This is a belated response to denial1385 (31 Dec 2013), whose response comment on this thread I’ve only just noticed thanks to the G+ comment system. denial1385, you’ve offered me a long reply. I have read and considered every word, and reply to each of your points. Apologies, dear Reader, for The Great Wall of Text.
Context for the audience, a previous commenter had asked what issues men face, I offered a response, to which and aptly named denial1385 attempts to dismiss the issues I’ve brought up.
What was good about his responses is that they are a list of the typical responses when men’s issues are brought up. Certainly none are unique, but they do make a good list.
This is my response to the objections brought forward.
First, the original post.
The question was asked: “What battles do you [men] have, pray tell?”
I submit, for your edification, a short, top-level, extremely far from definitive listing.
• Anti-Male Double Standards
• Chivalry (aka “Benevolent Sexism for women, against men”)
• Women as victim narrative
• Men as perpetrator narrative
• Focus on men’s advantages, ignoring male disadvantage, inversely, ignoring women’s advantages, and hyper-focusing on disadvantages to create a narrative.
• Misandry (“Male bashing”)
• Male disposability
• Male invisibility
• Demonization of male sexuality
• Educational inequity for male students in terms of sex-specific funding
• Lower acceptance rates for males in higher education
• Legally inequitable standards for males in higher education
• Hostile environment to males in higher education (US: “Dear Colleague” letter).
• Overwhelming drugging of male child students as a means of behaviour modification
• Absolute absence of reproductive rights for men * read this three times.
• Paternity fraud
• Family court injustice
• Abuse of divorce, alimony and child support laws
• Father’s rights, including parental alienation
• Suicide due to poverty, depression, helplessness and despair caused by family court.
• Homelessness is mostly a male phenomenon
• Men’s sense of self and place in society
Health and medical issues:
• Male genital mutilation (“Circumcision”)
• Inequitable funding for health issues.
• Male suicide rate
• Mental health issues
• Men’s issues significantly underfunded
• Men’s issues have 2-3 times waiting period before addressed
Labour market issues:
• Workplace deaths are mostly men (93%+)
• Unemployment issues directly affect men more significantly than women
• Violence against men in general
• Violence against men (direct)
• Violence against men (by proxy)
• Men are the highest group likely to be violently assaulted
• False accusation of violence
• False accusations of rape
• Primary aggressor laws
• Military conscription
• Sexual assault against men
• Domestic violence against men
Lack of support issues:
• Canada: 593 Shelters. 546 government funded shelters refuse males. 47 permit some (mostly children) males. 0 shelters for male victims of domestic abuse and their children.
• Homophobic violence: gay men overwhelming victims from people, and states.
• The entire list above is a reflection of issues that aren’t supported, or addressed for men and boys.
And so begins denial…
Anti-Male Double Standards — trying to equalize the scale, by actively raising the female standard, not actively lowering the male standard.
First, note that I stated that men are burdened with double standards that are harmful to men. This is not about the raised or lowered standards for both parties, but of inequitable standards applied injudiciously.
Second: I note that you seem to find that, with an apologetic, that Anti-Male standards are somehow acceptable.
Third: you somehow equate double-standards as permissible. Would you tolerate double-standards against women by your same reasoning? You are somehow attempting to conflate “equity” with “inequity”. This is what feminism looks like.
Fourth, your response presumes that males enjoy a higher standard of treatment compared to women, and that this is the standard by which women’s issues should be evaluated. It is the old “Equal TO vs Equal WITH” fallacy. Feminists claim that they seek to be equal TO men, rather than WITH men. The latter implies a mutual standard rather than a strawman standard.
Fifth, you have offered little more than a hand-waving assertion implication that “men have it better”, as the standard of superior advantage to be used without any form of support for your argument.
Chivalry (aka “Benevolent Sexism for women, against men”) — this is an old practice that promotes sensitivity to the weaker sex in old cultures. Today, I open doors for both men and women, and both men and women open the door for me. It’s called “be-polite-don’t-be-an-ass”.
It is a standard that favours one sex at the expense of the other. Do you claim that this special dispensation is acceptable when in the direction of women, but not of men? Of the acceptability that women have a granted right, but no reciprocal obligation to the male? Do you consider this equality? Would you accept the notion of “benevolent racism”?
