Mens Rights Activists

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Yes, they are true, however, what you are overlooking in regards to women and children, women were still expected to care for the children when the male gets custody, the difference was the mother was just " replaced" like a piece of furniture back then, and was not even considered as a " biological parent" but instead was treated as a " surrogate mother" to the father who had all the rights while the mother had none. They simply had another female care for the children and cut the mother out all together like she had died. Males obtaining custody back then did not mean males actually did the work to raise the children, that was STILL beneath men to do as " women's work" and they still had either remarried and had that woman care for their children or they had nannies or other women do so. Legal " custody" =\= actually rearing the children themselves.

Prior to the state recognizing that the mother had rights to the children at all, of course the mother could not " own children" as she was property herself. Feminists fought to have women treated as human beings and not furniture, however they did not change societies view that " raising children was women's work". People still expected women to raise the children regardless of which woman did it and custody rights. What they changed was " this woman has more of a right to care for the children than another woman because she was the biological mother." not that " men raised children", that idea was absurd back then, and society still has not recovered from these ideas even now.

Not all domestic violence ends in death, but not all domestic violence is minor either, MANY women are seriously injured and hospitalized from domestic violence as well as being killed. The number of ER visits from males are no where near comparable to that of females. From both both the medical documentation and the show this to be terribly one sided in regards to injuries and death.

In regards to Alimony, what feminists have finally achieved in court though now is the ability to be the " bread winner" and head of household, which had been unheard of in the past. This is very important now, so that not only men have to pay alimony or child support now as they had done in the past. My Aunt not only has to pay alimony to support my uncle when she left him for another man, the court also mandated her to keep her insurance on him so that he does not have an interruption in his medical care as well, and upkeep the payments on his car. The ability for women to be recognized in court as head of household or " breadwinner" was a feminist victory, not a " MRM" one.

I would politely ask you to, when you answer my post, answer me directly and not go sideways.

1) Even if we skip the facts that your representation of the age is negatively colored, it still doesn't make you statement true, it's irrelevant to that fact. As it's irrelevant to my point I will not discuss what you wrote.

2) Again, irrelevant. If purple thigie is 10 times more likely to cause grievous damage than lavender one, in case of direct conflict you approach both sides with neutral stance, or in other words treat both sides as both potential victims and potential assaulter at the same time. It's the only just and fair way.

3) Females were recognized as owners and masters of households long time ago. Modern courts started recognizing them, in alimony terms, as soon as alimony started being instigated. It was actually gradually shifted to be far more one sided over time. The rule itself was being applied comparatively only to relative incomes, situations and behaviors of suing parties. Fact that women pay alimony was not feminist victory, it was in the rules from the get go and was applied from the start.

It is not " irrelevant" or going " sideways" and is in NO WAY a misrepresentation of how women were treated in the time period. To understand why the laws were the way they were and understand the way in which they changed and how the courts ruled, you have to understand their reasoning as was explained by numerous texts from the period. It was considered " beneath men" to do housework or raise children because it was seen as " women's work" and women were considered inferior and subordinate to men. Feminists, whether or not you wish to give them credit for their very hard earned "Bread winner" or " head of household" or " head of family" title were not considered capable of holding such title and have been denied that title throughout western history. A battle that is not yet over in broader society even if the courts now recognize women to be capable of head of household " conservatives" are still fighting to keep it from them:

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/making-men-head-household-true-womens-liberation-because-it-makes-life-easier
https://wedgewords.wordpress.com/2013/07/10/can-women-be-heads-of-households/
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/05/women-breadwinners

From my perspective, coming from a Maternal culture where the man takes the woman's name upon marriage, and traditionally women were the primary ones to conduct business and control the economy and control property, their arguments about " natural order" decrying why women should not be the breadwinners comes across as ridiculous, according to them matriarchal societies like the one I come from does not exist. Many numerous societies exist and have existed that have had the woman as the head of family, and this is not a role specifically reserved for " men." The struggle for women to be recognized as such even this day is not over, as many men and women still refuse to acknowledge that a woman is capable as such.


Changing written laws is far easier than having society recognize such things or even have courts rule on such things appropriately due to judges being elected by the community and the judges will be a reflection of what that community values. When you have conservative judges elected by conservative communities that still do not recognize the fact that the woman can be the head of family and breadwinner, they still will not rule accordingly because the idea that the " inferior and weak" woman could be responsible for supporting the " superior" man is so ingrained in society that they cannot grasp the concept that either the man or woman could be the breadwinner and head of family and has to be decided on a case by case basis.

Isn't it great that men can now be expected to change diapers and clean the house too?

You can thank feminists for that! At one time they actually used the idea that men should not do these things as a reason why women should not be able to work or vote. reading what anti feminist conservatives have to say about why women should not be head of household and family, not much has changed I see.

 

[Johnny Impact]

I've been accused of it once or twice. Mostly because I think some of the ideas/arguments that come out of the feminism camp are insane and I'm not afraid to say so. Of course, I think a much greater portion of the ideas coming out of the MRA camp are insane, but that gets conveniently brushed aside when it's time to hurl accusations.

Basically, I do not buy arguments that depend on victim status, or the constant implication that women can make a better, purer, nobler world than men. I don't disbelieve it because "women are weak and unstable." That shit's no more true of women than of men. I've known martial arts chicks half my size who could kick my ass six ways from Sunday and would not hesitate to do so if they felt it necessary. I've known sixteen year old girls more stable and responsible than I am at 38. All the women in my family are intelligent, motivated, and don't take no shit off nobody. I could go on. No, the reason I disbelieve it is because people -- that's homo sapiens, the entire species, male, female, and otherwise -- are fundamentally flawed, often short-sighted, and almost always opinionated and selfish. This leads to argument, lack of consensus, fighting, backstabbing, and, at length, all the evils of the world. Women aren't worse, they just aren't better. It's a wash. Nothing could be more fair, and fairness is supposed to be the name of the game, but you would not believe how much shit a man can take for saying this. I'm open to being proven wrong, but so far all the feminists have done in response is tell me with varying degrees of politeness that I'm part of the problem.

