Another Feminist bites the dust. Same old Same old.

[The Biscuit Queen]

Give her a day or so.  Not everyone spends every day here.

[Mr. X]

Why the heck are you guys doing this? Are you all saps! This is yet another woman coming her to stir up the roosters so she can get attention. Now you devoted a whole thread to her. Its the same as someone who blurts out "no it isn't" like a parrot so they can suck up the attention from people trying to prove to them they are wrong. Don't give her attention. Wow she gets 4 pages of guys all jockying for her attention and all she has to do is post one or two feeder posts egging you all on? And on top of it she makes you all wait a few days for her grand and glorious reply? Wow, could you guys be anymore at this person's feet begging for scraps?

Make her prove herself to you. You're the ones with the facts. If feminism is right MAKE HER PROVE IT. But you doing the work for her with her blurting out a prerecorded statement and you all rushing up to prove her wrong is just catering to attention grabbing. If she wants to make a point then she should activily post and prove her point.

Good going guys. Are you also going to wash her car, mow her lawn and paint her house in hopes she gives you another tiny scrap of prerecorded brain farts?

[dr e]

Mr X I can understand your frustration but would encourage you to expand your scope just a bit.  This thread has been helpful in a number of ways. First it has helped us to practice in articulating our views.  Read through this thread and you will find some beautifully written and very convincing evidence that feminism has been hurtful to boys and men.  The more we practice the better we get.

Look at the views for this thread.  We are coming up on a thousand.  Remember that most who come here don't post.  Most just read.  Many of those folks are trying to get an understanding of issues.  They may have heard some arguments against feminism in the past but are convinced that feminism is about equality.  A thread like this is wonderfully instructive for folks who are just learning about these issues.  I know about this because I hear from lurkers who talk about their experience. 

Even if Kate never responds that is also a good thing.  It shows both us and the lurkers that feminism can't take a punch.  Any ideology worth its salt would have lots of proof that what has been written on this thread is incorrect.  I doubt we will be seeing that anytime soon.  Today's radical feminism is not about the truth, it is about propaganda. It is not seeking to explain or bring understanding, it is corrupt. Buy not responding Kate gives everyone an important message.

If she responds all the better.

Why the heck are you guys doing this? Are you all saps! This is yet another woman coming her to stir up the roosters so she can get attention. Now you devoted a whole thread to her. Its the same as someone who blurts out "no it isn't" like a parrot so they can suck up the attention from people trying to prove to them they are wrong. Don't give her attention. Wow she gets 4 pages of guys all jockying for her attention and all she has to do is post one or two feeder posts egging you all on? And on top of it she makes you all wait a few days for her grand and glorious reply? Wow, could you guys be anymore at this person's feet begging for scraps?

Make her prove herself to you. You're the ones with the facts. If feminism is right MAKE HER PROVE IT. But you doing the work for her with her blurting out a prerecorded statement and you all rushing up to prove her wrong is just catering to attention grabbing. If she wants to make a point then she should activily post and prove her point.

Good going guys. Are you also going to wash her car, mow her lawn and paint her house in hopes she gives you another tiny scrap of prerecorded brain farts?

[Mr. X]

Even if Kate never responds that is also a good thing.  It shows both us and the lurkers that feminism can't take a punch.  Any ideology worth its salt would have lots of proof that what has been written on this thread is incorrect.  I doubt we will be seeing that anytime soon.  Today's radical feminism is not about the truth, it is about propaganda. It is not seeking to explain or bring understanding, it is corrupt. Buy not responding Kate gives everyone an important message.

I don't even know if that's an issue. I think a lot of these are just attempts at getting attention. Kind of like the girl in a gym screaming at some guy who minds his own business "stop looking at me" just so people will give her attention. I just don't think these women come here to actually discuss ideology. If they ever did I'm sure they would stop their beliefs a while back. Now women like Biscuit Queen appear on the level since they engage in thoughtful dialog even though its not 100% going along with the guys here.

