What do you think a feminist is? Watch

Ebony19
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#101
Report 4 years ago
#101
Those angry lesbinims what try to overthrow my testosterone. Them ones what won't let me have sex with them and them ones what don't wear pinafore's... Init.

Say far too many ill informed manchildren on here.
0
reply
ChickenMadness
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#102
Report 4 years ago
#102
(Original post by Ebony19)
Those angry lesbinims what try to overthrow my testosterone. Them ones what won't let me have sex with them and them ones what don't wear pinafore's... Init.
Atleast you're honest about it
1
reply
username521617
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#103
Report 4 years ago
#103
(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
The reason many issues are framed as "women's issues" or that the main focus is on women is because the issues are disproportionally affecting women (ie the domestic violence issue). But that doesn't mean that feminism only focuses on women.
False. Domestic violence affects men in very comparable rates. In the United States, for example, more than 40% of domestic violence cases in recent years involved male victims. In Canada, more than a third of patients admitted to hospital as a result of sexual partner and/or marital violence were men. But where where is nearly all the funding and public awareness directed? Towards women. As I mentioned, you can blame the woman-centered bias for this common misconception, inequality, and the poor circulation of this information.

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
Amusing that you say they are so rare, when that list was made in like...15 minutes? :rolleyes:
You still have to go looking for it. How often are these instances made obvious and available in the public sphere? It's typically unheard of (unless you have access to a search engine).

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
:rolleyes: You are invited to solve an issue that affects many men. What is condescending about being invited to help those men? It's funny that you accuse the feminist movement of not caring about men's issues and then when you are invited to help them be more inclusive you scoff and call them condescending.
You are also conflating patriarchy with men. The two are different. Patriarchy is a system, men are subject to that system just as everyone else is.
That article was barely offering to include men in matters of gender equality -- at least not in the ways I have alluded to. It pretty well states that we (and masculinity) are the problem. Essentially: "Don't worry, you can cleanse yourself of your male sin, become feminists, and not be a problem for society anymore!" Oh, well I'm flattered...

It mentions very few of the the issues that affect men, and it again portrays men as being the problem, women as the victims, and that we must 'fix' ourselves. I mean, excuse me? It's almost entirely just one big sanctimonious swipe at male society and masculinity. It's incredibly condescending; not inclusive.
0
reply
Wade-
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#104
Report 4 years ago
#104
(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
And I've provided a list of sources in less than 15 minutes. If you can't be bothered to actually look then don't claim you have any actual knowledge.
I evidently did look at them otherwise I wouldn't have been able to highlight how stupid they were.

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
I'm not sure what group you are trying to refer to. Perhaps they should. Are they consulting with women in their work? Or is it just a bunch of men deciding what is best for women? How effective are their strategies and what messages do they send/reinforce? This is why it generally considered important for movements to be led by those affected.
HoC - House of Commons.

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
:confused: You do realize that most activism and most work is done around individual cases right? We use individual experiences to highlight problems faced by a wider group. So for example the man in jail for blasphemy had to do with how he was treated and showing support for his case (which encourages similar treatment of similar cases). Same for the man who murdered his sexual abuser.
Yes most are sparked from one person's experiences but the case of a man being put in prison for blasphemy is not an issue that effects all men, its unfortunate circumstance that one man has found himself in. The same is true of the man who killed his sexual abuser, he has put himself in an unfortunate situation but it effects him and not all or even most men.