 

[WhiteNachos]

Snip

That's a pretty damned massive claim with literally no evidence provided. I don't know how it is down stateside, but here in Canada it is, 100% without a doubt, not the case.

What is not the case? The SPLC already addressed Mainstream MRA's as being misogynist, and YES, feminists are the ones responsible for bringing us our domestic violence and abuse hotlines, they have volunteered countless hours and raised the funds to bring us these services or they would not exist today. In addition, feminists are the ones fighting for men and women to be able to like and do the same things without being ostracized and ridiculed for doing so, that actually benefits men moreso than women, as if women wear mans pants they are less likely to be made fun of than a man in in a woman's dress.

So I am not sure what you are attempting to claim isn't true.

http://time.com/134152/the-toxic-appeal-of-the-mens-rights-movement/

Wow that's not a biased article at all. /sarcasm.

Seriously that's your fucking source? A word of advice if you want to know what MRAs believe ASK SOME FUCKING MRAS, not fucking feminists. This goes with EVERY group. The article cited one thing some MRAs did and then just gave us tons of assurances that most MRAs are misogynists that we had to jsut take his word for. Then admitted there were legit problems facing men but men should man up and deal with them because they have so much privilege (which is a great way of perpetuating gender roles BTW).

And if that's all it takes to convince you:

"Most feminists are awful people misandric people, they talk in fallacies have no evidence to back up most of their claims and they generally suck. Here's a single instance of feminists doing something questionable to support my claim that they're all rotten.

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Womens-groups-Cancel-law-charging-women-with-rape
"

I don't actually believe that but you get my point.

I have spoken to plenty of MRA's that is why the point stands. I agree with the SPLC, that the VAST MAJORITY are completely anti feminist and spread misinformation against women.

"The so-called ?manosphere? is peopled with hundreds of websites, blogs and forums dedicated to savaging feminists in particular and women, very typically American women, in general. Although some of the sites make an attempt at civility and try to back their arguments with facts, they are almost all thick with misogynistic attacks that can be astounding for the guttural hatred they express."


http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/spring/misogyny-the-sites
I do not consider the SPLC a " biased" source, since they are only really biased against hate groups. Showing there are exceptions and claiming " these few guys over here are not like that" does not change the actions of the majority.

Did the SPLC conduct a scientific poll? What was their methodology to come to this conclusion that most of them are bad?

That is what they do.. They investigate organizations and report their findings in their journal and hold hate organizations legally responsible for their offenses in court. They do this via investigative work and researching those organizations, the same as they have done with the KKK and Neo Nazi organizations. They do not use " polls" they actually investigate, that was the purpose for their existence in the first place.

The SPLC is a non profit and does not accept government funds, or charge its clients legal fees or share in their awarded judgments.

Well there's the problem, MRAs aren't an organization. Although quite frankly it seems obvious people are using the SPLC just because they agree with their conclusions (even though they did not say all MRAs/MRA sites are hateful).

If the SPLC said the MRM is 100% a hate movement then the SPLC is wrong. It's that simple.

 

[WhiteNachos]

If white people were placed in a position where they couldn't get water without forming societies to build their own fountains, THEN it would be a fair comparison. The powerful segregating access to the only available facilities out of racism,

When government funding is involved, and its the only option for abuse victims, then it IS the powerful segregating access due to sexism. If an abuse shelter receives any public money they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate.

What is the point of having segregated shelters anyway? Seems like more "separate but equal" crap.

 

[Dizchu]

I'm still baffled by how people continuously try to convince others that their gender "has it worse" than another. There seems to be two extremes. On one you have women pinned down by the relentless, oppressive force of "THE PATRIARCHY" in big, bold letters as the Imperial March theme plays. On the other, men are the "underdogs" trying to combat the conspiracy of women that are trying to castrate them.

I ask this again and again, but can people please entertain the idea that men and women both have to deal with a lot of unfair bullshit? For every disadvantage a woman has due to traditional gender roles, there's a disadvantage for men. I'm glad that MRAs are trying to bring attention to issues that men face, but ultimately all I see is incoherent squabbling between them and feminists.

People that insist that men have objectively better lives than women are wrong. The reverse is also true. I'm tired of gender discussions turning into a competition.

 

[WhiteNachos]

You can answer my simple questions, but you're going to make new claims like, "Women's shelters weren't created because women need shelter more than men. The need for shelter and basic needs isn't sex-specific. They were created because we have more compassion for women as a society."?!

I mean... what am I supposed to do with this? It's a huge mess that hinges on your provably false assumptions, but to go down that road would be ANOTHER distraction, another set of questions you wouldn't answer.

Well, my assumption of "why" really doesn't matter or impact the reality of it existing. What matters is that there is significantly more funding going towards homeless women than homeless men despite homeless men accounting for the majority of the demographic (60-68% depending on which study you read). This means that society is more concerned for the wellbeing of females in this demographic than the males. That is social-based privilege. Especially when it's the males that account for the vast majority of victims of violence (90-93%) within the community. That likewise exposes a preference of violence against males in numbers that do not match the 60/40% gender distribution.