Benevolent sexism, however, extends beyond opening doors. It involves finances, health, safety and sometimes, life itself. Would you claim that “Women and children first” is merely “be-polite-don’t-be-an-ass” when it comes to rescuing someone from a burning building or a sinking ship or simply defending someone against an attacker? The addition of the adjective “benevolent” does not change the fact that sexism is sexism. Have you considered that “benevolent” sexism causes a wide discrepancy in how law is applied between the sexes using the same reasoning?
Yet, this “benevolent sexism” is expected of men in today’s North American society and there are loud complaints when it is absent.
Gynocentrism — the women used to stay home and take care of the home, or home-make. Nowadays they are typically working. What mommy issues make you think that the woman is the only head of household? Both parents should be, but there are many cases of dads walking out or never being involved. Even if she is a ‘bitch’, totally subjective, the dad should stay for the kids, since the mom is expected to say if, say the dad is being abusive. Again, broad strokes and really general.
You do not appear to understand the term “gynocentrism”, let’s have a peep. Feel free to use any dictionary of your choice.
(Greek, gyno-, “woman”, or “female”) is the ideological practice, conscious or otherwise, of asserting the female point of view in public debate on a wide range of social issues.The perceptions, needs, and desires of women have primacy in this approach, where the female view is the point of departure or lens through which issues are addressed or analyzed.
Your very response to the issue proves my point, you use a gynocentric perspective used to excuse gynocentrism.
You–quite impolitely, I might add–attempt to dismiss the issue by claiming that I have “mommy issues”. You then go on to ask “What mommy issues make you think that the woman is the only head of household? Both parents should be, but there are many cases of dads walking out or never being involved.” When a mother is the only parent, she is, defacto, “the head of the household.” You additionally imply the argument that a father’s absence is wilful. You are obviously unaware that today’s legal climate in North America makes it easy for a woman to eject a man from his very own home, the one that he owns, has worked for and pays, as well as ignoring issues of parental alienation and further ignore the world-wide Father’s Rights Movement that seeks very specifically inclusion in their children’s lives over the objection of mothers and the legal system’s objections. You additionally assert that the father should stay with the mother “for the sake of the children”. I wonder if you would make this same prescription to mothers?
Women as victim narrative — the victim narrative is that the woman is the recieipient of the attack, not the provocateur or catalyst of said attack. If a rape, the onus goes to the rapist not the short skirted or drunk woman. If domestic abuse, just because a woman talks back does not give the man a right to hit her. If she hits him, the man being stronger TYPICALLY, would be better off removing himself from the situation. If a kid hit you, you don’t break that kid’s neck, and if you are with a strong or strong-willed woman, who hits you, remove yourself from that. More typically, its the guy doing the hitting.
You said: “the victim narrative is that the woman is the recieipient[sic] of the attack, not the provocateur[sic] or catalyst of said attack.” If, by that you mean that “the victim narrative is that a woman is viewed as the unwarranted victim of some form of assault that she has not initiated or provoked”, then I agree with your that you seem to partially understand my meaning. The women-as-victim narrative is only accurate when the women is the victim. And when she is a victim. And not when she is the victimizer.
Feminists love the notion of rape, thinking that it’s some sort of trump card. It is one of their go-to argument. You have conveniently ignored that women rape women, women rape girls, women rape boys, women rape men. You have also conveniently ignored the greatest masses of men, including myself, to whom the notion of rape is revolting.
You give examples of a woman “talking back” to a man, and that of the man striking her, when the facts show that women instigate, initiate and perpetrate roughly 50% of all domestic assaults. In Canada, the rate is 50% ± 1% (StatsCan) per province or territory. While women are more likely to be injured in a physical confrontation with a man, due to his greater strength, she is more likely to bring a weapon to the confrontation.
You claim that a man’s contextually superior physical attributes are the reason as to why a man should walk away before, during or after a physical confrontation. Women’s rights, but men’s obligations. Your perspective is shallow and fails to encompass realities, such as the woman chasing the man while she assaults him, the man being trapped in a localized space, the woman being a danger to a child that the man wishes to protect, and the very simple fact that a woman is just as capable of controlling her own behaviour as you would expect of a man. You also seem to forget that men have the same nerve endings and physiology as a woman, in that a lamp will smash our heads in as effectively as it would that of a woman’s, and blade will slices though us equally well.
Your point of view is one-sided; it is gynocentric. It is also a apologetic for women’s violence.