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
As for the on on rape you clearly didn't read it very well. The author most certainly did not agree that that it wasn't rape. They said: :rolleyes: It's unclear whether it was 'rape' technically it likely wasn't legally at least. But he was clearly violated even if it was an innocent mistake.
'Dan tells her that she didn’t actually rape her boyfriend'
'I don’t buy the oft-repeated story of the accidental rapist who just didn’t know that the woman he was with didn’t want to have sex, and he had sex anyway, and then she said it was rape but it was all just a big misunderstanding'

Those are essentially the same thing. Any credibility of that article is removed from the lack of legal understanding shown anyway for example where it says. right at the beginning, that you have to have 'a level of guilty mindedness'
0
reply
RandZul'Zorander
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#105
Report 4 years ago
#105
(Original post by Dandaman1)
False. Domestic violence affects men in very comparable rates. In the United States, for example, more than 40% of domestic violence cases in recent years involved male victims. In Canada, more than a third of patients admitted to hospital as a result of sexual partner and/or marital violence were men. But where where is nearly all the funding and public awareness directed? Towards women. As I mentioned, you can blame the woman-centered bias for this common misconception, inequality, and the poor circulation of this information.
I suggest you read into the issue of domestic and intimate partner violence because the reasons for there being more support for women often has to do with the greater prevalency and effect it has on women. This might be a good place to start http://www.cdc.gov/violencepreventio...port2010-a.pdf


You still have to go looking for it. How often are these instances made obvious and available in the public sphere? It's typically unheard of (unless you have access to a search engine).
You have to go looking for any information, particularly about IPV. This is hardly an argument.

That article was barely offering to include men in matters of gender equality -- at least not in the ways I have alluded to. It pretty well states that we (and masculinity) are the problem. Essentially: "Don't worry, you can cleanse yourself of your male sin, become feminists, and not be a problem for society anymore!" Oh, well I'm flattered...

It mentions very few of the the issues that affect men, and it again portrays men as being the problem, women as the victims, and that we must 'fix' ourselves. I mean, excuse me? It's almost entirely just one big sanctimonious swipe at male society and masculinity. It's incredibly condescending; not inclusive.
:facepalm: Again, masculinity =/= men. Patriarchy =/= men. If you think the article was saying men were the probably I highly suggest you re-read it because that is not what it was saying.

It mentions few issues that affect men? The higher prevalence of violence against men in society as a whole? Sexual abuse support advocacy, and even advocacy for a more inclusive definition of sexual assault. Those aren't issues that affect men? Not to mention the article linked to many other feminist writers who talk about traditional masculinity and the issues that men face often as a result of it.

Why is it that you feel so threatened by the idea that the traditional messages sent to boys about 'being a man' can be harmful to those very same boys? It's not about 'cleansing' it's about critical analysis and growth and change. What is wrong with that? You make it out to be some aggressive act on you and all men everywhere when in fact all it is saying is that you should be critical of your understandings and and how they affect everyone.
0
reply
RandZul'Zorander
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#106
Report 4 years ago
#106
(Original post by Wade-)
I evidently did look at them otherwise I wouldn't have been able to highlight how stupid they were.
There are far more resources than just a list that was made in 15 minutes. In case you couldn't tell I was saying to do some actual research of your own instead of whining about what a very quick and limited search found. :rolleyes:

HoC - House of Commons.
I have never seen it abbreviated that way...huh
Right so here I refer to what I said above. When they legislate why do the legislate? On the urge of who? Who do they listen to? Most often they are pushed into legislation by women and feminist organizations. So who is driving that activism? Why wouldn't or shouldn't the case be similar? That's not saying women and feminists shouldn't support such efforts but they shouldn't be the one's leading the charge necessarily.


Yes most are sparked from one person's experiences but the case of a man being put in prison for blasphemy is not an issue that effects all men, its unfortunate circumstance that one man has found himself in. The same is true of the man who killed his sexual abuser, he has put himself in an unfortunate situation but it effects him and not all or even most men.
If you can't tell that the experience of a young boy being sexually abused, and physically abused is a reflection on how society fail's boys and men then I think you are a lost cause. The point of the article was that circumstances had put him into such a state of desperation that he resorted to violence and that these circumstances are results of society and issues that many men and boys face. :rolleyes:

'Dan tells her that she didn’t actually rape her boyfriend'
'I don’t buy the oft-repeated story of the accidental rapist who just didn’t know that the woman he was with didn’t want to have sex, and he had sex anyway, and then she said it was rape but it was all just a big misunderstanding'

Those are essentially the same thing. Any credibility of that article is removed from the lack of legal understanding shown anyway for example where it says. right at the beginning, that you have to have 'a level of guilty mindedness'
:facepalm: You really are grasping at straws here aren't you? You've now gone from 'it doesn't address men being assaulted' to 'it doesn't accurately portray the law'. Funnily enough the point of the article is not about the legal definition or legal guiltiness of a party but about morality and what we as a society should be actively educating against and bringing to light. So even though it might not be a case of legal rape it may still be considered rape and sexual assault in the colloquial sense (ie just not having consent).

