men involved with domestic violence

[deathbydeath]

I always love when I read through the comments and I see "Checkmate Feminist" like they just caught the movement with their pants down. Then they get torn a new one by people telling them what feminism actually is. Kinda makes me laugh every time.

Feminism "is" nothing. Everybody tends to have their own idea of what the movement is or trying to do to the point where the word is useless in all but the most general terms. As far as semantics go, feminism is the biggest clusterfuck since literally.

OP; Hooray for men's rights. This reminds me of a scene from The League tv show on FX, where Jenny defeats her husband Kevin in one of their games. She was talking so much trash to him that their daughter called the cops and told them her mother was beating her father (plus Kevin had gotten a black eye earlier in the show). When the police arrived, Jenny and Kevin thought they were strippers (a prank gone wrong from earlier in the episode) and Jenny was bragging about how much she had beaten her husband. As the police were taking her away Kevin realizes what's going on and chases after them, shouting "Wait, she didn't abuse me! I'm the man!". That scene always makes me laugh.

 

[wulf3n]

The first half of the video shows no such thing.

Did we watch the same video? The majority of those who confronted then man when he was abusing the girl were women! If that's not standing up to the patriarchy I don't know what is.

snip

I get what you're saying, but it still doesn't change the fact that right now feminism isn't doing much to help men if anything at all.

You're assuming that men defending women isn't part of the patriarchy. Women being lesser, and thus requiring men to defend them is a big part of the patriarchy.

I was talking about the women who were defending the woman.

Taking your point more generally, though, yes, it's a big problem. People tend to be a lot more interested in having their rights fought for, than others. It's not so much an issue of feminism being there to support women at the expense of men, but that it's often an issue of feminism being run by women who are white, straight middle class cis able-bodied and so on, at the expense of women who aren't.

I agree, which is also why I think it's ok for a group to only target specific issues, just as long as they don't say they're helping everyone when they're not.

Dismantling the patriarchy benefits everyone, no matter what their gender. Using, for example, racism while doing so, only benefits a given value of "everyone".

I don't doubt, I just don't believe that all the problems that are attributed to the patriarchy is a result of the patriarchy.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I don't doubt, I just don't believe that all the problems that are attributed to the patriarchy is a result of the patriarchy.

Well..."the patriarchy", such as it's often employed in this context, is just a loose blanket term thrown over a variety of diverse cultural/social phenomena, with the intention of tenuously linking them for the purposes of analysis and discussion. There isn't really any 1/0 yes/no method you can employ to determine if something is "caused by patriarchy" or "not caused by patriarchy". Patriarchy isn't a guy that hangs out at the corner of 1st and Main that we can go accost about all the shit he's been causing.

Patriarchy is like "Alternative Music". Is the term broad enough to occasionally find itself near the point of uselessness? Yeah. Does that mean we don't know what someone means when they bring it up? Nope. Does it therefore have some merit as a talking point in discussion? Sure, if everyone isn't too busy tripping over themselves to be the smartest guy in the room by tearing the curtain off it and demonstrating that it's not a measurable statistic. We can't point and say "society is 67% patriarchal today".

 

[generals3]

It's a human problem being addressed in a most despicable way which ends up harming men. Why would i support this? Why would i team up with activism which is carried out in a way which considers men acceptable collateral damage? Either these activists don't give a shit about men or are ludicrously incompetent. In either case if I want to help men they would be the last one to team up with.

Ho ho holy cow. Okay, I uh...misjudged your stance on this issue. We don't...really...have any common grounds for discussion. We should probably just wave from a distance and carry on our separate ways. My apologies.

Well i did express myself a tad too "passionately" at first (which is why i edited out, but too late apparently). "Despicable" might have been pushing it. But yeah we may have a hard time finding common grounds.

