Spinoff: "Real women..."

[Red Pill]

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.

 

What is wrong with you? Facepalm.

 

To answer your first question, no. I'm simply saying that women have more options than men when it comes to disassociating themselves from domestic violence situations. Divorce, and the reasons why women file for divorces, was not my main concern when I posted in here last time. Although killing the husband is a quick way to end marriage, divorce was not something I was trying to bring to the forefront of the discussion pertaining to domestic violence.

 

To answer your next question, I'm saying that feminists are not really looking out for the women who are in genuine fear of being attack. What I said had nothing to do as to whether women can find jobs if the domestic violence figures against them went up, down, or sideways.

 

 

 

Let me go over what I said in my last post.

 

In 1976 men and women killed each other at roughly equal rates.

 

So how is it that women still get killed as often by their partners as they used to do, whereas men now get killed far less often?

 

Well, the answer is really quite simple.

 

The draconian procedures adopted by the various domestic violence agencies throughout the past three or four decades have given aggressing women a way of avoiding having to commit an act of murder.

 

Instead of killing their partners (e.g. to eject them from their homes) aggressing women can now pick up their phones -- and call in the police.

 

On the other hand, aggressing men do not have this option. They will get nowhere by picking up their phones. And so the number of women killed by these men has hardly changed at all.

 

It must be obvious even to the feminists and the various women's groups concerned with domestic violence that people are far more likely to be aggressive if they have nowhere to turn to for help, but to admit to the fact that their policies are saving the lives of men rather than the lives of women is something that they are most unlikely to do, given that this would expose their true agenda -- which has nothing to do with decreasing domestic violence against women.

 

What I am saying is that if domestic violence against women was to decrease they would lose a major source of their funding. And if they were to admit that the women using their services were not the weak and wilting types but, rather, the aggressive violent types, they would also lose much of their public support.

 

This is the main reason that they hide as best as they can what goes on inside their refuge centers. (The last thing that they want the public to see is the kind of women who tend to use their services.)

 

Further evidence that it is aggressing women who are the women making the most use of domestic violence services (as opposed to those who are in genuine fear for their lives) comes from the work of Erin Pizzey -- who was the founder of the refuge centres for battered women in the UK.

 

Let me re-quote her.

 

"Most of the women arriving at our refuge centres were more violent, even toward their children, than were the men they were supposedly escaping from." (My underlining.)

 

Women are far more aggressive now than they were in the mid 1970s. As such, one would expect that they would be far more likely nowadays to aggress against men than they used to do.

 

And so one would expect that the number of men killed by their female partners would have actually increased over the period from 1976 to the present day.

 

But this has just not happened. The number of men killed has actually decreased very dramatically.

 

And the reason for this is that aggressing women can now pick up their phones instead.

 

Quite simply, aggressing women do not need to act as violently as they used to do. They can get the authorities to do their 'violence' for them.

 

On the other hand, women who are being aggressed against are killed just as often as before -- which is why the death rates for women has hardly changed.

 

What I'm saying is that if the feminists and the women's groups were really concerned about domestic violence against women, they would be demanding that aggressing men were given the option of getting help by picking up their phones.

 

And the fact that they vigorously oppose providing any help to men who are feeling aggressive says a great deal about what their true agenda really is -- and decreasing domestic violence against women clearly has very little to do with it.

 

Finally, the 1976 figures demonstrate quite clearly that men and women will kill each other at roughly equal rates if they are treated equally by the authorities. And this is further evidence for the well-supported view that women are just as prone to relationship violence as men.

 

All that has happened since 1976 is that aggressing women have been provided with an alternative to violence, whereas aggressing men have not.

 

You really must wake up to the fact that these people are often deeply unpleasant and self-serving.

 

They are not the caring, helpful types that they portray themselves to be.

 

For the most part, these particular people are arrogant , bullying, self-serving government workers; many with a very heavy political bent in the direction of feminism and leftism; pouring out propaganda in favour of 'left-wing government' and, therefore, receiving millions of dollars from left-wing government.

 

They are also extremely anti-male in almost everything that they do.

