Pointing out double standards does NOT make you sexist!

BloatedGuppy

New member
Feb 3, 2010
9,572
0
0
Loki_The_Good said:
Like a comedian I saw recently said "It's not that I don't want women to have equal pay, but when the ship is going down I want the women right beside me." The problem is the requirements of men to hold onto ideals of chivalry which in a gender equal society is something that simply should not exist.
"Women and children first" has its roots in biology, not chivalry. Men are significantly more disposable if your a priori goal is maintaining a healthy breeding population and propagating the species.

Not that this is likely foremost on anyone's minds, but these root level biological concerns tend to inform a lot more of our actions than we like to think they do.

Hawkeye21 said:
lolwut?

Martin S. Fiebert of the Department of Psychology at California State University, Long Beach, has compiled an annotated bibliography of research relating to spousal abuse by women on men. This bibliography examines 275 scholarly investigations: 214 empirical studies and 61 reviews and/or analyses that appear to demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 365,000.

Erin Pizzey who opened one of the first women?s refuges in 1971, has said that almost as many men as women are victims of domestic violence and found that over half (62%)[36] of the women she admitted were as violent as their partners. She also stated that men were in need of a different kind of help than is currently available to them.

I've never hit a girl before, but I have to say I was tempted after my ex slagged me in the head with a frying pan after I told her almost politely to GTFO of my apartment. Mild concussions do wonders for the mood.
In a 2002 review of the research however Michael Kimmel found that violence is instrumental in maintaining control and that more than 90% of "systematic, persistent, and injurious" violence is perpetrated by men. He points out that most of the empirical studies that Fiebert reviewed used the same empirical measure of family conflict, i.e., the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) as the sole measure of domestic violence and that many of the studies noted by Fiebert discussed samples composed entirely of single people younger than 30, not married couples.[165] Kimmel argues that among various other flaws, the CTS is particularly vulnerable to reporting bias because it depends on asking people to accurately remember and report what happened during the past year. Men tend to underestimate their use of violence, while women tend to overestimate their use of violence. Simultaneously men tend to overestimate their partner's use of violence while women tend to underestimate their partner's use of violence. Thus, men will likely overestimate their victimization, while women tend to underestimate theirs.[166]

Similarly, the National Institute of Justice states that some studies finding equal or greater frequency of abuse by women against men are based on data compiled through the Conflict Tactics Scale. This survey tool was developed in the 1970s and may not be appropriate for intimate partner violence research because it does not measure control, coercion, or the motives for conflict tactics; it also leaves out sexual assault and violence by ex-spouses or partners and does not determine who initiated the violence. Furthermore, the NIJ contends that national surveys supported by NIJ, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Bureau of Justice Statistics that examine more serious assaults do not support the conclusion of similar rates of male and female spousal assaults. These surveys are conducted within a safety or crime context and clearly find more partner abuse by men against women.[167] However, the 32-nation study by Straus (2008) and a study by Whitaker et al. (2007) report that female perpetrated domestic abuse is more common than male.
That was some selective Wikipedia quoting. You quite literally stopped RIGHT before the criticisms of that study were noted.

Shall we all not do the study and statistics thing? We're all just going to select the one that reinforces our own bias and cheer it.

PS - Moar bunnies plox.
 

Reaper195

New member
Jul 5, 2009
2,055
0
0
Phasmal said:
Let us celebrate not having to be grunty unfeeling men by looking at this bunny.

What a pretty bunny.
DAT BUNNY! Eeeeee! Look at the little bunny!

<>

Yeah, something about sexism. Honestly, I'm long over this bollocks. I find it easier to simply be polite to everyone, irrelevant of gender. And if someone takes offence to something that isn't offensive, my level of fuck giving gets lower.
 

Hawkeye21

New member
Oct 25, 2011
249
0
0
BloatedGuppy said:
Shall we all not do the study and statistics thing? We're all just going to select the one that reinforces our own bias and cheer it.

PS - Moar bunnies plox.
You should probably read the last sentence in your quote.