Although i do want to point out your latter analogy with "alternative music" is quite broken. The reason why is because "Alternative Music" has never meant anything precise. "Patriarchy" however has always been a very well defined word. And at first, during the early days of feminism, the fight against the patriarchy also made sense based on its actual meaning. After all society was very patriarchal. However instead of realizing that fight was done and address other issues as the separate issues they were they kept the term and just expanded the definition. Which is quite devious as it links all these issues with the ancient fight against male dominance. And this while they are clearly separate issues. After all if they weren't than here in Belgium none of those issues would exist anymore.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Well i did express myself a tad too "passionately" at first (which is why i edited out, but too late apparently). "Despicable" might have been pushing it. But yeah we may have a hard time finding common grounds.

Although i do want to point out your latter analogy with "alternative music" is quite broken. The reason why is because "Alternative Music" has never meant anything precise. "Patriarchy" however has always been a very well defined word. And at first, during the early days of feminism, the fight against the patriarchy also made sense based on its actual meaning. After all society was very patriarchal. However instead of realizing that fight was done and address other issues as the separate issues they were they kept the term and just expanded the definition. Which is quite devious as it links all these issues with the ancient fight against male dominance. And this while they are clearly separate issues. After all if they weren't than here in Belgium none of those issues would exist anymore.

Ah. So you did. My apologies for quoting your first draft.

You are correct that the definition of the word has blurred and expanded. I disagree entirely that the cause of this expansion was "deviousness", and I find the suggestion quite comedic on the face. It's suggestive of a level of hostility and paranoia that I think is worth reflecting on, for your own peace of mind if nothing else. And I genuinely mean that in the nicest way possible.

 

[generals3]

Ah. So you did. My apologies for quoting your first draft.

You are correct that the definition of the word has blurred and expanded. I disagree entirely that the cause of this expansion was "deviousness", and I find the suggestion quite comedic on the face. It's suggestive of a level of hostility and paranoia that I think is worth reflecting on, for your own peace of mind if nothing else. And I genuinely mean that in the nicest way possible.

You may think it's comedic but I don't. Since there are clear efforts which can be observed that are aimed at preventing the fight against men's issues among feminist movements I have no hard time believing that the "top brass" was devious enough to make conscious word choices as to misguide the masses and even their own followers. This type of tactic isn't rare and used by plenty of activist/political movements.

But in the end if it isn't deviousness than it is incompetence. Because the results are there. If it wasn't to ensure as little effort is spent on men's issues (as to maximize efforts on women's issues) than a lot of the actions made by feminists show a real lack of competence when it comes to tackling social issues. I mean surely you can agree with me that always presenting things in a one sided manner and always demanding for more help for one side does make it look like the other side is unaffected? Isn't that reinforcing those stereotypes you say are a consequence of the patriarchy? Wouldn't that make feminism a pawn of the patriarchy? Wouldn't me fighting the patriarchy than also de-facto mean i should fight feminism?

 

[BloatedGuppy]

You may think it's comedic but I don't. Since there are clear efforts which can be observed that are aimed at preventing the fight against men's issues among feminist movements I have no hard time believing that the "top brass" was devious enough to make conscious word choices as to misguide the masses and even their own followers. This type of tactic isn't rare and used by plenty of activist/political movements.

But in the end if it isn't deviousness than it is incompetence. Because the results are there. If it wasn't to ensure as little effort is spent on men's issues (as to maximize efforts on women's issues) than a lot of the actions made by feminists show a real lack of competence when it comes to tackling social issues. I mean surely you can agree with me that always presenting things in a one sided manner and always demanding for more help for one side does make it look like the other side is unaffected? Isn't that reinforcing those stereotypes you say are a consequence of the patriarchy? Wouldn't that make feminism a pawn of the patriarchy? Wouldn't me fighting the patriarchy than also de-facto mean i should fight feminism?

The TOP BRASS? Your quote marks are insufficient shield against the silliness of that assertion. You are tilting at windmills, ser.

I do not agree with you that there are even SIDES here. Feminism =/= gender war. I most certainly do not agree that anyone "always" presents a particular message, either. Third wave feminism can't even get out of its own ass long enough to figure out what feminism is, let alone put forward a concentrated effort to "damage men".