When I set that distraction aside for a moment and try to handle the original matter, you claim I've ignored you.

No.

Actually, you addressed the "distraction" and not the original matter.

The original matter was your claim that homeless women suffer more sexual assaults and therefore homeless men are privileged. I countered your claim with the actual numbers and tried to ask why your logic then doesn't apply for women being the privileged ones in the homeless community (where, come on, privilege is basically nonexistent anyways).

With all that we've discussed, do you really believe that a homeless man is more privileged than a homeless female? That was the claim made in this thread and supported by you.

You're getting me confused with someone else, I never made any such claim.

In fact you seem to be getting a bunch of things from a few separate arguments you're having, blended in this post. If you need to, please go back and read what I've actually said, thanks.

I see, you are quite correct. I must have thought you were thaluikhain whose post was the one I responded to. That is my mistake and I apologize for any confusion and frustration that caused.

So your specific disagreement with me is what constitutes privilege. I'll stick to that.

Privilege is anything that has been socially constructed, condoned and reinforced for a specific group. Shelters made specifically for women benefit women over men and do constitute a privilege that men do not share.

Do you disagree with that line of reasoning? It isn't saying that women's shelters are bad, but that men should also be given the same attention or even more considering how many more homeless men there are than women. As long as the concern is proportionate then we aren't looking at privilege of one group over another.

OK, cool, thanks for checking on that.

SO yes, I agree with the definition of privilege you've put forward, but I don't agree that's what is meant when people say things like, "White Male Privilege" for example. There needs to be a root inequality that has as its cause, something more than that the group in question never made the same systems or services.

So yes... it's a privilege for women, by women, but that's not a sound argument for inequality.

If we're twins, but I'm a lazy slob and you're a fit guy on your game, and I end up unhealthy and poor with you healthy and rich, is that unequal? Yes... yes it is, but so what? Two different series of choices made over time have led to different outcomes and resources. Women have focused on what they were allowed to do historically, and when (relatively recently) they got the vote and such, they naturally moved outwards from there.

Men have focused on different things historically, such as amassing political and corporate power, ensuring the exclusivity of male institutions, etc. It's all unequal, but not in the sense of politically charged language; it is not "Unequal".

Imagine two different kids, one was born to rich parents and the other to poor parents but otherwise pretty similar.

Is the rich kid privileged? According to you, not if their parents worked really really hard for their money.

And that's the situation. Men find themselves born into a system that caters to female abuse victims far more than men, and if you say they should just bootstrap their own system, they may not have the resources to do that.

Also it smacks of "if these straight people want to not let gays into their pizza place, then gay people should just build their own. This does not count as privileged".

 

[WhiteNachos]

I'm still baffled by how people continuously try to convince others that their gender "has it worse" than another. There seems to be two extremes. On one you have women pinned down by the relentless, oppressive force of "THE PATRIARCHY" in big, bold letters as the Imperial March theme plays. On the other, men are the "underdogs" trying to combat the conspiracy of women that are trying to castrate them.

I ask this again and again, but can people please entertain the idea that men and women both have to deal with a lot of unfair bullshit? For every disadvantage a woman has due to traditional gender roles, there's a disadvantage for men. I'm glad that MRAs are trying to bring attention to issues that men face, but ultimately all I see is incoherent squabbling between them and feminists.

People that insist that men have objectively better lives than women are wrong. The reverse is also true. I'm tired of gender discussions turning into a competition.

Amen, what really grinds my gears is the feminists that say that there are NO men issues or that women have NO privileges (but men have tons), or vice versa (I've yet to see the inverse of this but I imagine it happens). Just anyone who tries to make a "privileged/oppressed" dichotomy as if the issue was really that black and white annoys me.

 

[Dizchu]

You shouldn't confuse the noise produced by extremists with the norm in society. That being said, there are large parts of the world where being a women isn't a "six of one..." proposition, such as Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, Rural China...

Oh of course, I did put emphasis on the extremes at both ends. But even if most feminists and MRAs aren't like that, there is an underlying bias not only towards one gender or another, but sometimes even towards traditional gender roles. The reason why many male issues are mocked (and I'm not talking about things like the friendzone which deserve mockery) is because it's hard for a lot of folks to shake off the idea that men are supposed to be stoic and reliable. Men are encouraged to hide their weaknesses rather than address them, an idea that many feminists and MRAs (subconsciously or not) sadly perpetuate. I wouldn't be surprised if the rose-tinted view many feminists have of the supposed "advantages" of being male are merely the result of men not making their emotional troubles known.

As for third world countries with rampant misogyny such as those you listed, I'm not convinced that men have it comparatively better than women there either. Of course, women and girls deal with sexual abuse and the shaming that comes with it, but let's not forget that young boys in these countries are forced into lives of crime, warfare, barbarism, etc. Oppression doesn't have to be first-hand, many of the men that engage in extreme misogyny in these places are oppressed themselves.

 

[WhiteNachos]

You can answer my simple questions, but you're going to make new claims like, "Women's shelters weren't created because women need shelter more than men. The need for shelter and basic needs isn't sex-specific. They were created because we have more compassion for women as a society."?!

I mean... what am I supposed to do with this? It's a huge mess that hinges on your provably false assumptions, but to go down that road would be ANOTHER distraction, another set of questions you wouldn't answer.

Well, my assumption of "why" really doesn't matter or impact the reality of it existing. What matters is that there is significantly more funding going towards homeless women than homeless men despite homeless men accounting for the majority of the demographic (60-68% depending on which study you read). This means that society is more concerned for the wellbeing of females in this demographic than the males. That is social-based privilege. Especially when it's the males that account for the vast majority of victims of violence (90-93%) within the community. That likewise exposes a preference of violence against males in numbers that do not match the 60/40% gender distribution.