Also, criminal statistics are twisted in a sense that male is much less likely to report abuse.
 

BloatedGuppy

New member
Feb 3, 2010
9,572
0
0
Hawkeye21 said:
You should probably read the last sentence in your quote.

Also, criminal statistics are twisted in a sense that male is much less likely to report abuse.
Hey, look. Someone continues to misunderstand. I'll repeat myself.

"Shall we all not do the study and statistics thing? We're all just going to select the one that reinforces our own bias and cheer it."

Like, y'know. Selectively quoting tiny snippets off a massive page. From WIKI-FUCKING-PEDIA, of all sources. At some point, while deliberately separating your quote from any and all conflicting and/or contradictory information, do you stop and think "Wait a minute, all I'm really doing here is reinforcing my own presumptions!".

I say again, can we just stop now? Debating the ins and outs of a Wikipedia article is not making anyone look like scholars.
 

Azaraxzealot

New member
Dec 1, 2009
2,403
0
0
Yeaaaaah. People HATE it when double standards are pointed out. I do it all the time because I am a very ethical smartass and it gets me into trouble a LOT.

I still do it, thought, what is it they say? Be the change you want to see in the world? Well I agree with everything you said OP, keep fighting the good fight of equality and elimination of double standards!

Also, it's considered a logical fallacy if someone disregards your arguments based on your gender or race. I forget what it's called though... Genetic fallacy, maybe? Anyways, idiots use that fallacy a lot because using actual logic to have a rational discussion hurts their wittle bwains too much. You, though, OP know how to argue pretty well.

BloatedGuppy said:
Hawkeye21 said:
You should probably read the last sentence in your quote.

Also, criminal statistics are twisted in a sense that male is much less likely to report abuse.
Hey, look. Someone continues to misunderstand. I'll repeat myself.

"Shall we all not do the study and statistics thing? We're all just going to select the one that reinforces our own bias and cheer it."

Like, y'know. Selectively quoting tiny snippets off a massive page. From WIKI-FUCKING-PEDIA, of all sources. At some point, while deliberately separating your quote from any and all conflicting and/or contradictory information, do you stop and think "Wait a minute, all I'm really doing here is reinforcing my own presumptions!".

I say again, can we just stop now? Debating the ins and outs of a Wikipedia article is not making anyone look like scholars.
What if someone uses a source that was used on wikipedia? Then is it alright? I always feel it's wrong to just handwave all arguments from people who even glance at wikipedia. It's more than 90% cited and properly formatted, and even when there IS misinformation, it does NOT last long. So let's all just allow wikipedia to be used, ok?
 

McMullen

New member
Mar 9, 2010
1,334
0
0
Belaam said:
tkioz said:
there are double standards that need to be addressed if we want true equality
True, but it's also pretty easy to slip into that absurdity wherein the empowered majority calls a loss of special privilege an attack. See churches railing against DOMA ending.

A few years ago there was a massive advertising campaign in Australia ... focused excursively on physical abuse, which while devastating is far from the only form of domestic abuse. It also made the problem appear to be exclusively a 'male against female' problem, which is is most definitely not. Domestic abuse can be male against female, male against male, female against male, female against female, etc.
And the vast majority is physical male against female. Male against female violence also being the type of domestic abuse that most often results in death.

But when I attempted to point that out online that perhaps a better tag line would have been "Domestic Abuse, Australia says no!", I was howled down as a misogynist.
So to reiterate, your post today is to complain about online responses you got "a few years ago"?

how often have we seen a 'comedy' where the female in a relationship strikes the male in anger and it's played for laughs when the male winces in real pain?
This is indeed a double standard. A single slap (which in the comedic setting you describe are usually triggered by misogynistic behavior) is not equivalent to the kinds of abuse that hospitalize many women.

And woe to anyone who attempts to point out the funding disparity between ... health programs, like the government funding of things like breast cancer and prostate cancer (which thankfully has gotten much closer to parity).
You mean like Viagra being in health care plans, but not abortions?