You will always be able to find outspoken radicals who say or think hateful things. There will ALWAYS be fuel for a confirmation bias. All the self-identified feminists (male and female) that I know and interact with in my day to day life are perfectly sane, and care deeply and genuinely about both male and female issues. The only places where this dialogue tends to become polarized and shrill is on internet message boards or view-scumming blogs looking to leverage outrage into page hits.

 

[generals3]

The TOP BRASS? Your quote marks are insufficient shield against the silliness of that assertion. You are tilting at windmills, ser.

So you're going to pretend there are not feminist activists with more influence than others? That certain women's rights movements don't have spokesmen or leaders which make up the speeches/agendas of said organizations? Surely you aren't going to try to make me believe that all feminist activists are on the same level of influence/power?

I do not agree with you that there are even SIDES here. Feminism =/= gender war. I most certainly do not agree that anyone "always" presents a particular message, either. Third wave feminism can't even get out of its own ass long enough to figure out what feminism is, let alone put forward a concentrated effort to "damage men".

I beg to differ. The "war" is being fought right now. When people who are trying to help men get bullied i'd say something is wrong. When politicians are being influenced as not to pass more inclusive rape laws for men (because we sure wouldn't want the statistics not to be as skewed?) i'd say there is something wrong. When the alleged minister of "equality" was urging the police forces to give a special treatment to women victim of DV and this while they're already "advantaged" compare to male victims i'd say something is wrong. When all the Belgian women's right movements advocate for sexist voting (telling us we should consciously vote for women, i guess tits > program/competence) i'd say something is wrong.

You will always be able to find outspoken radicals who say or think hateful things. There will ALWAYS be fuel for a confirmation bias. All the self-identified feminists (male and female) that I know and interact with in my day to day life are perfectly sane, and care deeply and genuinely about both male and female issues. The only places where this dialogue tends to become polarized and shrill is on internet message boards or view-scumming blogs looking to leverage outrage into page hits.

This isn't about saying/doing hateful things. This is about doing things which ultimately screws men. It could be hate towards men, a total lack of care or incompetence. And in the case of followers a most definite misguided belief based on disinformation. And that's actually what annoys me the most. In the end a women's activist movement for women doesn't bother me that much. But when it has the guts to claim they're trying to help men while none of their actions support that.... Well than i feel less than pleased. It's like a communist claiming he has the best interest of the top 1% in mind.

And i have a little challenge. Can you name me actions undertaken by feminists to help men? And i mean concrete actions. No "they're fighting the patriarchy which harms men too" answer.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Stuff

Well, my friend, again we're back to not having much to discuss. I hear that you feel you inhabit a world wherein a desperate gender war is being waged and women are...through malevolence or stupidity...actively oppressing men. There is absolutely nothing in my life nor the environments I inhabit that support or reflect this, so we cannot discuss this from the standpoint of a shared reality. Without a common ground that basic, we're just going to be talking past one another.

 

[generals3]

Stuff

Well, my friend, again we're back to not having much to discuss. I hear that you feel you inhabit a world wherein a desperate gender war is being waged and women are...through malevolence or stupidity...actively oppressing men. There is absolutely nothing in my life nor the environments I inhabit that support or reflect this, so we cannot discuss this from the standpoint of a shared reality. Without a common ground that basic, we're just going to be talking past one another.

Well, than let's start with building that common ground. As i added in a edit: "Can you name me actions undertaken by feminists to help men? And i mean concrete actions. No "they're fighting the patriarchy which harms men too" answers."

 

[WeepingAngels]

Stuff

Well, my friend, again we're back to not having much to discuss. I hear that you feel you inhabit a world wherein a desperate gender war is being waged and women are...through malevolence or stupidity...actively oppressing men. There is absolutely nothing in my life nor the environments I inhabit that support or reflect this, so we cannot discuss this from the standpoint of a shared reality. Without a common ground that basic, we're just going to be talking past one another.

Well, than let's start with building that common ground. As i added in a edit: "Can you name me actions undertaken by feminists to help men? And i mean concrete actions. No "they're fighting the patriarchy which harms men too" answers."