 

Furthermore, they often ally themselves with lawyers and feminist-indoctrinated therapists so that they can grow their tentacles and their empires.

Edited November 18, 2011 by Red Pill

[Red Pill]

Police Must Ignore Male Victims Of Domestic Violence

http://feck-blog.blogspot.com/2010/01/i-am-speechless-almost.html

 

 

 

In other words, if it appears to be the case that, let us say, more than 10% of domestic violence victims turning up at the police station are men, then it is being said that this could only appear to be the case because there must be gender bias against women within the system!

 

In other words, it cannot possibly be that men make up more than 10% of domestic violence victims.

 

It just isn't possible!

 

Despite huge amounts of research evidence pointing to the fact that men are just as often the victims of domestic violence as women, the US Department of Justice is stating that this cannot possibly be the case.

 

This is not only totally outrageous but it really does reveal just how utterly corrupt, self-serving, dishonest and hateful towards men are those who work within the justice system.

 

Quite clearly, these people are often, nowadays, little more than loathsome parasites who fill their bellies and their bank accounts by stirring up hatred towards men in order to reap the rewards from the ensuing problems that this causes, and by employing policies that are specifically designed to disadvantage men.

 

And more men need to wake up to the fact that there is a huge and very lucrative industry out there which thrives on demonising and disadvantaging men in virtually all the important aspects of their lives; health, education, family etc etc.

 

And it is not going to go away unless YOU stand up to it -- which means undermining it both from within and from without at every opportunity.

[soserious1]

I need to add here that when we talk of the devastating consequences imposed on men by the draft we most look at the Vietnam war closely.

 

Due to a radically changing social upheaval in this country, the war was bitterly opposed by many, as result many of our men in uniform faced hostility, even violence in our streets. 18 year old's openly cursed and spat upon for complying with Federal law.

 

There was no parade for those returning from the Vietnam war, no honor, no public thanks or recognition of the horrors they had suffered in our name. Our boys came home to face contempt & hatred in our streets.The Vietnam war memorial is nice, but came far too late.

 

There is a significant population of baby boomer men, walking around still feeling & reliving the devastating consequences of this war.A large portion of homeless men are vets, a large portion of those struggling with chronic Etoh or opiate addictions are men. Decades later there are men who still cannot speak of their experiences in Vietnam.

 

How do we begin to even attempt to compensate for suffering that was imposed on these people solely because they were male?

[A O]

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.

If your belief is based only on a few people within this thread or on this message board then I can see your point of view. It’s unfortunate that a lot of useful information is greatly tainted by unnecessary caustic commentary. Looking at the bigger picture (and simply using common sense more than any connection to them)…the MRM would be foolish to adopt policy or behave in a manner similar to the oft discussed radical side of feminism.

 

.

[Taramere]

If your belief is based only on a few people within this thread or on this message board then I can see your point of view. It’s unfortunate that a lot of useful information is greatly tainted by unnecessary caustic commentary. Looking at the bigger picture (and simply using common sense more than any connection to them)…the MRM would be foolish to adopt policy or behave in a manner similar to the oft discussed radical side of feminism.

 

.

 

Well no. Not only that. Ages ago I worked on a helpline (for children to call anonymously) and we were targeted by one such group who didn't like the advertising campaign. A lot of obscene and vexatious calls.

 

Also, because I've done a fair bit of time in general practice I've been landed with a few family law cases where you get to see and hear a lot. I've also had a lot of cases where the woman had been an abusive cow...so I've definitely seen both sides of the coin. Some of those men had received support from the organisation that targeted that helpline I did some work for, and the people helping them would generally be pleasant to me in that scenario.

 

I did sometimes worry, though, that just as a result of being female I might find myself on the end of a vexatious complaint...which eventually happened when I failed to follow my gut instincts about a new client. The complaint was rejected, but he used every trick in the book to drag the process out for as long as possible. You honestly can't imagine what it's like when somebody like that decides to make you the next target of their huge great snowball of grievances unless you've been there.