For example imagine a 33 year old male teacher having an affair with a 16 year old female student. ... Yet switching the genders, a 33 year old female teacher having an affair with a 16 year old male student will get a different reaction completely,
As a 37 year old teacher, I think both should go to jail.

Hell, there are people online who discount the existence of female against male rape. I remember a few years ago a news story from a respected site that played for laughs the story of a man who was grabbed by three women, held down, and sexually assaulted. Most of the comments were people laughing about it... Again switch the genders.
That's appalling. I wonder how many years I'd have to go back to find someone joking about female rape... I'd guess about 1/365th of one.
pointing out the existence of these double standards does not make anyone a sexist.
Of course not. Thinking that the two are anywhere near comparable problems in society does.

Of course there are some men out there that genuinely do hate woman, and wish to wind back the clock, but there are also women out there that hate men, both groups are a tiny tiny minority.
Again, statistics don't seem to back up your claims that male vs. female abuse and female vs. male abuse are similar and tiny. I believe rape statistics are something like 1 in 3 women. A quick US Bureau of Justice google says that in 1993, 1,100,000 women were the victims of a violent crime at the hands of someone they had been intimate with vs. 160,000 men as victims.

I do think there are issues that need to be addressed.
I do too, but I think it's a smaller issue at hand. General anti-domestic violence programs with a massive focus on protecting women should be the goal of programs with limited funds. You might slow some of the violence against the 160,000 while trying to stop the violence against the 1.1 million. But granting them comparable weight is just dumb. And quite frankly, yeah, asserting that they are equal problems is sexist. For the simple reason that you are implying that the pain of 1.1 million women is equivalent to the pain of only 160,000 men. i.e. that it's more important to protect less men than more women.
Your post appears very rational and well-thought out, but towards the end it starts getting well into false dichotomy territory. I'm willing to bet that it is more productive to address all domestic violence at the same time instead of arbitrarily saying we have to split resources between male-on-female and female-on-male. One of the reasons I think this would be more productive is that it would give the crowd crying "feminazis!" less of a leg to stand on. Preferentially addressing male-on-female might on the surface make more numeric sense, but is not really necessary and will allow some men, right or wrong, to say that there is reverse discrimination at work.
 

Hagi

New member
Apr 10, 2011
2,741
0
0
Zhukov said:
tkioz said:
Zhukov said:
tkioz said:
Zhukov said:
The only thing I'm willing to add to this thread is that the anti-domestic violence campaigns focus on male-on-female violence because that accounts for the vast, vast, vaaaaaast majority of it.
Actually it only counts for the vast majority of reported, recorded domestic abuse there is a pretty big freaking difference. Domestic violence is massively unreported crime as is, add in gender issues and you've got very skewed and useless statistics.
No, it's the vast majority of all domestic violence.

Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is a joke, a liar or severely lacking in understanding of how the world works.
Okay so you've got a magic crystal ball that tells you accurate statistics on crimes that are known to be under-reported. Good to know.
And you have one that tells you otherwise?

You want stats? Here, have some bloody stats [http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2011-2012/DVAustralia#_Toc309798375]. (Here's the same ones [http://www.domesticviolence.com.au/pages/domestic-violence-statistics.php] in a much shorter and easier to read version.)

Well, whaddaya know? Mostly male-of-female by some fucking huge margins. What a surprise! It's almost as if it's common sense that stronger people are more likely to beat up weaker people than the other way around.

Find me one statistic that says otherwise. One. Fucking one.

This is why I find "male rights advocates", or "double standard pointer-outers" or whatever you want to be called, to be such a silly joke. So desperate to find a double standard to point out that you have to start making them up.

Lastly, yes, I'm aware of gay and lesbian couples. Thing is, they're a tiny minority. Less than one percent in Australia [http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/2071.0main+features852012-2013]. Not large enough to have any significant impact on the numbers.
Wait? What?

I don't think you quite realize how 'unreported' works. There are no statistics on unreported crimes, that's what makes them unreported. If there were statistics on them they wouldn't be unreported.