I have been waiting for the answer to this question but I doubt it will be answered. A similar question "What rights do men have that women do not?" is also never answered when asked.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Stuff

Well, my friend, again we're back to not having much to discuss. I hear that you feel you inhabit a world wherein a desperate gender war is being waged and women are...through malevolence or stupidity...actively oppressing men. There is absolutely nothing in my life nor the environments I inhabit that support or reflect this, so we cannot discuss this from the standpoint of a shared reality. Without a common ground that basic, we're just going to be talking past one another.

Well, than let's start with building that common ground. As i added in a edit: "Can you name me actions undertaken by feminists to help men? And i mean concrete actions. No "they're fighting the patriarchy which harms men too" answers."

*It triggered the FBI to change the definition of rape to include men:

"Thanks to the "Rape Is Rape" campaign launched by the Feminist Majority Foundation and Ms. magazine, more than 160,000 emails were sent to the FBI pressuring it to change its archaic definition of rape. The old definition, "carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will," hadn't been changed since 1921. It meant that many types of sexual assaults, including the rape of men, weren't counted as part of the bureau's annual Uniform Crime Report.

When the decision was announced, then-VP and General Counsel of the Feminist Majority Foundation Kim Gandy said, "This is a major policy change and will dramatically impact the way rape is tracked and reported nationwide."

The new definition now includes all forms of penetration and no longer excludes men."

*It successfully overturned laws that discriminate against men:

"As gender discrimination became more and more of a popular topic of discussion in the 1970s, people began noticing traces of unequal treatment in other aspects of American law.

In 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional to treat women and men differently under the law. The case, Craig v. Boren, was filled by a plaintiff in Oklahoma over its gender-specific drinking age policy, which prohibited men from drinking before age 21, but allowed women to drink when as young as 18. This implied that men are inherently more reckless and women are more responsible. After the law was struck down, the drinking age became 21 for all.

According to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the ruling determined much more than just Oklahoma's drinking age. It determined that the "familiar stereotype: the active boy, aggressive and assertive; the passive girl, docile and submissive" was "not fit to be written into law." So the next time you're drinking, raise a glass in honor of RBG."

*It helped male survivors of violence in the military pursue justice:

"Despite the fact that most of the concerted efforts to eradicate sexual assault in the military has come from female politicians such as Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) and Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), laws intended to curb sexual assault affect men just as much as women. Women may be more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than be killed through enemy combat, but overall the majority of military sexual assault victims are male. That's why organizations like Male Survivor or Men Can End Rape are so important, to make sure that men have a chance to make their voices heard."

* It kept prisons safer for male inmates:

"Anti-sexual violence efforts don't just benefit women, they often provide accountability and services for male victims of rape as well. The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, spearheaded by prominent feminist activist Lovisa Stannow, advocated for the 200,000 inmates who are sexually abused in U.S. prisons and jails every year, most of whom are men. The organization she heads, Just Detention International, also helped draft and get the bill through Congress.

Thanks to the tireless efforts of Stannow, who used to work as the executive director of the Pacific Institute for Women's Health, the federal government must carry out a comprehensive statistical review and analysis of the incidence and effects of prison rape for each calendar year. This mandate extends to prisons, jails, juvenile facilities, military jails and Indian country facilities."

To name a few...
http://www.policymic.com/articles/88277/23-ways-feminism-has-made-the-world-a-better-place-for-men

 

[Thyunda]

You want to fix that sentence? I know dozens of women who are just as strong if not stronger than the average male. I also know a bucket load of females who may not be stronger than men - but they are highly trained in martial arts and could kick most guys' ass.

Technically, you can't "know" comic book characters because they aren't real. Highly trained in martial arts... lol.

This primitive belief that if you are stronger than someone then you aren't a victim is fucking deplorable. It's such ridiculous logic that is somehow accepted by people like you. Try to apply your logic to other crimes.

It is true for all crimes wherein the "victims" allow themselves to be victimized. Just because something is arbitrarily defined as illegal doesn't mean the person it happens to didn't have a hand in it or couldn't have reasonably prevented it.