When I set that distraction aside for a moment and try to handle the original matter, you claim I've ignored you.

No.

Actually, you addressed the "distraction" and not the original matter.

The original matter was your claim that homeless women suffer more sexual assaults and therefore homeless men are privileged. I countered your claim with the actual numbers and tried to ask why your logic then doesn't apply for women being the privileged ones in the homeless community (where, come on, privilege is basically nonexistent anyways).

With all that we've discussed, do you really believe that a homeless man is more privileged than a homeless female? That was the claim made in this thread and supported by you.

You're getting me confused with someone else, I never made any such claim.

In fact you seem to be getting a bunch of things from a few separate arguments you're having, blended in this post. If you need to, please go back and read what I've actually said, thanks.

I see, you are quite correct. I must have thought you were thaluikhain whose post was the one I responded to. That is my mistake and I apologize for any confusion and frustration that caused.

So your specific disagreement with me is what constitutes privilege. I'll stick to that.

Privilege is anything that has been socially constructed, condoned and reinforced for a specific group. Shelters made specifically for women benefit women over men and do constitute a privilege that men do not share.

Do you disagree with that line of reasoning? It isn't saying that women's shelters are bad, but that men should also be given the same attention or even more considering how many more homeless men there are than women. As long as the concern is proportionate then we aren't looking at privilege of one group over another.

OK, cool, thanks for checking on that.

SO yes, I agree with the definition of privilege you've put forward, but I don't agree that's what is meant when people say things like, "White Male Privilege" for example. There needs to be a root inequality that has as its cause, something more than that the group in question never made the same systems or services.

So yes... it's a privilege for women, by women, but that's not a sound argument for inequality.

If we're twins, but I'm a lazy slob and you're a fit guy on your game, and I end up unhealthy and poor with you healthy and rich, is that unequal? Yes... yes it is, but so what? Two different series of choices made over time have led to different outcomes and resources. Women have focused on what they were allowed to do historically, and when (relatively recently) they got the vote and such, they naturally moved outwards from there.

Men have focused on different things historically, such as amassing political and corporate power, ensuring the exclusivity of male institutions, etc. It's all unequal, but not in the sense of politically charged language; it is not "Unequal".

Imagine two different kids, one was born to rich parents and the other to poor parents but otherwise pretty similar.

Is the rich kid privileged? According to you, not if their parents worked really really hard for their money.

And that's the situation. Men find themselves born into a system that caters to female abuse victims far more than men, and if you say they should just bootstrap their own system, they may not have the resources to do that.

Also it smacks of "if these straight people want to not let gays into their pizza place, then gay people should just build their own. This does not count as privileged".

Except that we're not talking about "separate-but-equal" here, we're talking about specific facilities made to address a specific lack... that "build your own pizza joint" analogy. Now, years later the people who told gay people to go make their own pizza realize that they have the better pizza and more of it. So, they stop telling gay people to fuck off, and start demanding a fair portion of their pizza.

Well if you think people shouldn't be discriminated against based off sexuality or gender then you'd be against both scenarios.

Why is domestic violence against women even a separate issue from domestic violence against men? It seems needlessly segregated, like "I'm going to make a hospital for people with lung cancer but only let men in, if women with lung cancer want my services they should make their own".

 

[WhiteNachos]

I'm still baffled by how people continuously try to convince others that their gender "has it worse" than another. There seems to be two extremes. On one you have women pinned down by the relentless, oppressive force of "THE PATRIARCHY" in big, bold letters as the Imperial March theme plays. On the other, men are the "underdogs" trying to combat the conspiracy of women that are trying to castrate them.

I ask this again and again, but can people please entertain the idea that men and women both have to deal with a lot of unfair bullshit? For every disadvantage a woman has due to traditional gender roles, there's a disadvantage for men. I'm glad that MRAs are trying to bring attention to issues that men face, but ultimately all I see is incoherent squabbling between them and feminists.

People that insist that men have objectively better lives than women are wrong. The reverse is also true. I'm tired of gender discussions turning into a competition.

I think most reasonable people without a specific agenda ARE on board with what I think you're trying to say, which I hope is less about moral equivocation and more about a call to universal HUMAN rights?

You shouldn't confuse the noise produced by extremists with the norm in society. That being said, there are large parts of the world where being a women isn't a "six of one..." proposition, such as Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, Rural China...

In fact MUCH more of the world lives in that condition than the few of us trying to explain to some MRA's why their whole premise is an insult to human dignity.

I'm still baffled by how people continuously try to convince others that their gender "has it worse" than another. There seems to be two extremes. On one you have women pinned down by the relentless, oppressive force of "THE PATRIARCHY" in big, bold letters as the Imperial March theme plays. On the other, men are the "underdogs" trying to combat the conspiracy of women that are trying to castrate them.

I ask this again and again, but can people please entertain the idea that men and women both have to deal with a lot of unfair bullshit? For every disadvantage a woman has due to traditional gender roles, there's a disadvantage for men. I'm glad that MRAs are trying to bring attention to issues that men face, but ultimately all I see is incoherent squabbling between them and feminists.

People that insist that men have objectively better lives than women are wrong. The reverse is also true. I'm tired of gender discussions turning into a competition.

Amen, what really grinds my gears is the feminists that say that there are NO men issues or that women have NO privileges (but men have tons), or vice versa (I've yet to see the inverse of this but I imagine it happens). Just anyone who tries to make a "privileged/oppressed" dichotomy as if the issue was really that black and white annoys me.