You also are using when she disagrees with 'Dan' and gives why and then applies that to the situation with a man (as I quoted above already) to try to show that she is dismissing rape against men? :rofl:
0
reply
username521617
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#107
Report 4 years ago
#107
(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
I suggest you read into the issue of domestic and intimate partner violence because the reasons for there being more support for women often has to do with the greater prevalency and effect it has on women. This might be a good place to start http://www.cdc.gov/violencepreventio...port2010-a.pdf
I again refer you to the statistics I provided. It's prevalence among women is not that much greater than it is among men. This is even evident in the very document you cited.


(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
You have to go looking for any information, particularly about IPV. This is hardly an argument.
We are reminded of how women are the victims in every social scenario on a daily basis. It's almost all that's talked about on college campuses, in academia, on the news, in entertainment when it comes to these matters. As it stands, we have to spend more time looking for facts and perspectives on male experiences because female-focused 'gender equality' has stolen the limelight completely. Too few people are aware that sexual or gender-skewed issues affect men too (even when they do so to a a similar degree, as with domestic violence). Again, questions asked about gender experiences almost always focus on women and their experiences. Male issues are usually just a footnote in feminist material (if present at all), despite their prevalence in the real world. But hey, still counts, right? It's because of this that inequalities and injustices affecting women often tend to be exaggerated or miss-sold.


(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
Again, masculinity =/= men. Patriarchy =/= men. If you think the article was saying men were the probably I highly suggest you re-read it because that is not what it was saying.

...
The article is still referring to men and male attitudes as though we are the sex causing all the problems. But there is nothing inherently wrong with masculinity, just as there is nothing wrong with femininity. Yet this article is clearly making a point of targeting the former and blaming men (yes, the masculine sex) for their own problems and arrogantly invites us to solve our issues by subscribing to a movement that in practice regards our very nature as broken and villainous. The tone of the articles embodies how self-absorbed, hypocritically sexist and blissfully unaware of their own high-horse lunacy a great many feminists are.
0
reply
RandZul'Zorander
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#108
Report 4 years ago
#108
(Original post by Dandaman1)
I again refer you to the statistics I provided. It's prevalence among women is not that much greater than it is among men. This is even evident in the very document you cited.
1. You're statistics are not supported by the document I cited.
2. You should re-read my statements. "Prevalence and effect." If you actually look at the document not only are female victims more prevalent but the effects are often more far reaching.



We are reminded of how women are the victims in every social scenario on a daily basis. It's almost all that's talked about on college campuses, in academia, on the news, in entertainment when it comes to these matters. As it stands, we have to spend more time looking for facts and perspectives on male experiences because female-focused 'gender equality' has stolen the limelight completely. Too few people are aware that sexual or gender-skewed issues affect men too (even when they do so to a a similar degree, as with domestic violence). Again, questions asked about gender experiences almost always focus on women and their experiences. Male issues are usually just a footnote in feminist material (if present at all), despite their prevalence in the real world. But hey, still counts, right? It's because of this that inequalities and injustices affecting women often tend to be exaggerated or miss-sold.
More time looking for facts or perspectives? Men are mentioned in all the major research not just as footnotes. Look at the document which took me 2 minutes to find. It even lists other studies as well. Not to mention lots of analytical data based on the study which also address men and IPV.
You are right that men aren't given the spotlight. That's because there are large bodies of research which say that they are not as strongly affected by these issues (some of which can be explained by issues of masculinity). To say though people don't realize or care that these issues can and do face men too is just simply inaccurate.