Legally speaking, you're totally fucking wrong. If someone reported that and the police got enough evidence to prove it happened and the victim pressed charges then action would have been taken. Restraining orders, AVOs and even punishments could and would be given out to the abuser.

You do realize that everything you just said could just as easily be applied to women as well, right?

Because grabbing someone, shoving them and yelling at them is totally okay!

It's really not that big of a deal, all things considered.

Maybe he can't get a job and that's why he's reliant on her? Some people can't go home, y'know. Some people were forced to leave in the first place.
Anything she did to him in the video was the exact equivalent of what he did to her. You saw how people reacted to him doing it to her, so why is it any different that she does the same to him?

We can make all the milquetoast excuses we want for this guy who, by now, has got to be the most ineffectual human being I have ever heard of, but at the end of the day, it's easier for men to get away from their abusers, to support themselves, or, at the very least, to defend themselves. And it's far lower risk that they'll be slain by their partners if they do.

Over half (52%) of female victims aged 16 or over had been killed by their partner...In contrast, only five per cent of male victims aged 16 or over were killed by their partner, ex-partner or lover in 2010/11

It is never the victim's fault.

This simply isn't true. We don't live in the world that should be, we live in the world that is, and when you have the option to extricate yourself from an abusive relationship but elect not to do so for reasons of vanity, or greed, or neurosis, you have no one but yourself to blame.

Ah, of course. I understand you completely now that you've quoted Machiavelli, and I spent the night designing a scheme guaranteed to prevent domestic violence. I think it's foolproof. Look, I made an advert.



LADIES AND GENTLEMEN! ARE YOU TIRED OF LIFE GETTING YOU DOWN? CAN'T PAY THE BILLS? MAYBE YOU DON'T LIKE THE WAY THE POSTMAN LOOKED AT YOU THIS MORNING!

Remember that job interview this morning? You remember the email of rejection not half an hour after you got home?
You don't have to stand for that.

YOU'RE PHYSICALLY STRONGER THAN HE IS! You just march right into that office and you PUNCH HIM IN THE FACE!


What's the matter, gents? Your wife holds all the money? You haven't seen your parents in years? Well don't just sit there and try to deal with the life you have, just PUNCH HER IN THE FACE! You're bigger and stronger than she is, and so you are biologically guaranteed to hold all the cards in life! This is SCIENTIFIC FACT!

SO REMEMBER, KIDS! THE REAL WORLD IS A SCARY PLACE, SO GET YOUR PUNCHING HAND BIG AND STRONG FOR ADULT LIFE, WHERE ALL OF YOUR PROBLEMS CAN BE SOLVED WITH PHYSICAL VIOLENCE!



I think it captures the essence of your argument perfectly.

 

[generals3]

Snip

Actually quite few if not the majority of the examples on that side are not examples of feminists undertaking actions to help men. It were cases of feminists undertaking actions to help women which had a positive collateral for men. That's totally different. What i'm looking for are equivalents to the campaigns and activism feminists do for women.
It's like there being quite a big difference between invading a country to remove an evil dictator and invading a country, which happened to have an evil dictator, to secure it's resources.

And as for the rape law change... exactly that. The fact it was more inclusive towards men was just positive collateral. Which is also clearly shown with the feminist reaction linked on that website:
"Updating the FBI Uniform Crime Report definition of rape is a big win for women,"
"With a modern, broader definition, FBI Uniform Crime Report statistics will finally show the true breadth of this violence that affects so many women's lives. Women's groups will work to ensure that this more accurate and complete data will lead to increased resources to combat and reduce the incidence of rape," continued Smeal.

I'm sorry, but i don't see any celebration for how it would help men. It's quite obvious it was their last concern.