Asking for stats on unreported crimes is like asking for receipts from unsold products...
 

Zhukov

The Laughing Arsehole
Dec 29, 2009
13,768
0
41
Hagi said:
Zhukov said:
You want stats? Here, have some bloody stats [http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2011-2012/DVAustralia#_Toc309798375].
Wait? What?

I don't think you quite realize how 'unreported' works. There are no statistics on unreported crimes, that's what makes them unreported. If there were statistics on them they wouldn't be unreported.

Asking for stats on unreported crimes is like asking for receipts from unsold products...
I don't think you, like the other guy, quite realize that "unreported" is not a magic word that makes any statistic go away.

"Here's some stats showing that the majority of domestic violence in Australia is male-on-female."
"UNREPORTED. I am correct. My argument is irrefutable."


Also, it's underreported, not unreported. Important distinction.
 

Hagi

New member
Apr 10, 2011
2,741
0
0
Zhukov said:
Hagi said:
Zhukov said:
You want stats? Here, have some bloody stats [http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2011-2012/DVAustralia#_Toc309798375].
Wait? What?

I don't think you quite realize how 'unreported' works. There are no statistics on unreported crimes, that's what makes them unreported. If there were statistics on them they wouldn't be unreported.

Asking for stats on unreported crimes is like asking for receipts from unsold products...
I don't think you, like the other guy, quite realize that "unreported" is not a magic word that makes any statistic go away.

"Here's some stats showing that the majority of domestic violence in Australia is male-on-female."
"UNREPORTED. I am correct. My argument is irrefutable."


Also, it's underreported, not unreported. Important distinction.
The whole is underreported, because a part of it is unreported. I'm talking about that part, shouldn't have been that hard to figure out.

And no, it doesn't make statistics go away. But it does put their accuracy into serious doubt. It means you can't just quote a statistics and say that's how it is.

What we know is that male-on-female violent domestic abuse happens and that it happens a lot. Nobody is denying that.

What we do not know is whether it makes up a majority of cases, what we don't know is exactly how much it happens, what we don't know is how much non-violent abuse there is as well, what we don't know is how much female-on-male abuse there is as well, what we also don't know is how much of that is violent and how much is non-violent.

Notice how the don't knows vastly outnumber the knows...

Nobody is saying female victims should be shown the door and denied help. What people are saying is that it'd be great if the door could be kept open for men, should they need help, because we frankly don't know how much of this shit is happening to them and it'd be kinda cool if good help was available if it did.

But of course, then we've got people blindly quoting statistics believing them to accurately reflect all of reality 'proving' that there shouldn't be much, if any, help available for men because hey, you can't quote any statistics showing domestic abuse happens to a sizable amount of them as well now can you?
 

chinangel

New member
Sep 25, 2009
1,680
0
0
and once again this turns into a gender war. I grew up in a household full of fighting, screaming and things being thrown.

by Mom.

My dad was a douche of course too, but Mom wasn't much better. She had serious rage problems and took them out on everyone. She even took up smoking to punish the kids: my room was right beside her office so I could smell that stuff and it made me sick.

So...yeah. I have seen that women can be very angry and dangerous even to a more powerful man, and i find this idea that 'well woman are abused more so they need more help' kind of repulsive.

That's basically saying 'well there aren't as many men so they don't need help'. THAT is sexist, no matter how you want to cut it.

YES men are more prone to domestic abuse, but that does not mean that abused men don't need help and that there shouldn't be information for abused men.

An easy way to solve this is just to have the same kind of information awareness made. Society has this idea that men are supposed to be 'macho' it makes things hard for gay men, effeminate men, non-macho men and MtF's (like myself) to get help.

It's prolly why I'm not really a feminist, despite most other transgirls seeming to be them. I just...no i'm getting off topic.

Information being made possible and not buried on the internet would help.
 