Men as perpetrator narrative — When was the last time you heard of A WOMAN RAPING A MAN? No, seriously. If you had a valid answer, when was the last time before that? Now ask the same of a man raping a woman in the last week. In the last 24 hours? Do a Google search. Segregate between rape from a stranger, versus rape from someone the woman knows.
This is the classical argument from ignorance: “I don’t know, so my claim must be true.” When have I heard of it? I witnessed such an occurrence, or at least the lead-in to it, in the ’80s, in British Columbia. The young man, I later heard, went on to hang himself shortly after the event.
And why do we not hear more about men being raped? Let us leave aside the difficult, if not impossible task of quantifying statistics of non-reporting, let’s look at how those rapes that are reported are handled by the CDC, and by Feminist Mary Koss, the originator of the “1 in 4 women are raped claim”.
You might also be interested in Male Survivor:
“MaleSurvivor provides critical resources to male survivors of sexual trauma and all their partners in recovery by building communities of Hope, Healing, & Support.”
You can only make such an argument from a position of ignorance. May I recommend some research on the matter? Here is a primer for you, the result of a 30 second search. http://www.vocativ.com/underworld/crime/hard-truth-girl-guy-rape/
Focus on men’s advantages, ignoring male disadvantage, inversely, ignoring women’s advantages, and hyper-focusing on disadvantages to create a narrative. — Men’s advantages are shown by the skew of the workforce, especially as you go up the power ladder. How many men as CEOs, CIOs and other heads of organizations? How many women in the Forbes Top 500? How many women presidents? Is it cause there are no women over 35 who are citizens and have no felonies? Or could it be a bigger problem? There’s your narrative.
Your counter-argument demonstrates the very point that I’m making. Please quote where you believe that I’m claiming that men have no advantages at all.
You then further move to the “Numeric Parity” argument. While there are a greater number of men who hold highly visible influential positions, remember that these very same positions are positions of service to share-holders or electorates. Do you claim that male CEO’s are not in service of the 60% female share-holders? Or that a male President of the United States does not serve the 51% female population? IF SO, then you must admit that a female CEO cannot serve men, and a female leader of a country cannot serve men. In either case, you are expressing sexism. Is this the argument that you would hold to?
“Is it cause there are no women over 35 who are citizens and have no felonies?” Not only is this statement a non sequitur, but it is an absurd claim. One need find only one woman above the age of 35 in prison, or who has been dismissed from prison to invalidate the claim. I’ll leave the research to you, for a change.
Misandry (“Male bashing”) — No comment. Unicorns? Underwear gnome?
Do you believe that women are perfectly pure magical creatures devoid of any hard-sentiments against men in general? Would you accept the argument were it reversed? What argument can you make for the human species that only the male half is capable of passionately disliking or holding women in contempt that would not apply to women? I find it interesting that you claim that misandry is mythical while you, a man, engages in male bashing, demonizing male sexuality, perpetuate stereotypes against men. There’s a word for that, but you know it by now.
Male disposability — I don’t know what this is. The human race does not exhibit asexuality or hermaphroditism, and most kids don’t come from women splitting into 2 organisms. The sperm is still needed, and even when its not, there are advantages of having a man in a relationship if a woman so chooses. If she chooses another woman, or 2 men, that’s her choice, not yours.
“I don’t know what this is”.
Let me google that for you:
Actually, it does demonstrate both asexuality and hemaphrodism. Parthenogenesis? Consider Mother Mary. You admit to not knowing anything of the issue then proceed to massverbate. You are literally speaking of that which you know nothing of, by your own admission. I find this common with those who engage in Feminist apologetic.
Male invisibility — what is this? Talk to H. G. Wells, I got nothing.
Again: let me google that for you.
The very simplest of examples: “Building collapses! 3 women, 1 child and 14 WORKERS harmed.”, “Mine collapses! 21 MINERS trapped.”, “Domestic violence doesn’t happen to men.”, “There are no male victims of rape.”, etc.
Demonization of male sexuality — Male hyper sexuality = rape if not checked. There are plently of horny women out there, but they are not raping other women or men. And no one is demonizing ALL MALE SEXUALITY, but unwarranted, unwanted, and threatening forms of it. If you beat your meat till it bleeds, no one cares. If you keep going when a woman (or man ) saying no, that is rape and is a crime by law.
Your ignorance is quite frankly, quite remarkable, but unfortunately not unexpected.