The article is still referring to men and male attitudes as though we are the sex causing all the problems. But there is nothing inherently wrong with masculinity, just as there is nothing wrong with femininity. Yet this article is clearly making a point of targeting the former and blaming men (yes, the masculine sex) for their own problems and arrogantly invites us to solve our issues by subscribing to a movement that in practice regards our very nature as broken and villainous. The tone of the articles embodies how self-absorbed, hypocritically sexist and blissfully unaware of their own high-horse lunacy a great many feminists are.
You're right the article does specifically target masculinity...because, you know, that was the topic? But it doesn't say that masculinity is inherently wrong (indeed it says that masculinity needs tweaking to be better). Nor did it 'blame men' for their own problems. I will repeat again, masculinity =/= men. To say that masculinity is the 'very nature' of a man is rather silly as there are feminine men and concepts of what is and is not masculine are extremely subjective (think of different societal ideals of masculinity and how it has changed throughout time).

And again, neither feminism, nor the article say that masculinity is inherently bad nor that it is broken or villainous. They are critical of it and recognize parts that are problematic though. As opposed to you who seems to imply that it is always 100% ok. Who is the one that really is spouting lunacy? :rolleyes:
0
reply
dyslexicvegie
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#109
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#109
(Original post by zippity.doodah)
oh yeah? so what are the political goals of feminists, and what are their policies/means? surely there must be some that can act as examples of "feminism" and not misandry (because lately I see no difference)
Just to clear any confusion I agree with my own statement (with the ??? on the end) was slightly concerned it looked sarcastic.

I would say my own feminism does not equate to misandry. As there is no feminist manifesto as such, its possible that some people who identify as feminists also hate men.

I would say the way I look at it is: There is someone on a pedestal, and I want to be on that pedestal with them, I don't want to push them off.
0
reply
zippity.doodah
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#110
Report 4 years ago
#110
(Original post by dyslexicvegie)
Just to clear any confusion I agree with my own statement (with the ??? on the end) was slightly concerned it looked sarcastic.

I would say my own feminism does not equate to misandry. As there is no feminist manifesto as such, its possible that some people who identify as feminists also hate men.

I would say the way I look at it is: There is someone on a pedestal, and I want to be on that pedestal with them, I don't want to push them off.
all I am saying is that the kind of "feminist" policies that governments have introduced in the western world today have largely either 1) unfairly advantaged women, or 2) unfairly disadvantaged men. e.g. family law (women getting the better deal in divorce/child custody rights, etc), criminal law (women being only 5% of the prison population while committing much more than 5% of the conviction-based crimes), having higher parental/maternity leave than men, having a lower retirement age than men, women being de facto allowed to hit men but men de facto not being allowed to hit women back, the existence of a minister of "women" and equality, but not "men", men de facto not being taken seriously in rape, sexual harrassment and domestic abuse cases, etc etc
0
reply
username521617
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#111
Report 4 years ago
#111
(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
1. You're statistics are not supported by the document I cited.
2. You should re-read my statements. "Prevalence and effect." If you actually look at the document not only are female victims more prevalent but the effects are often more far reaching.
The document gives figures of sexual partner violence clearly indicating that percentage of male victims of sexual partner violence is not exactly far behind female percentages. I was not stating the specific figures I mentioned (domestic violence) were in the document, but that male figures of gendered violence aren't necessarily always that different, which is evident in the data from the cited document.

The negative effects quantified as being greater for women because rape, violent sexual assault and other offences were included in the data, not just domestic violence. Women experience those to a greater degree, and instances tend to be more traumatic. Nevertheless, simply because the male respondents showed proportionally lower signs of trauma, or are naturally better-suited to cope with it, does not give them the right to be ignored as an issue so frequently. Furthermore, this is a government document; not a piece of feminist literature. The inclusion of male data and experiences in feminist literature is what is in dispute. You can't just keep systematically choosing examples you find on the internet and shout "See! Men are mentioned!" when I am talking about feminist attitudes as a whole.