Yes, but unfortunately you can't say the same for your reaction to similar MRA behavior,

So now you're just going to imagine my response to situations I've yet to encounter, and then judge me based off your imagined response? Do I need to point out how underhanded and in bad faith that is? Please do point me to where I've been Ok with MRAs saying women have no issues, or that men are oppressed and women are privileged.

 

[Kopikatsu]

You shouldn't confuse the noise produced by extremists with the norm in society. That being said, there are large parts of the world where being a women isn't a "six of one..." proposition, such as Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, Rural China...

Oh of course, I did put emphasis on the extremes at both ends. But even if most feminists and MRAs aren't like that, there is an underlying bias not only towards one gender or another, but sometimes even towards traditional gender roles. The reason why many male issues are mocked (and I'm not talking about things like the friendzone which deserve mockery) is because it's hard for a lot of folks to shake off the idea that men are supposed to be stoic and reliable. Men are encouraged to hide their weaknesses rather than address them, an idea that many feminists and MRAs (subconsciously or not) sadly perpetuate. I wouldn't be surprised if the rose-tinted view many feminists have of the supposed "advantages" of being male are merely the result of men not making their emotional troubles known.

Norah Vincent is a woman who disguised herself as a man for the sake of an eighteen month experiment to explore male issues, pressures, sexuality, etc. The experience was so traumatic and depressing for her that she had herself committed to several mental institutions.

The book she wrote about it, Self Made Man, is very interesting and I'd recommend it to everyone here.

 

[WhiteNachos]

You can answer my simple questions, but you're going to make new claims like, "Women's shelters weren't created because women need shelter more than men. The need for shelter and basic needs isn't sex-specific. They were created because we have more compassion for women as a society."?!

I mean... what am I supposed to do with this? It's a huge mess that hinges on your provably false assumptions, but to go down that road would be ANOTHER distraction, another set of questions you wouldn't answer.

Well, my assumption of "why" really doesn't matter or impact the reality of it existing. What matters is that there is significantly more funding going towards homeless women than homeless men despite homeless men accounting for the majority of the demographic (60-68% depending on which study you read). This means that society is more concerned for the wellbeing of females in this demographic than the males. That is social-based privilege. Especially when it's the males that account for the vast majority of victims of violence (90-93%) within the community. That likewise exposes a preference of violence against males in numbers that do not match the 60/40% gender distribution.

When I set that distraction aside for a moment and try to handle the original matter, you claim I've ignored you.

No.

Actually, you addressed the "distraction" and not the original matter.

The original matter was your claim that homeless women suffer more sexual assaults and therefore homeless men are privileged. I countered your claim with the actual numbers and tried to ask why your logic then doesn't apply for women being the privileged ones in the homeless community (where, come on, privilege is basically nonexistent anyways).

With all that we've discussed, do you really believe that a homeless man is more privileged than a homeless female? That was the claim made in this thread and supported by you.

You're getting me confused with someone else, I never made any such claim.

In fact you seem to be getting a bunch of things from a few separate arguments you're having, blended in this post. If you need to, please go back and read what I've actually said, thanks.

I see, you are quite correct. I must have thought you were thaluikhain whose post was the one I responded to. That is my mistake and I apologize for any confusion and frustration that caused.

So your specific disagreement with me is what constitutes privilege. I'll stick to that.

Privilege is anything that has been socially constructed, condoned and reinforced for a specific group. Shelters made specifically for women benefit women over men and do constitute a privilege that men do not share.

Do you disagree with that line of reasoning? It isn't saying that women's shelters are bad, but that men should also be given the same attention or even more considering how many more homeless men there are than women. As long as the concern is proportionate then we aren't looking at privilege of one group over another.

OK, cool, thanks for checking on that.

SO yes, I agree with the definition of privilege you've put forward, but I don't agree that's what is meant when people say things like, "White Male Privilege" for example. There needs to be a root inequality that has as its cause, something more than that the group in question never made the same systems or services.

So yes... it's a privilege for women, by women, but that's not a sound argument for inequality.

If we're twins, but I'm a lazy slob and you're a fit guy on your game, and I end up unhealthy and poor with you healthy and rich, is that unequal? Yes... yes it is, but so what? Two different series of choices made over time have led to different outcomes and resources. Women have focused on what they were allowed to do historically, and when (relatively recently) they got the vote and such, they naturally moved outwards from there.

Men have focused on different things historically, such as amassing political and corporate power, ensuring the exclusivity of male institutions, etc. It's all unequal, but not in the sense of politically charged language; it is not "Unequal".

Imagine two different kids, one was born to rich parents and the other to poor parents but otherwise pretty similar.

Is the rich kid privileged? According to you, not if their parents worked really really hard for their money.

And that's the situation. Men find themselves born into a system that caters to female abuse victims far more than men, and if you say they should just bootstrap their own system, they may not have the resources to do that.

Also it smacks of "if these straight people want to not let gays into their pizza place, then gay people should just build their own. This does not count as privileged".

Except that we're not talking about "separate-but-equal" here, we're talking about specific facilities made to address a specific lack... that "build your own pizza joint" analogy. Now, years later the people who told gay people to go make their own pizza realize that they have the better pizza and more of it. So, they stop telling gay people to fuck off, and start demanding a fair portion of their pizza.

Well if you think people shouldn't be discriminated against based off sexuality or gender then you'd be against both scenarios.

Why is domestic violence against women even a separate issue from domestic violence against men? It seems needlessly segregated, like "I'm going to make a hospital for people with lung cancer but only let men in, if women with lung cancer want my services they should make their own".