First, the issue is that of male sexuality, and you immediately proceed to jump to the absurd extreme of male “hyper” sexuality. Tell me, do we often discuss female “hyper” sexuality? And equate it to “rape”? Of course not, that would be slut-shaming, wouldn’t it? If slut-shaming a woman is unacceptable, and feminists claim to stand for “equality”, is it acceptable to use this argument? You are arguing for a double-standard. By your original claim, you would be lowering men’s very high standards to meet women’s very low standards. Since when do two wrongs make a right?
You then claim that MALE hypersexuality EQUALS rape if not checked. Apparently you are too lazy to look up buzzwords.
Let me google that for you too:
“And no one is demonizing ALL MALE SEXUALITY, but unwarranted, unwanted, and threatening forms of it.”
What on earth make you think that sexuality–anyone’s– is in any form is threatening? Your specific form of bigotry is based on being a lazy, sloppy non-thinker that relies on buzzword pablum to regurgitate half-digested pseudo-arguments. Can you not distinguish between a human’s body, it’s attributes and the expression thereof versus criminality?
As with most of your “counter-arguments”, you enact the very issue that I am bringing to light. Your arguments’ quality are on par with “Behead those that claim that Islam is violent.”
Educational inequity for male students in terms of sex-specific funding. Males could get ALL scholarships. Fewer women and people of color or with disabilities were getting them. Specific scholarships were added to include these ‘fringe’ groups. We can all get FAFSA, and most scholarships. Since more privileged people make it to college, there are more chances of them getting a scholarship based on sheer numbers. A specific scholarship can even the odds for women or people of color or with disabilities.
• Lower acceptance rates for males in higher education — You’re fucking kidding me right?
Let me google that for you.
I should charge you for this.
And 15 second later: Scholarships for Women – College, Graduate, and Minority Scholarship Opportunities which of course led me to In a first, women surpass men in college degrees.
Legally inequitable standards for males in higher education — Again, complete hyperbole and unsubstantiated claims. Are there fewer people called Stephen as compared to people called Samuel? Is this really the hill you choose to lay your stakes on?
It is not hyperbole when it’s fact.
•A school must take steps to protect the complainant as necessary, including interim steps taken prior to the final outcome of the investigation.
• A school must provide a grievance procedure for students to file complaints of sex discrimination, including complaints of sexual violence. These procedures must include an equal opportunity for both parties to present witnesses and other evidence and the same appeal rights
• A school’s grievance procedures must use the preponderance of the evidence standard to resolve complaints of sex discrimination.
A few moments ago, you were aghast at the notion that a woman could rape a man and the long-debunked 1 in 4 women will be raped argument is still parroted by the unthinking, when an allegation of rape, whether true, or false is brought to the schools attention and the school uses the “preponderance of the evidence standard” [The standard is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than not true.] what do you think the likely outcome will be? Please, take a moment to do some research and think before you speak. Now, what are the real world consequences? Here’s a simple video to demonstrate the point:
Hostile environment to males in higher education (US: “Dear Colleague” letter). — what does hostile mean to you, versus to women getting raped and taped for fun, getting drugged, etc?
You have just argued “Guilty until proven innocent.”
Overwhelming drugging of male child students as a means of behaviour modification — males are stronger than women, and there’s this thing called testosterone that makes them more likely to be aggressive and do more damage. But again, the drugging is based on history and future likelihood, not just “do they have a penis, drug em!”
You have now demonstrated the demonization of male sexuality. Boys who fidget and move around a lot are over-diagnosed with having ADD or ADHD, and thus medication (typically Ritalin) is over prescribed. Being active or fidgety is not the same as being aggressive–and for the record, being aggressive is also not synonymous with being violent or even disruptive. You seem to be wilfully conflating “Assertive, bold, and energetic” and “Inclined to behave in an actively hostile fashion”. A good fit if you want to focus on males as perpetrators, a terrible one if you want fair treatment.
Absolute absence of reproductive rights for men * read this three times. — wha? Here’s some reproductive rights for men: don’t thrust your penis into anything that isn’t saying “yes” or “more”. Do you mean in terms of disease? Be careful. Get counselling and testing with any partners. Take a home test together. If you have something, share with your partner. Ask if she has something. Communication.
Your response is childish. We’re discussing that men do not have the legal right to choose whether or not to bear the duties and obligations of parenthood, and your response is “don’t rape.”
I recommend reading the following article: Men Have No Reproductive Rights.
Where were you in grade school sex ed? Being oppressed by the matriarchy? C’mon, man.