And when it comes to prison rape. I'm sorry but nothing on the website says it's a feminist/women's right organization. No it says "Human Rights". It's very possible for a feminist to do things which aren't related to feminism you know :/ I mean if a conservative saves someone it's also not a case of "conservatism saving someone". (to give a random example)

Now you may ask me: how is the fact it's collateral rather than part of the goal relevant? Well quite simply, if they're going to claim they care about us while we always end up just being collateral than this suggest there are lies flying around or there is quite some incompetence. In either case I wouldn't trust someone who lies to my face or is incompetent to defend my interests. And secondly, how will that ever help men when it comes to issues which are men specific and can't be solved by being collateral of pro women actions. Take rape for instance, can i expect feminists to advocate including "forced to penetrate" in the law any soon? I don't think so. Can I also expect feminists to pressure the govt to invest more into men's shelter's any soon? Doubt so. Can I expect feminists to pressure the govt to undertake actions regarding how male victims of DV are generally treated (extremely poorly)? Don't think so.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Snip

Of course their primary objective is to fight for women's rights, that was why they started this in the first place, however, they do not only fight for women when they are fighting for equality. In what way does the Men's rights movement benefit women? Feminists have done far more for men's rights than MRA's have done for womens. Saying that " because a feminist did good things does not mean that feminism is good", but you should consider that MANY feminist do good things for men and use their influence as feminist to help accomplish those goals. Men need to step up against these things with feminist, not screaming because everyone else isn't doing all the work for them.

 

[NeutralDrow]

Actually quite few if not the majority of the examples on that side are not examples of feminists undertaking actions to help men. It were cases of feminists undertaking actions to help women which had a positive collateral for men. That's totally different. What i'm looking for are equivalents to the campaigns and activism feminists do for women.
It's like there being quite a big difference between invading a country to remove an evil dictator and invading a country, which happened to have an evil dictator, to secure it's resources.

And as for the rape law change... exactly that. The fact it was more inclusive towards men was just positive collateral. Which is also clearly shown with the feminist reaction linked on that website:
"Updating the FBI Uniform Crime Report definition of rape is a big win for women,"
"With a modern, broader definition, FBI Uniform Crime Report statistics will finally show the true breadth of this violence that affects so many women's lives. Women's groups will work to ensure that this more accurate and complete data will lead to increased resources to combat and reduce the incidence of rape," continued Smeal.

I'm sorry, but i don't see any celebration for how it would help men. It's quite obvious it was their last concern.

And when it comes to prison rape. I'm sorry but nothing on the website says it's a feminist/women's right organization. No it says "Human Rights". It's very possible for a feminist to do things which aren't related to feminism you know :/ I mean if a conservative saves someone it's also not a case of "conservatism saving someone". (to give a random example)

So...basically, when you're asking for concrete actions undertaken by feminists to help men, the accompanying overly-narrow superlative is seeking an explicitly-named feminist organization (not counting organizations that are merely headed by feminists or whose goals are informed by feminist thought and theory, or individual feminists who take successful actions based on their principles), undertaking some campaign action solely for the benefit of men, with no direct benefit to women. And when something actually does fit this extreme definition, it doesn't count, I can only assume because it's not a "campaign."

You know, you really could at least admit up front that when you insist on building "common ground," you're actually not interested in discussing in good faith. It would be the polite thing to do. Unless that's what the odd analogy about dictators is supposed to indicate.

 

[Korolev]

It is a problem but it's not an equal problem. I'm sure there are white people who are racially abused, but you wouldn't say that racism was as big a problem for white people as it is for black people. Same with domestric violence - there ARE husbands and partners who are battered, attacked and even killed by their female partners or wives. It's happened.

But is it common? Just today, at my GP Rotation Clinic, I had to take a history from a woman who had endured pretty substantial physical abuse. The bruises were very visible. Her partner was in jail. It was a very sad story. She is not the only woman who I've seen with physical evidence of abuse. I saw quite a few in emergency. I've interviewed quite a few in the Mental Health Unit. I have yet to see a man who has come in, beaten, battered and bruised because a woman hit him. I'm sure it happens, but you cannot pretend it is even anywhere close to how often it happens to women, and believe me it happens quite a bit. Anyone, ANYONE who has worked in ED or as a doctor will tell you that women are far far far far far more likely to experience domestic violence.