As for the article, I don't know what else to say that won't result in me simply repeating myself. It is not something that sought to acknowledge male experiences to any significant degree; it was another slimy sales piece from Everyday Feminism and sefl-righteous diatribe about how men need feminism because they are victims of themselves (as well as containing the typical dose of feminist B.S. rhetoric). Regardless, the point towards the end of my second paragraph still applies.
0
reply
dyslexicvegie
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#112
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#112
(Original post by zippity.doodah)
all I am saying is that the kind of "feminist" policies that governments have introduced in the western world today have largely either 1) unfairly advantaged women, or 2) unfairly disadvantaged men. e.g. family law (women getting the better deal in divorce/child custody rights, etc), criminal law (women being only 5% of the prison population while committing much more than 5% of the conviction-based crimes), having higher parental/maternity leave than men, having a lower retirement age than men, women being de facto allowed to hit men but men de facto not being allowed to hit women back, the existence of a minister of "women" and equality, but not "men", men de facto not being taken seriously in rape, sexual harrassment and domestic abuse cases, etc etc

I agree that major issues arise when Governments and courts try to legislate for biological differences or/and entrenched prejudices. Does not always work very well (politicians trying very hard to look inclusive and make complicated issues into a good sound bite).

I think the recent changes to parental leave are good idea. Couples should be able to decide what works best for them.

I think there is a real problem in the western world with attitudes to sexually based crimes in general whether the victim is male or female.

Agreed, if an issue generally effects one group over another then that group getts most or all of the attention, though Id say that that is mostly the fault of the media and not the feminist 'movement' per say. I would say that the 'women as victims' is a lot less of a fact than it once was (50 + years ago) but is yet to be shaken off as a simplistic portrayal.
0
reply
RandZul'Zorander
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#113
Report 4 years ago
#113
(Original post by Dandaman1)
The document gives figures of sexual partner violence clearly indicating that percentage of male victims of sexual partner violence is not exactly far behind female percentages. I was not stating the specific figures I mentioned (domestic violence) were in the document, but that male figures of gendered violence aren't necessarily always that different, which is evident in the data from the cited document.
Except I never made the claim that men are not affected by IPV. Nor have I claimed that there aren't similar rates but it is still extremely evident that the issue does affect women far more than men both in prevalence and longer lasting effects which was my original point.

The negative effects quantified as being greater for women because rape, violent sexual assault and other offences were included in the data, not just domestic violence. Women experience those to a greater degree, and instances tend to be more traumatic. Nevertheless, simply because the male respondents showed proportionally lower signs of trauma, or are naturally better-suited to cope with it, does not give them the right to be ignored as an issue so frequently. Furthermore, this is a government document; not a piece of feminist literature. The inclusion of male data and experiences in feminist literature is what is in dispute. You can't just keep systematically choosing examples you find on the internet and shout "See! Men are mentioned!" when I am talking about feminist attitudes as a whole.
Are you trying to imply that we ought ignore rape, and sexual assault as part of IPV? This seems just like a game to make it seem like men are equally affected which they are clearly not. You are right that women experience rape, sexual assault, etc at the hands of intimate partners to a much greater degree than men and that is kind of the point. These are why much more attention and resources are made available and targeted towards women.