BNguyen

New member
Mar 10, 2009
857
0
0
asinann said:
I had a female roommate pull a knife on me because I "talked too loudly" and it "frightened her." When I called the police to haul her off for pulling a knife they threatened to take ME to jail and charge me because I prompted the knife by raising my voice. Meanwhile she was in the cops face yelling like there was no tomorrow when they didn't haul me off and they did nothing about her.
maybe they were just as afraid of her as you were and she was actually threatening them if they didn't put the blame on you.
Of course I'm not blaming you but that seems like a likely explanation to me.
 

Belaam

New member
Nov 27, 2009
617
0
0
McMullen said:
Your post appears very rational and well-thought out, but towards the end it starts getting well into false dichotomy territory. I'm willing to bet that it is more productive to address all domestic violence at the same time instead of arbitrarily saying we have to split resources between male-on-female and female-on-male. One of the reasons I think this would be more productive is that it would give the crowd crying "feminazis!" less of a leg to stand on. Preferentially addressing male-on-female might on the surface make more numeric sense, but is not really necessary and will allow some men, right or wrong, to say that there is reverse discrimination at work.
Part of the problem there is the vagueness of the OP, which seems to be based on bitterness from an event years ago, plus a general strawman. The OP seems to be arguing against people who believe that there is zero female on male domestic violence; that the act of a woman hitting a man is hilarious; that men can't be raped; and that it's okay for a 33 year old female teacher to sleep with a 16 year old student. But I'm not sure that such people are really an issue; sure there may possibly be such people around but how many are there? None that I have seen in this thread. The other part of the OP seems to be complaining that in two separate events that occurred years ago (the OP's words), people called him a misogynist for some of his (uncited) posts.

I'm not sure how allotting relative funds for similar issues could be discrimination. If I'm the police chief in a town that has a huge number of carjackings and a tiny number of robberies, focusing most of my department's funding on stopping the carjackings doesn't seem like a bad idea.

Given the reality of the statistics involved versus the questionable concerns of the OP (unless they are asserting that either female abusers of men go free or that the statistics are wrong), then if they want equal allotment of funds for dissimilar numbers of men vs. women abused, then that is by definition sexist (treating men and women differently). But, of course, the OP doesn't actually ask that... it just complains about being called sexist several years ago.
 

thedrunkenmonkey

New member
Jun 27, 2013
19
0
0
Zhukov said:
The only thing I'm willing to add to this thread is that the anti-domestic violence campaigns focus on male-on-female violence because that accounts for the vast, vast, vaaaaaast majority of it.
That is, the vast, vast, vaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaast majority of male-on-female violence that is reported*.

*Incidentally, that's the tactic that got used by college campuses and anti-violence campaigns to promote the idea that there WAS a vast disparity between reported male-on-female violence and unreported male-on-female violence for the last twenty years.
 

Belaam

New member
Nov 27, 2009
617
0
0
tkioz said:
Okay fine, perfectly rational argument.
First off, as a response to all of your examples... I'd like you to quote where I say that violence against men should get no funding. Because you seem to think I said something along those lines. I'm pretty sure you'll find I said violence against men shouldn't get as many resources as violence against women. Less than is not equal to zero.

Let's close down all research into 'rare' genetic illnesses, after all, waste of money isn't it? There are far more people suffering from more common maladies.
Um. Yeah. If something is killing 1.1 million people a year and something else is killing 160 thousand people a year, the former should get more funding. A little less than 10 times as much funding.

Let's stop government funding to legal advocacy groups catering to refugees and other minorities, far better to spend the money on the general community.
As above, no reason they shouldn't all have legal advocacy.

Let's stop funding Aboriginal schools and services, after all they can make down with the general services offered to people.
Again... I rather think you are imagining some paragraph wherein I said, "crimes against men shouldn't be prosecuted and zero funds should go towards them." Or, you're just going for an exceedingly lazy strawman.

Honestly that's basically what your argument amounts too you know.
Honestly, your argument is just that 160,000 men are worth as much as 1.1 million women you know. Hmm, nope, it doesn't work when I try to put words in your mouth either. Perhaps in a few more years, you can start a thread complaining about your treatment in this discussion as well.
 