And it is precisely because most men are stronger than most women, in terms of physical strength, size and aggression that it simply isn't as big a problem for most men. I've seen women with broken bones in ED, the result of violence from a partner. I've heard of plenty of cases in which women have been killed by their partner. And while men have been killed by their wives, it isn't nearly as common as the other way around. You can't say it's equivalent to anywhere near the same degree.

 

[Suhi89]

I know I contributed to this somewhat but this subject shouldn't be about feminism. It's not feminism's job to fix this problem and it's not only a problem with feminists, it's a problem with wider society.

How about we try to work out how we can actually help male victims. By all means call out feminist organisations (eg refuge) or individuals (like Barbara Ellen) or paradigms (like the Duluth model), but let's not blame feminism as a whole. It's almost absurd as blaming patriarchy. Enough feminists agree that we should help anyone who is a victim of abuse. Attacking them because they use a certain label isn't likely to stop them being feminists, but it does take focus away from the problem. Stop using the plight of real victims to make ideological points.

OT, I'm really happy this video was made. Anything that helps raise awareness can only lead to more resources being available and more compassion being shown to victims. I'm going to donate to the mankind initiative and I advise others to do similar if it's an issue you care about.

 

[generals3]

So...basically, when you're asking for concrete actions undertaken by feminists to help men, the accompanying overly-narrow superlative is seeking an explicitly-named feminist organization (not counting organizations that are merely headed by feminists or whose goals are informed by feminist thought and theory, or individual feminists who take successful actions based on their principles),

First of all, the organization started before she joined and has many leading members. One happening to be a feminist doesn't mean we should accredit the actions of the organization to feminism, mainly since the organization itself doesn't identify itself as such. If there is an NGO which has a prominent Right wing member should we accredit the actions to right wing ideologies?

undertaking some campaign action solely for the benefit of men, with no direct benefit to women.

No one said it cannot benefit women. However when i say "Actions to help men" i mean that. I don't mean "Actions to help women which happened to also have a beneficial impact for men". As i said removing a dictator because he was ruthless is quite different than removing a dictator, who happened to be ruthless, because he didn't play ball anymore. Surely i'm not the only one who sees the huge difference.

And when something actually does fit this extreme definition, it doesn't count, I can only assume because it's not a "campaign."

Actually not really, this one i'm granting. Although that's one organization which addressed only one issue men face, well actually boys in this case. That's not a lot now is it. (And i must say i was disappointed when i noticed none of the latest blog posts on their website were about issues men face, so yeah... even the ones among "the best" when it comes to men don't care that much)

And i would also like to point out i don't see how the definition is extreme since oh so many feminist organization fit it if you replace men by women.

You know, you really could at least admit up front that when you insist on building "common ground," you're actually not interested in discussing in good faith. It would be the polite thing to do. Unless that's what the odd analogy about dictators is supposed to indicate.

I will not lie just to please you.

Snip

Of course their primary objective is to fight for women's rights, that was why they started this in the first place, however, they do not only fight for women when they are fighting for equality. In what way does the Men's rights movement benefit women? Feminists have done far more for men's rights than MRA's have done for womens. Saying that " because a feminist did good things does not mean that feminism is good", but you should consider that MANY feminist do good things for men and use their influence as feminist to help accomplish those goals. Men need to step up against these things with feminist, not screaming because everyone else isn't doing all the work for them.

And am i saying MRA's are here to help women? No. Heck did i even ever mention MRA's at all (or tried to defend them?).

And actually they do fight only for women in 99% of the cases. The existence of collateral of an action doesn't mean the action was undertaken for said collateral. But you see, i don't actually demand feminists to fight for men. But what i do demand is some honesty. Because saying they care about men's issue a lot while they do very little to reflect that... No. If anything that is actively harmful for men because it further reinforces the notion we do not have problems. After all if you assume feminists are honest and competent that is the only possible explanation.

 

[Schadrach]

Domestic and sexual violence perpetuated by any sex against any sex is a feminist concern,

...which is why it's not that hard to see feminists arguing against abused men having any services or in favor of excluding men who are forced into intercourse by women from counting as "raped", or who support "primary aggressor" (read: arrest the man no matter what) domestic violence policies?