Ugh you want feminist articles that talk about men as victims? http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/12/male-rape-epidemic/
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...9#.VSbViRPF8mU
http://thefeministwire.com/2013/03/f...e-against-men/
http://feministing.com/2013/01/31/th...xual-violence/
http://www.slate.com/articles/double...assaulted.html
http://www.palgrave.com/page/detail/...=9780230223967
It's amazing what a single google search can turn up. :rolleyes:

As for the article, I don't know what else to say that won't result in me simply repeating myself. It is not something that sought to acknowledge male experiences to any significant degree; it was another slimy sales piece from Everyday Feminism and sefl-righteous diatribe about how men need feminism because they are victims of themselves (as well as containing the typical dose of feminist B.S. rhetoric). Regardless, the point towards the end of my second paragraph still applies.
Literally the entire article was about male experiences. So do explain how it didn't do that to any significant degree.
Ah 'just another' piece that specifically addresses some of the issues men face and how feminists can and should handle them. Oh the horror of acknowledging that feminism could help victims (no not of themselves but of abuse, ridicule, shaming just for being who they are - men). You really like this essentialist attitude of masculinity = men.
0
reply
username521617
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#114
Report 4 years ago
#114
(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
Except I never made the claim that men are not affected by IPV. Nor have I claimed that there aren't similar rates but it is still extremely evident that the issue does affect women far more than men both in prevalence and longer lasting effects which was my original point.
As far as prevalence goes, that document puts women ~20% above that of male experiences, meaning men still comprise approximately a third of experiences (excluding rape). But this is sexual violence. Have you forgotten that from the very beginning I was talking about domestic violence? The CDC, in a separate publication, would state males as being 45% of all victims..

Also, let's remind ourselves that, in the document you provided, these are only estimates derived from samples.

Finding these figures in a targeted Google search is not the same as it being openly communicated in the public sphere -- this is my very point: we don't often see the male figures -- despite them being a large proportion -- so we have to go looking for them. Ask average people on the street (or especially students) what the gender proportions for domestic violence victims are and I can bet the average estimate would be that it's about 90% women, because that's all we're usually informed about.


(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
Are you trying to imply that we ought ignore rape, and sexual assault as part of IPV? This seems just like a game to make it seem like men are equally affected which they are clearly not. You are right that women experience rape, sexual assault, etc at the hands of intimate partners to a much greater degree than men and that is kind of the point. These are why much more attention and resources are made available and targeted towards women.
What on Earth gave you that idea? I simply reminded you that the 'Impacts' dataset did not not separate physical/domestic violence specifically which I though was our original topic of dispute), so the rates given in the table weren't applicable to this alone.

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
Ugh you want feminist articles that talk about men as victims?

...
Again, a targeted Google search turning up a few feminist articles that mention men is not representative of the attitudes of the movement as a whole. The are about a million feminist pieces on the web, so I'm sure you'll turn up at least a few hundred on men with relatively little effort. And the funny thing is articles such as these tend mention the fact that the male side of things goes overlooked in feminist literature. Did you not notice that?
0
reply
RandZul'Zorander
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#115
Report 4 years ago
#115
(Original post by Dandaman1)
As far as prevalence goes, that document puts women ~20% above that of male experiences, meaning men still comprise approximately a third of experiences (excluding rape). But this is sexual violence. Have you forgotten that from the very beginning I was talking about domestic violence? The CDC, in a separate publication, would state males as being 45% of all victims..
Is sexual violence not a part of domestic violence? You seem to think that for some reason that sexual assaults and rape of intimate partners falls outside of the realm of domestic violence? IPV is what the CDC calls domestic violence because it recognizes that violence takes many forms and that the structure of families and relationships is not as simple as 'living under one roof'.

Re bold: Would you care to direct to that CDC publication then? This is twice you've made the claim..

Also, let's remind ourselves that, in the document you provided, these are only estimates derived from samples.
...That is literally what all studies on the topic are so I hope you don't need to remind yourself of this.

Finding these figures in a targeted Google search is not the same as it being openly communicated in the public sphere -- this is my very point: we don't often see the male figures -- despite them being a large proportion -- so we have to go looking for them. Ask average people on the street (or especially students) what the gender proportions for domestic violence victims are and I can bet the average estimate would be that it's about 90% women, because that's all we're usually informed about.
You are right you don't often see the male figures which has been explained already. Because of the disproportionate effects on women it makes sense to focus efforts more on women. In fact given much of the figures it makes sense to have them be an extremely high priority. Does that mean there shouldn't be support for men? Of course not. Does that mean that there should be more awareness for men? Sure.