 

These people exist in real life, for sure. They can be incredibly spiteful in my experience.....so although I don't want to be unfair, I'm definitely wary about men's rights groups. I've had the odd look online to see what kind of messages they have (I was particularly curious during that former client's "war" against me)...and although there's a variety of approaches, with some sounding pretty reasonable, there seems to be a broad acceptance in those groups of the more vindictive elements. A sense that even people who aren't too impressed by them avoid challenging them for the sake of fitting in.

Edited November 18, 2011 by Taramere

[A O]

Well no. Not only that. Ages ago I worked on a helpline (for children to call anonymously) and we were targeted by one such group who didn't like the advertising campaign. A lot of obscene and vexatious calls.

In that case, you’re behaving in the same manner as the more vocal men here; too much time spent scoring points at the expense of the other side. The Mens Rights Movement, all radical in your eyes until you’re satisfied otherwise. Feminism seen in a similar vain by some here. Round and round we go.

 

I did sometimes worry, though, that just as a result of being female I might find myself on the end of a vexatious complaint...which eventually happened when I failed to follow my gut instincts about a new client. The complaint was rejected, but he used every trick in the book to drag the process out for as long as possible. You honestly can't imagine what it's like when somebody like that decides to make you the next target of their huge great snowball of grievances unless you've been there.

Unfortunately, crap situations like this aren’t limited to just women.

 

.

[Taramere]

In that case, you’re behaving in the same manner as the more vocal men here; too much time spent scoring points at the expense of the other side. The Mens Rights Movement, all radical in your eyes until you’re satisfied otherwise. Feminism seen in a similar vain by some here. Round and round we go.

 

As far as I'm concerned I've already put in more time than I should have trying to present my perspective in civil terms on this thread. You're free to see it however you please.

[A O]

^ ^ ^

Civility is not the main issue, its balance (or lack thereof), the same issue that plaques both sides.

 

 

.

[Els]

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

 

So, you think we should kill one baby boy for every baby girl killed in China, and that will somehow make things right?

[joystickd]

Feminism, misandry, killing babies in china WTF I didn't realize this had a place on a dating forum. This back and forth gets crazier by the minute

[the wizard]

Isn't this thread supposed to be about what people think a "real" woman is? I just glanced over Chinese killing babies, domestic violence, fetuses....? Huh?

[Els]

Adding here, since I can't edit. Soserious, it's just making me chuckle to see how you persistently bring up the woes of men forced into draft and injured in war, and demand compensation for them, but NONE of your suggestions actually compensate the victims or prevent the cycle from recurring. Your solutions aren't about how war can be prevented, or alternatives to forced draft, or additional benefits and proper healthcare and compensation for war veterans... oh no. Your solution to the suffering endured by soldiers is to keep the cycle of forced enlistment and suffering going, just shoving it to another gender.

 

 

Have you ever told this solution of yours to an actual war veteran? I somehow suspect that men of their mettle would laugh in your face.

[dasein]

men's rights movement

 

Tired of your redundant mischaracterizations of my posts and others' as part of some "men's rights movement," "MRA," "men's activism," "masculinist." You are the only person in the thread who has persisted in this, and no poster has self-identified as such.

 

Speaking out against feminist tenets, doctrine, and identifying ways in which those doctrines damage society and are discriminatory against men or anyone else is not equivalent, logically or even colloquially, to a "men's rights movement," and in the case of my posts at least, is just as critical of such a prospective movement as of feminism. Repealing laws and social policies does not equate to enacting other laws and social policies. Negation of an idea presumes... negation of an idea... nothing more. Someone who speaks out against a particular political party's actions is not presumed to be a member of the opposite party, and may in fact be a member of no party at all.

 

Your intent in persisting in this is obvious, transparent and dishonest. Just because you support an indefensible, gender divisive doctrine of polarization and victimization readily identified with an "ism" does not mean that anyone who disagrees with you or other feminists supports some equally odious doctrine as well. Please do us the courtesy of discontinuing this gross mischaracterization.

 

Moreover, categorizing POVs that oppose feminism as "MRA," "MRM," for purposes of setting up straw men with respect to your personal past experiences with people who are members of such groups or whom you have categorized as such is also dishonest and transparent, in addition to amounting to mere noise in the thread. It doesn't add anything meaningful to the discussion, makes no valid point at all, just plain noise.