Please quote me making this claim. And by the way, we never had sex education when I was in school.
Women, on the other hand, have this thing called PREGNANCY that is a bit different from the man’s predicament. There is nothing to police men’s reproductive regions, but plenty on the womb.
Again, you need to read this.
Paternity fraud — I assume you refer to ‘baby-mama’s’. Most women end up with kids. Most men make more than women, typically. The one who makes the most and takes the least care of the child, has the larger financial burden. I know dads who’ve kept their kids and their wives who are making more than them, end up paying. Not often, but I do have an example from my own family.
Why assume when you could ask? Based on your behaviour in this thread, it seems evident that seeking information before you speak is anathema to you.
Your assumption, incidentally, is false. Tiresomely, once again: let me google that for you.
Family court injustice — you call it injustice, but it was fun when you were having sex. Use a condom, avoid the court-dom. Or something like that.
Abuse of divorce, alimony and child support laws — what can I say. Precedent is a bitch. There are women who are scheming and will take some one who hurt their feelings or whom they don’t want to be with, to the cleaners. There are assholes of either gender.
Abortions were once illegal. Would you argue “Precedent is a bitch?” And by acknowledging that “it is a bitch”, you’ve also acknowledge that the issue is legitimate. You could have upped your credibility score by one point by making the simple admission.
Father’s rights, including parental alienation — If you don’t want to be alienated, work harder at maintaining the relationship with the mother. If she is not working with you, you can work at getting custody of the child. That is an option, you know.
While I weary of pointing out your ignorance, it serves as a good example to the general audience of how a feminist argues their case.
Suicide due to poverty, depression, helplessness and despair caused by family court. — Suicide caused by mental illness or PTSD from war.
As well, yes. +1 points for you.
Homelessness is mostly a male phenomenon — Visible homelessness is.
As opposed to invisible homelessness? But I’ll grant you +1 points for acknowledging it.
More men can survive on their own.
And women cannot? How sexist of you to say so. Perhaps, unlike myself, you believe that women are stupid, fragile helpless little creatures–victims simply awaiting their designated victimizer to fulfill their destiny. I’ll ask you to elaborate on this, please.
More men don’t do well in shelters with strict rules and guidelines.
On what do you base this?
More men have addiction problems that lead to greater homeless presence.
And another +1 points for the acknowledgement.
If you cared about homelessness, address that, not that women have it better since they are not homeless.
This is precisely what I’ve done from the start. I’ve addressed male issues. You are the one who chose to attempt to bring women into the issue.
They can live with family members, or in shelters, and some turn to prostitution to pay for lodgings. Lemme guess, unequal opportunities at prostitution… I’ll give you that one.
I’ll grant you another +1 points for the acknowledgement of options that are less available to men while overlooking your silly comment about prostitution.
Men’s sense of self and place in society — what does this mean?
This refers to a combination of double standards against men, of demonizing men as being violent, especially toward women. It refers to the “Damned if you do, damned if you don’t” circumstance that men face. Men are told that we should be providers and protectors, but when we enact these roles, we are abused for it. Should we fail to enact these roles, we are considered useless, disposable and unworthy of caring. It is the struggle with the natural instinct to want to be valuable members of our communities, to help create a better world, but our successes are held up as examples of “Patriarchal Privilege”, rather than hard work. When we offer value, we are damned for it. When we don’t offer value, we are damned for it, or forced by law to do so. It is about the ambiguities that we face as men in relationship to ourselves, other men, women, children, fatherhood, the law. It is a deep, highly complex, nuanced and long conversation that exceeds the scope of this one, even though this very conversation–that men have issue that need addressing is part of the whole.
Health and medical issues:
Male genital mutilation (“Circumcision”) — really? While this has been hijacked as a religious issue, the male foreskin harbors a lot of germs and is likely to get dirty/ stay dirty after urination. This is why its chopped off. In some old world communities, it was done to boys in their teenage years as a rite of passage.
Are you suggesting that men are so stupid and bestial as to not know how to use properly take a piss, or use soap and that thus, we must cut off that part of an infant-boy’s anatomy that contains 70% of the penis’ nerves because of this? You say “In some old world communities, it was done to boys in their teenage years as a rite of passage.”
Please read the following.
Interestingly enough, this has been the case of Somalia until March 8th, 2014–approximately a week ago, at the time of this writing, when now, the Somalian Parliament has finally–and rightly–banned it. Does the “right of passage” argument make it a non-issue, for men or women? “It’s a good step took towards empowering Somali women,” Awnor told Radio Ergo’s local reporter in Garowe.