...
It's not that hard to find an extreme position for any belief, regardless of their core, and not terribly surprising that people are going to claim whatever label they think applies to their extremity. No label is untainted, true Scotsmen be damned.

So unless you're outright accusing me, as a self-professed feminist, of arguing that men are the source of all evil and should be treated like second-class scum, I fail to see what your point is.

None of the people I'm talking about are generally considered extremists though. Even limiting myself to the internet, I can find examples of those positions being argued at the larger feminist blogs, places like Feministing, Feministe, Jezebel, Shakesville...hell, at least one of that list a user here has argued before in a thread on the topic and none of the other self identified feminists in that thread (including some of the people in this thread) took a position against that poster.

If I wanted to point at extremists among feminism I could just as easily point to somewhere like RadFemHub or some of the examples from the Agent Orange files (or Solanas at that rate, I guess), but extremists are extremist. Support for "primary aggressor", the idea that a man who a woman has sexual intercourse with without his consent wasn't "raped", or men shouldn't have any DV services at all (and they *especially* shouldn't receive any government help even if they are allowed to exist) aren't cases of extremism -- they're frightfully easy to find and in mainstream resources.

You also bring up a good point with the lack of charities for men. A huge obstacle for creating access to resources for male victims of domestic violence is finding men to donate their time and money to assisting other men. It is not that feminist do not care about male victims, it is that they lack the resources to provide for the women and children victims already and need men to also step up and volunteer their time as well. Men have to be available to assist other men, and sadly not that many men are willing to do so. Women can help men as well only to a certain extent, but just as you have "women's only" facilities, you need "men's only" facilities as well, and not enough men are stepping up to make that happen. Men are more likely to complain about not having the services, but less likely to step up and create them.

According to " feminism" this is due to patriarchy making it unacceptable to men to seek help for being beaten and appear to be " womanly" and not masculine enough. The pressure on men to not appear " weak" or "girly" is due to patriarchy, and seeking help for being abused is considered weak by " macho" men.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machismo

Domestic Violence resources are allocated more to women due to more women than men being seriously injured or killed, and men are not stepping up and volunteering to create more resources for men. Men have to become more active in helping other men if you want this to improve.

Interestingly, Norway doesn't seem to have a problem with this, and domestic violence services there are required by law to have services for men (law in question was passed in 2010). Found a couple of articles on the topic[footnote]http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/Menn-flytter-inn-pa-krisesenteret-7358522.html[/footnote][footnote]http://klassekampen.no/article/20131101/ARTICLE/131109997[/footnote]. One of the more interesting things (and one that seems entirely counterintuitive from the perspective you suggest) is that male victim tend to prefer talking to female staff (which surprised the woman interviewed). Wouldn't going for help to and expressing weakness to a "lowly" woman make you even more "weak", "womanly" and "girly"? Maybe there's something going on here, or maybe a certain theory built on axiom rather than evidence might not be as accurate as some would like?

As a side, the lack of resources for male victims even hurts the "real" and "important" victims (you know, women) -- facilities for abused women often don't allow teenage sons to join their mothers, which means that women with teenage sons are faced with having to leave their sons with the dangerous man they're trying to escape. Many won't do that.

Patriarchy is the feminist scapegoat. When men could defend themselves against a violent women, that was patriarchy at work and now that men can't defend themselves without running the risk of being arrested under DV Laws, that's patriarchy too.

Long and short of it: Patriarchy is unfalsifiable and is demonstrated by whatever the feminist invoking it doesn't like and can shoehorn into it. I'm just waiting for someone to demonstrate the God paradox in terms of patriarchy.

And ever since ancient history it is well know women can threaten men. Actually i don't think there has ever been a time when people believed they cannot. Although the means tend to be less physical. (like poisoning)

Certainly, I am referring to physical violence.

Such as driving a tent peg through someone's temple, to use a Biblical reference (since we are talking ancient world and not something more modern like say Jodi Arias)? Or does that not count as physical violence these days? Either way, what generals3 wrote is counter to the argument that women are believed to be harmless and thus men don't need to defend themselves because there's nothing to defend against.