 

Moreover, your isolation of what I'll call "colorful general potshots" in my posts and opposing posts, in a vacuum, out of context of the back and forth in the thread, as evidence of some rabid, extremist intent is also dishonest. I'd rather not go back through your posts and others' posts directed at me and isolate all the direct, personal and needless characterizations of me and my posts in this thread. Any colorful general potshots I've engaged in this thread have been preceded by direct, hostile insults in some cases and gross mischaracterizations of my posts by you and others.

[soserious1]

So, you think we should kill one baby boy for every baby girl killed in China, and that will somehow make things right?

 

First, we must clarify that in talking about Affirmative Action

we are dealing with matters of law pertaining to only this country.

 

Secondly, we must examine the difference between behaviors

that occur due to social or cultural norms and those that occur

due to the law.

 

The law in China specified that parents could have only one child

not that parents could only give birth to male children.

 

The selective service law in the USA specifically targeted men,

only men were required to sign up for the draft.

 

In terms then only of the law, this is apples and oranges,

the 2 things are not the same.

[soserious1]

Adding here, since I can't edit. Soserious, it's just making me chuckle to see how you persistently bring up the woes of men forced into draft and injured in war, and demand compensation for them, but NONE of your suggestions actually compensate the victims or prevent the cycle from recurring. Your solutions aren't about how war can be prevented, or alternatives to forced draft, or additional benefits and proper healthcare and compensation for war veterans... oh no. Your solution to the suffering endured by soldiers is to keep the cycle of forced enlistment and suffering going, just shoving it to another gender.

 

 

Have you ever told this solution of yours to an actual war veteran? I somehow suspect that men of their mettle would laugh in your face.

 

Your dislike of me aside, your insistence that we simply brush away the fact that hundreds of thousands of men have been discriminated against just because it might now require feminists to sit at the back of the bus while men get to eat first is laughable.

 

Your calling upon the chivalry of men to support your position is also laughable, chivalry died with feminism, equal rights, affirmative action for women meant that men were no longer required to die for women or to lie their coats across puddles so that fair damsels like yourself wouldn't get their shoes ruined.

 

Again, affirmative action was just fine and dandy when it benefited women, when it advanced feminist goals. Yet when the situation of class of potential male plaintiffs is presented, now AA is wrong, those pesky men should all just slink quietly away right? No compensation for them, they should just suck it up like a man ?

 

IMHO, solutions that end war are needed,in situations where conflict is not avoidable we need a draft that is equitable to both genders. However, these issues cannot be properly addressed without admission that a huge class of people were caused terrible harm, discriminated against solely because they were male and some system of compensation put in place to try to rectify the wrong done them. We can't just scrape the old system and walk away now, ignoring documented harm done to the male gender due to an unjust,discriminatory law.

Edited November 18, 2011 by soserious1

[aj22one]

IMHO, solutions that end war are needed,in situations where conflict is not avoidable we need a draft that is equitable to both genders. However, these issues cannot be properly addressed without admission that a huge class of people were caused terrible harm, discriminated against solely because they were male and some system of compensation put in place to try to rectify the wrong done them. We can't just scrape the old system and walk away now, ignoring documented harm done to the male gender due to an unjust,discriminatory law.

 

Nah man, we don't need a draft at all. When's the last time we fought a "necessary and unavoidable" war? Maybe WWII, but that was preventable. Before that, probably the Revolutionary War.

 

Conscripting people into the military is wrong. Let's just forget about history and move forward from here.

[soserious1]

Nah man, we don't need a draft at all. When's the last time we fought a "necessary and unavoidable" war? Maybe WWII, but that was preventable. Before that, probably the Revolutionary War.

 

Conscripting people into the military is wrong. Let's just forget about history and move forward from here.

 

Okay, so what do we do with the hundreds of thousands of victims of a discriminatory draft law, many of whom are still living? Do we say, "too bad,too sad, sucks to be you" ? We are moving on now & don't care that our law ruined your life, suck it up like a man.. is that our response then?