I look forward to the day where the same statement can be made of men, worldwide.
FGM is an issue because it has no real scientific benefit, and was done to remove pleasure sensors in the vagina and labia. It was done to keep those women from enjoying sex, and since it was a more intrusive practice, more women died from blood loss. Get your facts straight.
Yes, facts. Here are the facts: [The] Difference Between: Male & Female Circumcision
Incidentally, the reason why circumcision was initially posited in our own North American society was a religious prohibition against sexual enjoyment. It was intended as a means to stop boys from masturbating. The “it’s dirty and germy” argument is simply a post-hoc rationalisation.
Inequitable funding for health issues. — i can’t speak to this, i don’t know where you would get this information?
This bit of honesty is quite refreshing. Thank you.
Male suicide rate — is it really higher than among women? Men tend to internalize shit more, and usually get depressed and explode more than women who typically cry it out or seek support. Alpha males are meant to be stalwart islands of perfection.denial1385
Check out the gender paradox, more women attempt suicide than males earlier in life, but more males are successful at this than females.denial1385
So we agree that this is a men’s issue that needs to be addressed. That more women attempt suicide is irrelevant to the fact that men are driven to do it. This is not The Victim Olympics. It is squarely addressing issues that men have in society.
• Mental health issues
Medical discrimination — huh?
• Men’s issues significantly underfunded — autism = autism, be it in males or females. Schizophrenia = schizophrenia. I know this, I worked as a mental health counsellor for a few years. The funds are disorder based, not gender based.
• Men’s issues have 2-3 times waiting period before addressed — you talk about men’s issues, like what mental health issues only affect men vs women?
This is an editing error on my part, this issue should be under “health” not “mental health”. The error is mine. I was specifically thinking of issues such as prostate cancer versus breast cancer.
But to continue: I speak of men’s issues as needing to be addressed. Do men’s issues not deserve to be equally addressed as women’s? If a woman’s issue is underfunded, multimillion dollar campaigns are enacted to address them. Should I merely mention one, suddenly it becomes an issue of “men vs women”?
Labour market issues:
Workplace deaths are mostly men (93%+) — there are more men in the workplace. There are more men in dangerous jobs, that typically pay more in the developed world. There is more chance of death for those 2 reasons.
Yes. And that makes it a men’s issue to deal with.
Unemployment issues directly affect men more significantly than women —
The second link even has a nice graph.
I don’t believe that you’ve bothered to read the articles that you’ve pointed me to. Here is one difference between your perspective and mine: you seem to place an inordinate amount of attention of race. I don’t. Men are men, women are women, regardless of their race. I believe that men’s issues are as important as are women’s issues. Whereas I do not attempt to discount women’s legitimate issues, you appear to want to dismiss men’s legitimate issues.
As to the second article, the first line reads “For the first time in more than six years, the unemployment rate for adult women (those over age 20), seasonally adjusted, has surpassed that for adult men.” And did you even bother to examine the nice graph?
This was a six paragraph article, and you haven’t even bothered to read it. Had you done so, you would have noticed that you are making my point. You don’t cherry pick very well.
Violence against men in general — men fight more. Say it with me, men fight more. More testosterone. More Napoleon complexes and more to prove. Women are typically more verbally abusive than men.
This is what bigotry looks like.
Violence against men (direct) – read previous point. denial1385
See previous point.
• Violence against men (by proxy) – read previous point. denial1385
See previous point.
• Men are the highest group likely to be violently assaulted — by women? no, by other men. denial1385
By both. And a victim is a victim. Should a woman beat another woman, does that reflect on the entire sex of the aggressor? Sexism and double standards, again. Should a black man beat a white one, does that reflect on his entire race? Should a left-handed person beat on a right handed one, would you project this onto all left-handers?
• False accusation of violence — and more real accusations of more actual violence. denial1385
Go ahead, substantiate that, using non-feminist sources.
False accusations of rape — among the many many more real accusations of rape. denial1385
Go ahead, substantiate that, using non-feminist sources.