Remember your now-abandoned pizza metaphor? I do, and this is just another failed version of it. I will point out that arguing by metaphors that don't actually work is often a sign that someone is struggling with the underlying concept.

Ooh nice backhanded insult, great choice of passive aggressive people everywhere.

But I'll keep it simple for you, explain to me why shelters need to discriminate based on gender.

 

[WhiteNachos]

You can answer my simple questions, but you're going to make new claims like, "Women's shelters weren't created because women need shelter more than men. The need for shelter and basic needs isn't sex-specific. They were created because we have more compassion for women as a society."?!

I mean... what am I supposed to do with this? It's a huge mess that hinges on your provably false assumptions, but to go down that road would be ANOTHER distraction, another set of questions you wouldn't answer.

Well, my assumption of "why" really doesn't matter or impact the reality of it existing. What matters is that there is significantly more funding going towards homeless women than homeless men despite homeless men accounting for the majority of the demographic (60-68% depending on which study you read). This means that society is more concerned for the wellbeing of females in this demographic than the males. That is social-based privilege. Especially when it's the males that account for the vast majority of victims of violence (90-93%) within the community. That likewise exposes a preference of violence against males in numbers that do not match the 60/40% gender distribution.

When I set that distraction aside for a moment and try to handle the original matter, you claim I've ignored you.

No.

Actually, you addressed the "distraction" and not the original matter.

The original matter was your claim that homeless women suffer more sexual assaults and therefore homeless men are privileged. I countered your claim with the actual numbers and tried to ask why your logic then doesn't apply for women being the privileged ones in the homeless community (where, come on, privilege is basically nonexistent anyways).

With all that we've discussed, do you really believe that a homeless man is more privileged than a homeless female? That was the claim made in this thread and supported by you.

You're getting me confused with someone else, I never made any such claim.

In fact you seem to be getting a bunch of things from a few separate arguments you're having, blended in this post. If you need to, please go back and read what I've actually said, thanks.

I see, you are quite correct. I must have thought you were thaluikhain whose post was the one I responded to. That is my mistake and I apologize for any confusion and frustration that caused.

So your specific disagreement with me is what constitutes privilege. I'll stick to that.

Privilege is anything that has been socially constructed, condoned and reinforced for a specific group. Shelters made specifically for women benefit women over men and do constitute a privilege that men do not share.

Do you disagree with that line of reasoning? It isn't saying that women's shelters are bad, but that men should also be given the same attention or even more considering how many more homeless men there are than women. As long as the concern is proportionate then we aren't looking at privilege of one group over another.

OK, cool, thanks for checking on that.

SO yes, I agree with the definition of privilege you've put forward, but I don't agree that's what is meant when people say things like, "White Male Privilege" for example. There needs to be a root inequality that has as its cause, something more than that the group in question never made the same systems or services.

So yes... it's a privilege for women, by women, but that's not a sound argument for inequality.

If we're twins, but I'm a lazy slob and you're a fit guy on your game, and I end up unhealthy and poor with you healthy and rich, is that unequal? Yes... yes it is, but so what? Two different series of choices made over time have led to different outcomes and resources. Women have focused on what they were allowed to do historically, and when (relatively recently) they got the vote and such, they naturally moved outwards from there.

Men have focused on different things historically, such as amassing political and corporate power, ensuring the exclusivity of male institutions, etc. It's all unequal, but not in the sense of politically charged language; it is not "Unequal".

Imagine two different kids, one was born to rich parents and the other to poor parents but otherwise pretty similar.

Is the rich kid privileged? According to you, not if their parents worked really really hard for their money.

And that's the situation. Men find themselves born into a system that caters to female abuse victims far more than men, and if you say they should just bootstrap their own system, they may not have the resources to do that.

Also it smacks of "if these straight people want to not let gays into their pizza place, then gay people should just build their own. This does not count as privileged".

Except that we're not talking about "separate-but-equal" here, we're talking about specific facilities made to address a specific lack... that "build your own pizza joint" analogy. Now, years later the people who told gay people to go make their own pizza realize that they have the better pizza and more of it. So, they stop telling gay people to fuck off, and start demanding a fair portion of their pizza.

Well if you think people shouldn't be discriminated against based off sexuality or gender then you'd be against both scenarios.

Why is domestic violence against women even a separate issue from domestic violence against men? It seems needlessly segregated, like "I'm going to make a hospital for people with lung cancer but only let men in, if women with lung cancer want my services they should make their own".

Remember your now-abandoned pizza metaphor? I do, and this is just another failed version of it. I will point out that arguing by metaphors that don't actually work is often a sign that someone is struggling with the underlying concept.

Ooh nice backhanded insult, great choice of passive aggressive people everywhere.

But I'll keep it simple for you, explain to me why shelters need to discriminate based on gender.

An insult dismissing my entire argument as passive-aggression, and a demand to answer a loaded question that I don't support?

I'll pass, thanks. If you decide that you want to go back a tick and actually deal with points instead of throwing up a lot of angry flak, please let me know.

And when you can tell me when I've been OK with MRAs saying that there are no womens' issues, please let me know.

 

[Dizchu]

Well, if you're not convinced in the case of, to use the same example, Afghanistan... you should look at the objective stats. Look at lifespan, earned income, etc. You can live in a terrible place and still be relatively worse off. The information is freely available and not controversial if you're like to read about it. If the existing body of information on the countries I listed doesn't convince you, then I would love to hear your reasoned and evidence-based counter-argument.