 

Sorry but I disagree, these men and their families deserve compensation.

Edited November 18, 2011 by soserious1

[aj22one]

Okay, so what do we do with the hundreds of thousands of victims of a discriminatory draft law, many of whom are still living? Do we say, "too bad,too sad, sucks to be you" ? We are moving on now & don't care that our law ruined your life, suck it up like a man.. is that our response then?

 

Most of them are Vietnam vets who are retiring (or are already retired) anyway, not much we can do for them now. I'm not for reparations for anyone, so yeah we should just move forward. Otherwise we'd be apologizing for every thing that's ever happened in history.

[joystickd]

http://clarissethorn.com/blog/2009/10/24/questions-i-want-to-ask-entitled-cis-het-men-part-3-space-for-men/

[soserious1]

Most of them are Vietnam vets who are retiring (or are already retired) anyway, not much we can do for them now. I'm not for reparations for anyone, so yeah we should just move forward. Otherwise we'd be apologizing for every thing that's ever happened in history.

 

 

So then, you feel it's okay then to spit on and slap these men in the face yet again simply because they're now elderly? Great, thank you for honestly stating your position.

[aj22one]

So then, you feel it's okay then to spit on and slap these men in the face yet again simply because they're now elderly? Great, thank you for honestly stating your position.

 

Who said anything about slapping 'em in the face? They got paid for their service, and if any benefits are owed to them (VA benefits that is) then they should get those too. What other compensation are you advocating?

 

The best way to honor their memory and service is to get rid of the draft.

[Mme. Chaucer]

Okay, so what do we do with the hundreds of thousands of victims of a discriminatory draft law, many of whom are still living? Do we say, "too bad,too sad, sucks to be you" ? We are moving on now & don't care that our law ruined your life, suck it up like a man.. is that our response then?

 

Sorry but I disagree, these men and their families deserve compensation.

 

Compensation, if deserved, should not entail serving up equal ruination to another segment of the population in the name of "fairness."

 

If we follow your logic, we need to arrange for a few centuries of boys / men being the chattel of their mothers / wives, revoke their right to vote or to own personal property and to require that their legal identity become that of an appendage of their wife, if married, etc. in order to "rebalance" the former inequities between men and women.

 

And let's not forget enacting a wage scale that enforces men be paid at a lower rate than women for the same job, across the board, for a few decades as well.

 

I do agree that rebalance is necessary. I do not agree that the way to achieve it is to continue with this kind of approach.

Edited November 18, 2011 by Mme. Chaucer

[soserious1]

Who said anything about slapping 'em in the face? They got paid for their service, and if any benefits are owed to them (VA benefits that is) then they should get those too. What other compensation are you advocating?

 

The best way to honor their memory and service is to get rid of the draft.

 

How do you "pay" somebody for "service" that you forced them into literally at the point of a loaded gun?

 

Ever been to a VA clinic? lol! if the vast majority of Americans were forced to get the bulk of their medical care at one of them, the hue and cry would be heard around the world.

[aj22one]

How do you "pay" somebody for "service" that you forced them into literally at the point of a loaded gun?

 

Well you can't put a literal dollar amount on it, especially considering the emotional toll it's taken on some guys. But then again, how do you pay a murder victim's family? Or a rape victim? Crappy things happen, sometimes you do what you can but there's no way to make it right in the end.

 

Again though, what kind of compensation do you want to see?

[soserious1]

Compensation, if deserved, should not entail serving up equal ruination to another segment of the population in the name of "fairness."

 

If we follow your logic, we need to arrange for a few centuries of boys / men being the chattel of their mothers / wives, revoke their right to vote or to own personal property and to require that their legal identity become that of an appendage of their wife, if married, etc. in order to "rebalance" the former inequities between men and women.

 

And let's not forget enacting a wage scale that enforces men be paid at a lower rate than women for the same job, across the board, for a few decades as well.

 

I do agree that rebalance is necessary. I do not agree that the way to achieve it is to continue with this kind of approach.

 

Again, we are speaking only about discrimination enforced by the law, not social/cultural norms willingly complied with.