But what exactly are you proposing? There is a huge difference between offering services which are accessible by all and targeting the groups who are most affected (which is what is currently being done) and asking for specific services for a less represented group as if they aren't already there. If you're just asking for more awareness how are you planning on getting that awareness? Sadly the reason there is more awareness of female victims is because there are more of them with particularly bad stories. I and many feminists would have no problem with campaigns that raise awareness of men's victimization but not at the expense of awareness of women's victimization.

A further point, you make all this fuss about how men need support in this too (or at the very least awareness of their situations) so what do you do to further this issue? Anything? Do you do any campaigning? Or are you just here on a thread using these people's plight as a means of discrediting feminism? It would be not only ironic, but extremely hypocritical of you to be claiming that feminism is so horrible for leaving behind these men if you aren't doing anything to support them yourself.

What on Earth gave you that idea? I simply reminded you that the 'Impacts' dataset did not not separate physical/domestic violence specifically which I though was our original topic of dispute), so the rates given in the table weren't applicable to this alone.
It didn't separate them because whether the violence what physical or sexual it is still 'domestic' violence. :rolleyes:

Again, a targeted Google search turning up a few feminist articles that mention men is not representative of the attitudes of the movement as a whole. The are about a million feminist pieces on the web, so I'm sure you'll turn up at least a few hundred on men with relatively little effort. And the funny thing is articles such as these tend mention the fact that the male side of things goes overlooked in feminist literature. Did you not notice that?
:rolleyes: How do you plan on finding anything out about feminism without doing some searching? Do you expect every issue to go viral and make it to your home screen? There are many issues and feminists who have interest and thoughts on many different things. So don't go making judgements about the 'movement as a whole' which is a rather meaningless way of looking at feminism. It's like trying to find a specific issue and associate a viewpoint with 'christians as a whole' on the topic. The interpretations and viewpoints vary not only by subsets of ideological theory but also by individual interpretation of said theories.

Sure there are feminists who are extremely against the idea of men being victims of women (likely something about power structures preventing actual blah blah blah nonsense) and they are pretty loud and given lots of media attention. Why? Because they are extremely controversial and draw in profits for said media. There are plenty of feminists who don't have issues with the idea and many who recognize the issues with how things are framed.

However I think there is something you are conflating here. You seem to think that the feminists in the articles I provided above (two of which were feminist academic literature) are criticizing feminist literature specifically when they are not. Actually most of them are referring to society as a whole, with many of them also referencing that while there has been advocacy for the inclusion of men by feminists (which is historically seen) this inclusion doesn't seem to really gain traction or garner much attention from media outlets. Weird that isn't it? That's not to say that feminists aren't often above the criticism many could and often should address or at least recognize the affect of sexual violence on men but that doesn't mean that the 'movement as a whole' is leaving out the idea of male victims (which in fact many of the articles I posted link to feminist projects specifically targeted towards helping men).
0
reply
username521617
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#116
Report 4 years ago
#116
(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
Is sexual violence not a part of domestic violence? You seem to think that for some reason that sexual assaults and rape of intimate partners falls outside of the realm of domestic violence? IPV is what the CDC calls domestic violence because it recognizes that violence takes many forms and that the structure of families and relationships is not as simple as 'living under one roof'.

Re bold: Would you care to direct to that CDC publication then? This is twice you've made the claim..


...That is literally what all studies on the topic are so I hope you don't need to remind yourself of this.



You are right you don't often see the male figures which has been explained already. Because of the disproportionate effects on women it makes sense to focus efforts more on women. In fact given much of the figures it makes sense to have them be an extremely high priority. Does that mean there shouldn't be support for men? Of course not. Does that mean that there should be more awareness for men? Sure.