The problem here is that you seem to be implying that misogyny and the troubles men face exist separately. Misogyny is the result of ignorance and the mistreatment of men in their respective societies, as well as segregation based on gender. When men and women interact regularly with a mutual understanding, misogyny and misandry sharply decrease. It's no coincidence that countries that impose fewer restrictions based on gender also end up being the countries where sexism is less of an issue (compare Scandinavia with the Middle-East or even the United States).

In terms of life expectancy, it actually seems to favour women in Afghanistan (as it does in most of the world). Not by much, only a year or two (see the CIA World Factbook). Of course there is a gender pay gap, as many women in Middle-Eastern countries are denied access outside of their homes. They take the 50s American "working father, stay-at-home mother" thing to the absolute extreme. But they're not forced into the front lines of armed conflict either.

Beyond that, sorry, but I don't buy that the social expectation for men to be stoic isn't a universal cultural reality... it just kind of betrays where MRA's are coming from. Comparing cultural expectations with things like fighting for representation or against sexual violence, domestic violence, etc is way past apples and oranges.

The cultural expectations men are forced to adhere to causes misogyny from men in the first place. Things like representation and sexual violence are a by-product of cultural expectations, though sexual dimorphism has a degree of influence too. Like women, men have the freedom to do things within certain cultural parameters. For both genders, this results in advantages and disadvantages. MRAs and feminists feed off these cultural expectations, with MRAs constantly complaining about how women are spoilt and inconsiderate while feminists insist that rape and sexual violence from men is rampant enough to adopt a "guilty until proven innocent" mentality. I actually find parallels between the "I can't trust men because I've read all these scary stories of abusive men" feminists and the "I can't trust women because I've read scary stories about abusive women" MGTOWs. I find it absolutely appalling that people are actively trying to PERPETUATE distrust between genders.

Finally, it's a straw man to constantly argue against these supposed people with their "rose-colored glasses". You can be aware of how terrible life is for (one example) a poor Romanian boy in regards to issues like the rampant child-sex trade, and that objectively it's really no better or worse in that regard for poor Romanian girls. You would have a point, in some areas, in some places ill treatment is equal or skewed one way and then another without a clear bias.

The "rose-tinted glasses" thing was in reference to how often feminists and MRAs insist that because of reasons A, B and C, men/women must have better lives than women/men, but they continuously neglect reasons X, Y and Z that suggest otherwise. People focus on the negatives and assume that people that don't deal with the same issues they do must have it better by default. Straight women are more likely to be sexually assaulted than straight men. True. But men are more likely to be murdered than women are. I'm not saying that one issue takes precedence over another, but rather that we should stop focussing on one or the other and acknowledge both.

Also I think that we should stop talking about issues like these in terms of gender disparities being caused exclusively by people of the opposite gender. Men are more likely to sexually assault and murder, but that doesn't mean that their victims are necessarily women. People can be sexist towards people of their own gender. This is something very important that I feel often gets neglected in favour of the men vs. women "battle of the sexes" bullshit. It's not men vs. women. It's people vs. sexism.

When you stop focusing (as MRA's do) on emotionally charged anecdote, your own cultural experiences, and start to look at the measurable metrics the rest of the world does... you'll get the point.

Woah, condescending much? It's not about the statistics, but about how you look at them. You can't list a bunch of numbers and call it a day, you must consider why the statistics are the way they are. My arguments don't work contrary to the statistics, but rather they are an interpretation of them. If men are more likely to sexually assault and murder, as well as be murdered, my first concern isn't "how can we make life better for women by focussing exclusively on women", my concern is "what makes men more likely to be involved in violence?" Men are more likely to be violent, and the reason why sexual assault affects women the most is because most people that sexually assault are heterosexual men. It's easier to just consider all women potential victims rather than try to address the problems as they develop. Sexual assault and violence are symptoms of a disease, they are not the disease itself.

 

[Dizchu]

Context matters. If you're living to 61 because you've been used as a brood mare for children since you were 12, vs. dying at 48 after having choices like: study the Quran, join a warlord, farm opium, etc. Shit choices obviously, but still more than the women are getting without being terrorized for it.

I'm not interested in the whole MRA re-telling of history, so if you want to talk about the facts on the ground, back them up comprehensively please.

My "women outlive men in Afghanistan" response wasn't meant to imply that women have better lives than men do there, it was a response to your assertion that women do not outlive men. Or was your point about lifespan irrelevant? You criticised me for not putting the statistic into context yet my whole argument is about how issues relating to sexism can't be addressed in a vacuum.

Also MRA re-telling of history? What?

 

[Thaluikhain]

I actually find parallels between the "I can't trust men because I've read all these scary stories of abusive men" feminists and the "I can't trust women because I've read scary stories about abusive women" MGTOWs. I find it absolutely appalling that people are actively trying to PERPETUATE distrust between genders.

As a rule, it is not feminists who are responsible for the large amount of violence perpetuated by men against women, nor is it generally feminists that who are almost invariably blaming female victims afterwards for not taking more precautions, which boils down to not trusting men.

Now, you could argue that feminists talking about sexism has caused women to distrust men (if one were to, for some reason, assume women on the whole didn't know about sexism until someone told them it existed), but I'd not see that as something to condemn feminism for.

 

[Dizchu]

Just adding back all of the stuff you're choosing to ignore in your very VERY VERY selective response. I think with that back, there's nothing for me to add here, right?

I haven't chosen to ignore anything. I acknowledge all the things that you have pointed out. I just think there are reasons for why those things are the way they are, and those reasons are complex and require greater consideration of gender dynamics in societies that are as hostile as those in Afghanistan, for instance. You accuse me of simplifying and omitting things for convenience when I'm actually interested in looking at things from angles that are seldom acknowledged.