Lieju

New member
Jan 4, 2009
3,044
0
0
Like has been said in this threat before me;

The problem is that those issues only seem to be brought up when the discussion is about how women are discriminated against in some way.

"Well, women might get paid less, but they also get the custody of the children!"
Because that's relevant.
 

McMullen

New member
Mar 9, 2010
1,334
0
0
Belaam said:
I'm not sure how allotting relative funds for similar issues could be discrimination. If I'm the police chief in a town that has a huge number of carjackings and a tiny number of robberies, focusing most of my department's funding on stopping the carjackings doesn't seem like a bad idea.
Here's where I disagree with you: You consider male-female and female-male abuse to be similar issues, while I consider them to be the same issue. I think there is no need to distinguish between them. One may be more common than the other, but they are the same act. I think that we can create more trouble than we really need by separating them and allocating different resources to them. No matter what the statistics are, by doing so you give people a reason to complain and make it easier for them to resist, even if it's not a good reason.
 

thedrunkenmonkey

New member
Jun 27, 2013
19
0
0
Lieju said:
Like has been said in this threat before me;

The problem is that those issues only seem to be brought up when the discussion is about how women are discriminated against in some way.

"Well, women might get paid less, but they also get the custody of the children!"
Because that's relevant.
Or how those issues only seem to get brought up when someone points out that sexism is discrimination based on gender regardless of whether it's discrimination against a man or discrimination against a woman.

Just sayin'.
 

thedrunkenmonkey

New member
Jun 27, 2013
19
0
0
Luna said:
Wow, it only took two posts for this thread to descend into "fuck feminism".
Good job, Escapist.

I would ask how any of the problems mentioned in the OP were caused by feminism but, honestly, why bother?

I'd reply by saying that the theoretical concept of Republican ideals is very appealing to me. Less governmental interference, promotion of meritocracy, and pull yourself up by your bootstraps.

I'd also note that the current model of Republicanism exhibited in the United States falls far, far, far short of that ideal.

I'd also make sure you understood that I was drawing a paralell between the core principles of feminism and the current behavior exhibited by many who label themselves as such, and the snot-nosed silver-spooned cheeba monkeys mini dictators currently masquerading as the GOP.
 

thePyro_13

New member
Sep 6, 2008
492
0
0
Not much to say, other than I agree with the OP in entirely. The female on male rape stuff is actually very indicative of modern mindsets. There was a thread on here not too long ago(>month) in response to a rape case in china.

A non-trivial number of replies were outright disgusting. "He got an erection; therefore it's not rape", "He wasn't fighting back hard enough for it to REALLY be rape" and other similar comments in the same vain. The same kind of bullshit people pulled against women who were raped not so long ago, and which we now rightly recognise as BS, yet they are happy to repeat history if the victim is a man(likely without realising the comparison to rape deniers of the past). It indicates a lack of education regarding general abuse(as opposed to female specific abuse; or hate crimes) and a complacency in accepting media interpretations of men who are always stronger than women and never cry or struggle with problems.

This is a problem, a big problem; and it should be given a lot more attention than it gets. Sadly some attitudes towards "violence against women" can actually reinforce(not intentionally) some of the problems the OP has brought up(without even getting into the crazy, man hating, privilege trading, branch of feminism who attempt to paint white people and males as being unabusable; but that's another thread).

Ok turns out I did have a bit to say.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
15,908
1,510
118
Lieju said:
Like has been said in this threat before me;

The problem is that those issues only seem to be brought up when the discussion is about how women are discriminated against in some way.

"Well, women might get paid less, but they also get the custody of the children!"
Because that's relevant.
Very much this.

There are issues that legitimately affect men, which should be discussed and dealt with, but not as derailments of discussions of others issues, or because certain men don't understand that not everything is about them.

Male prison rape is the usual example, it is a serious problem that surprisingly few people seem to care about outside using it to prove that female rape outside prisons is somehow made not a problem.