But what exactly are you proposing? There is a huge difference between offering services which are accessible by all and targeting the groups who are most affected (which is what is currently being done) and asking for specific services for a less represented group as if they aren't already there. If you're just asking for more awareness how are you planning on getting that awareness? Sadly the reason there is more awareness of female victims is because there are more of them with particularly bad stories. I and many feminists would have no problem with campaigns that raise awareness of men's victimization but not at the expense of awareness of women's victimization.

A further point, you make all this fuss about how men need support in this too (or at the very least awareness of their situations) so what do you do to further this issue? Anything? Do you do any campaigning? Or are you just here on a thread using these people's plight as a means of discrediting feminism? It would be not only ironic, but extremely hypocritical of you to be claiming that feminism is so horrible for leaving behind these men if you aren't doing anything to support them yourself.


It didn't separate them because whether the violence what physical or sexual it is still 'domestic' violence. :rolleyes:



:rolleyes: How do you plan on finding anything out about feminism without doing some searching? Do you expect every issue to go viral and make it to your home screen? There are many issues and feminists who have interest and thoughts on many different things. So don't go making judgements about the 'movement as a whole' which is a rather meaningless way of looking at feminism. It's like trying to find a specific issue and associate a viewpoint with 'christians as a whole' on the topic. The interpretations and viewpoints vary not only by subsets of ideological theory but also by individual interpretation of said theories.

Sure there are feminists who are extremely against the idea of men being victims of women (likely something about power structures preventing actual blah blah blah nonsense) and they are pretty loud and given lots of media attention. Why? Because they are extremely controversial and draw in profits for said media. There are plenty of feminists who don't have issues with the idea and many who recognize the issues with how things are framed.

However I think there is something you are conflating here. You seem to think that the feminists in the articles I provided above (two of which were feminist academic literature) are criticizing feminist literature specifically when they are not. Actually most of them are referring to society as a whole, with many of them also referencing that while there has been advocacy for the inclusion of men by feminists (which is historically seen) this inclusion doesn't seem to really gain traction or garner much attention from media outlets. Weird that isn't it? That's not to say that feminists aren't often above the criticism many could and often should address or at least recognize the affect of sexual violence on men but that doesn't mean that the 'movement as a whole' is leaving out the idea of male victims (which in fact many of the articles I posted link to feminist projects specifically targeted towards helping men).
Look, these responses are getting longer and longer, and I'm not interested in writing essays. We've fallen into nitpicking and arguments over semantics now.

Take my ceasing to respond as an admission of defeat if it makes you feel better.

Ahem, ":rolleyes:"
0
reply
CottageCheese
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#117
Report 4 years ago
#117
Women have the same rights as men so I don't understand why the movement is still alive
0
reply
Implication
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#118
Report 4 years ago
#118
(Original post by CottageCheese)
Women have the same rights as men so I don't understand why the movement is still alive
Does gender-based discrimination still exist?

Posted from TSR Mobile
1
reply
CottageCheese
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#119
Report 4 years ago
#119
(Original post by Implication)
Does gender-based discrimination still exist?

Posted from TSR Mobile
Yes, because there are some big differences between men and women, of course people will treat them differently in social situations. Its not all bad, women get a lot of good things from it
0
reply
Implication
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#120
Report 4 years ago
#120
(Original post by CottageCheese)
Yes, because there are some big differences between men and women, of course people will treat them differently in social situations. Its not all bad, women get a lot of good things from it
The existence of "big differences" between genders doesn't justify discrimination. People can be treated differently based upon their characteristics - some of which may be associated with their gender or biological sex - but they should not be treated differently explicitly because of their gender/sex. For example, men are on average stronger than women... However, if you are employing someone for a role in which physical strength is necessary, this is actually irrelevant: you should simply employ the strongest person, regardless of whether they are male or female. The fact that a man is "more likely" to be strong is completely irrelevant if you have the candidates in front of you and can actually determine who is stronger!
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How has the start of this academic year been for you?

Loving it - gonna be a great year (140)
17.86%
It's just nice to be back! (212)
27.04%
Not great so far... (281)
35.84%
I want to drop out! (151)
19.26%

Watched Threads

View All