Now, you could argue that feminists talking about sexism has caused women to distrust men (if one were to, for some reason, assume women on the whole didn't know about sexism until someone told them it existed), but I'd not see that as something to condemn feminism for.

Good points, but to me it reminds me of people who are terrified of sharks or of flying in airplanes. Shark attacks and plane crashes are reported so often that you'd be forgiven if you believed that they happened constantly. But the reality is, very few people are attacked by sharks and air travel is often very safe. Similarly, we're constantly reminded of serial killers and rapists who stalk women and kidnap them only to slash them up later, stories of sexual assault or sexually-driven violence are common. But the reality is that while it still happens, the fear of it is far more prominent than actual instances of it.

Let's not forget, it's not strangers that commit the most rapes, yet it's usually strangers that are under the most scrutiny. Which is understandable, I expect lots of people to be very cautious around people they're unfamiliar with when it's dark and quiet outside. But it grinds my gears when that discomfort is turned into hostility. I know not all feminists are like that and I am extremely thankful for that, but it's a toxic mentality that I see far too often.

And yes I am aware that sexual assault happens more often than shark attacks and plane crashes, I was just comparing them because I think the same mentality is at play. I often hear feminists speak about how they're terrified of rejecting advances from men because they're afraid of being murdered, as if it's such a common occurrence. While it could be argued that I'm directing my frustration in the wrong direction, I do believe that this extreme paranoia contributes to sexism. Not sexism against men, not sexism against women, just "sexism" as a whole.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Good points, but to me it reminds me of people who are terrified of sharks or of flying in airplanes. Shark attacks and plane crashes are reported so often that you'd be forgiven if you believed that they happened constantly. But the reality is, very few people are attacked by sharks and air travel is often very safe. Similarly, we're constantly reminded of serial killers and rapists who stalk women and kidnap them only to slash them up later, stories of sexual assault or sexually-driven violence are common. But the reality is that while it still happens, the fear of it is far more prominent than actual instances of it.

Let's not forget, it's not strangers that commit the most rapes, yet it's usually strangers that are under the most scrutiny. Which is understandable, I expect lots of people to be very cautious around people they're unfamiliar with when it's dark and quiet outside. But it grinds my gears when that discomfort is turned into hostility. I know not all feminists are like that and I am extremely thankful for that, but it's a toxic mentality that I see far too often.

And yes I am aware that sexual assault happens more often than shark attacks and plane crashes, I was just comparing them because I think the same mentality is at play. I often hear feminists speak about how they're terrified of rejecting advances from men because they're afraid of being murdered, as if it's such a common occurrence. While it could be argued that I'm directing my frustration in the wrong direction, I do believe that this extreme paranoia contributes to sexism. Not sexism against men, not sexism against women, just "sexism" as a whole.

I think you're downplaying how common they are there. More or less everyone will know at least one woman who was a victim of male violence. I've a number as FB friends, the only person I FB chatted to today (well, yesterday now) had been raped twice by different people. These aren't people I've met on feminist or rape survivor circles or anything, just people I've happened to become acquainted with during my life.

In any case, IMHO, you seem to have overlooked an important point though, that a female victim will almost always be told that it is her fault that she didn't do more to prevent it. That is, women are supposed to be permanently frightened of men, and act on that fear. Also, that men violence against women is something we are supposed to take for granted.

 

[Dizchu]

I think you're downplaying how common they are there. More or less everyone will know at least one woman who was a victim of male violence. I've a number as FB friends, the only person I FB chatted to today (well, yesterday now) had been raped twice by different people. These aren't people I've met on feminist or rape survivor circles or anything, just people I've happened to become acquainted with during my life.

In any case, IMHO, you seem to have overlooked an important point though, that a female victim will almost always be told that it is her fault that she didn't do more to prevent it. That is, women are supposed to be permanently frightened of men, and act on that fear. Also, that men violence against women is something we are supposed to take for granted.

I'm aware that rape and abuse are common enough to be a concern, but I draw the line at women being expected to have a crippling fear of being murdered by strangers and this fear being encouraged by (some) feminists. I can understand people with past trauma being afraid of strangers, but when people refer to one or two newspaper articles about men that spontaneously murdered women as a good enough justification to consider men "guilty until proven innocent", I can't help but be annoyed. Because as I said before, it reeks of the same paranoia that MGTOW people have because they've read an article or two about how a woman divorced a man and took all of his stuff. It comes off as antagonistic, it doesn't come off as a sincere concern.

I should probably point out that MGTOW is largely built on this paranoia while feminism is not, instead it seems to be a recurring theme rather than the basis of the whole movement. That said, anything that even remotely resembles MGTOW gets under my skin so I probably pay it greater attention than is necessary.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I'm aware that rape and abuse are common enough to be a concern, but I draw the line at women being expected to have a crippling fear of being murdered by strangers and this fear being encouraged by (some) feminists. I can understand people with past trauma being afraid of strangers, but when people refer to one or two newspaper articles about men that spontaneously murdered women as a good enough justification to consider men "guilty until proven innocent", I can't help but be annoyed.

Er...are you jumping from "being afraid/distrustful of men" to "considering men rapists until proven not" there?

Now, if you mean how, when a rape hits the headlines, feminist tend to assume that the alleged rapist is a rapist, that's different. Though, it is very rare (not unheard of, of course), for a false rape accusation to get very far (excepting when issues of race and so on come into it), it's not an unreasonable assumption for distant people with no particular interest in that particular case. People dealing with it, such as police or jurors, they most certainly cannot take that approach, but for people arguing on the net, it shouldn't be such a concern. Better to be correct, of course, bu being wrong isn't nearly as much of a problem as when the courts do it.