Primary aggressor laws — back to this? How many women have raped a man in the last 5 years? How many women have raped a man in the last 10? Riddle me that. denial1385
You do not seem to understand the words “Primary aggressor laws”. Let me, yet again, google that for you.http://www.housedems.ct.gov/DV/pubs/DV_Primary%20Aggressor_Laws_2009-R-0460.doc
The short description, as applied by most police officers, is that in a case of a domestic violence setting, where no clear-cut evidence of the initial agressor can be made, and in the setting of a mandatory arrest, the man is arrested, because he is viewed as most likely being the aggressor. Where Primary Aggressor Laws are in play and arrest is mandatory. That means the cops have no choice but to arrest someone. Should the man make a call to the police because he is being attacked by his domestic partner, he is as likely as not to be the one that is arrested. This goes far beyond “victim blaming” and moves onto re-victimization.
Military conscription — only this year were women ALLOWED to be on the front lines. SIX months ago. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/18/women-expected-on-front-lines-by-2016/2434911/
Stay on topic. Whether this is a positive or a negative, has no bearing on whether this is a men’s issue or not. Note, also, that women in the US are still not subject to conscription. They can get student loans and government jobs without pledging their lives. Men cannot.
And you blame the women for more men in the army? What next, those damn guys can’t serve their country?
Please quote me making that claim.
Sexual assault against men — are you saying more sexual assault against men…surely you jest. Otherwise, there is sexual assault against 2 year olds and sexual assault against goats, but all three are eclipsed by assaults against women. This doesn’t mean that men are NOT assaulted, or that its not the same, all assault is horrible, but it happens more to women than men. Also, read previous points.denial1385
I am saying that it is a men’s issue, and not engaging in The Victim Olympics that you seem so fond of participating in. That having been said, in 2011 the US government reports that 320k men have been reported as being raped in prison alone, discounting the rest of the country, whereas 270 women have reported as being raped in the entirety of the country. This does not count statutory rape, a crime for which women are typically given a pass, whereas men go to prison. More double standards.
Domestic violence against men. — there is probably more domestic violence against PETS than against men. Do you mean verbal abuse, or like physical, bash your skull in type abuse? denial1385
I mean all types of domestic abuse, including physical violence. I’ve previously addressed this point
I could do this all day. It IS winter break, after all, and have a lot more time on my hands.
Believe me. You need the practice. Throughout you have demonstrated a stunning ignorance.
Step away from the dark side. Join the cause. Fight for equal rights, for all. Women and non-whites are not the same class as white non-women.
This statement is absurd. I notice you often refer to the trope of “women [and/]or people of color”. Do you recognize that you have said “every human with the exception of white men?” You racist,sexist pig. Do you understand that “white” people consist of 16% of the global population? And that men, being roughly 50% of “white” people comprise about 8% of the global population?
Let’s simplify the language. “Fight for equal rights, for all. Women and non-white men are not the same class as white men.” You have just said “Fight for equal rights for all. 92% of the world are not white men”. What you have just done is to marginalize a group of people based on physical attributes. You are supporting dualism, the conflict model, the notion of class warfare. Is this your notion of “the light side”?
You have invited me to join “the cause”. The case that you have made in almost every one of your points is that men, and white men’s issues are not worthy of being addressed because… they are men’s issues. Your cause is quite explicitly one of bigotry. You pay lip service to equal rights, yet exclude, demonize and dismiss men and our issues. You hypocritically demonstrate sexism and racism throughout your replies. If equal rights for all is the goal, then people–men included, white men included–are equally as valuable as women and non-whites, and thus our issues, regardless of sex or race merit being addressed and resolved. The only way to counter this is to make (another) racist, sexist or bigoted claim.
You have accuse me of having joined “The Dark Side”. I accuse you of being a hypocrite.
You are quite literally inviting me to “Join the cause. Fight for equal rights, for all.”–but not those of 8% of the world population. To your invitation, I can only reply with “Fuck you. I fight for everyone’s right to fair treatment and equal obligations–including men’s.” I, in return, invite you to treat all people, regardless of sex, race or other variants with the same kind of respect you would have for your self and loved ones. I invite you to broaden your point of view, to move from the classical Marxist class warfare perspective to one that sees humanity as a whole and deals with individuals on a case per case basis.
I invite your respectful and thoughtful responses.
Next day edit. As I re-read this, I find that I’ve been somewhat harsh in my response. Even though what was said should have been said, I might have found a gentler way of expressing such things. Part of the problem, though, is that some of this harshness is well deserved. I won’t re-write the article, what I say stands, and I have a policy of not hiding my editorial warts. I just wanted to acknowledge that I recognize that I was somewhat hard on denial1385.