for the selective service.

 

Fact: Refusal to register, refusal to report when ordered to report for military service was a federal offense punishable by prison time

 

Fact: Untold numbers of men have died or been left permanently dismembered/disabled by the horrors of this system, those who refused to comply were subject to the horrors of our prison system & left with a criminal record to haunt them for the rest of their adult lives.

 

But now compensating people for injustices inflicted upon them due solely to their gender is wrong, those pesky men should just go away and recognize that "two wrongs don't make a right" according to you and other feminists ? Those harmed should just slink away quietly

in shame now, content to get a thank you on Veteran's Day or the chance to wait months for substandard medical care at some moldy VA hospital clinic?

 

Affirmative Action was great when it benefited feminists but not okay when it might be used to begin the huge job of attempting to compensate men for one of the biggest injustices of all time?

 

Sorry but I disagree

Edited November 18, 2011 by soserious1