[HighDesert]

Mr X I can understand your frustration but would encourage you to expand your scope just a bit.  This thread has been helpful in a number of ways. First it has helped us to practice in articulating our views.  Read through this thread and you will find some beautifully written and very convincing evidence that feminism has been hurtful to boys and men.  The more we practice the better we get.

Look at the views for this thread.  We are coming up on a thousand.  Remember that most who come here don't post.  Most just read.  Many of those folks are trying to get an understanding of issues.  They may have heard some arguments against feminism in the past but are convinced that feminism is about equality.  A thread like this is wonderfully instructive for folks who are just learning about these issues.  I know about this because I hear from lurkers who talk about their experience. 

Even if Kate never responds that is also a good thing.  It shows both us and the lurkers that feminism can't take a punch.  Any ideology worth its salt would have lots of proof that what has been written on this thread is incorrect.  I doubt we will be seeing that anytime soon.  Today's radical feminism is not about the truth, it is about propaganda. It is not seeking to explain or bring understanding, it is corrupt. Buy not responding Kate gives everyone an important message.

If she responds all the better.

Dr E,

Very well said. 

I haven't posted much here much since I joined.  It seems I have a different way of looking at things than many here seem share.  I appreciate the efforts of everyone who sincerely contributes here and really don't care to detract from that. 

I think it's great that so many individuals are becoming aware of the solid Truth about the discriminatory nature of gender specific laws as well as laws that are not gender specific, yet are applied to men with such harsher sentencing that one would simply have to be a fool (or someone who is actively engaged in a conscious movement to oppress men in general) to not realize beyond a shadow of doubt, that the 'courts' are biased against men - simply because they are men.  That is not equal and fair treatment.    I've wondered if someone was astute enough if they could pursue legal action against certain 'States' under the grounds that they violate the 'Constitution'. .  .  another thread someday perhaps.

While I don't post here much, I appreciate the quality posts of many of the posters at this site.  This thread seems to have offered plenty of opportunities to prove some unarguable points.  Perhaps, that's why so many feminists don't reply - simply because they can't.  Not because they are messing with anyone or trying to goad someone into barking whenever they snap their fingers.  Indeed they may well think that on some superficial level - but in reality, they simply can't reply to the facts.  End of discussion.   See Biscuit Queen's reply which begins:

Welcome Kate. I realize you will be swamped with replies here, so I will make this brief.

What the above posts boil down to is feminism's main body stands for issues which are not about equality, but about protecting and advancing the interests of only women, many times at the expense of men.

While you can put any definition you want on feminism, NOW sets the standard here in the US. If you disagree with NOW you are disagreeing with modern, mainstream feminism.

I will add two more ways that modern, mainstream feminism hurts men. One, reproductive rights. Men have none. Zero. Zip. They cannot even keep it in their pants, because men and boys who have been raped, and men who are not the father ( and have been proven medically not to be the father) have by court, order under threat of jail, been made to pay child support and thus become parents against their will.

Women are given every choice available, in some cases including killing their infants and walking away.

Think about it.  If you think you're a feminist, how can you argue with that?  The only possible way you could support the current way of thinking is if you openly admit that you think women are vastly superior to men.  A female Supremacist. 

Kinda takes all the debate about arguing over whether you want equality or something else.....


On the positive side, perhaps a woman is out there thinking about feminism and how great it all sounds, and then she reads the Truth about it all as so many here seem to be so well at espousing, and realizes what a sham it all is and how in reality it isn't what it's purported to be. 

The better each of us becomes at enunciating the Truth about what is really going on in the world around us the more that awareness is able to reach others out there.  Individuals who read what you write may not do anything but start to talk to someone in the 'meat' world about what he/she read here, or they may even post something about a topic that was started here on another forum.  Whatever it might be, threads like this where so many are so willing to offer Honest debate about the subject at hand can only help to enlighten those around us. 

Peace all


 

[Kate]

Apologies for the lengthy post(s). I have tried to reply to as many as I could.

Dr E: the system you describe sounds like it would indeed, hurt men and boys. If you TRULY believe that is the current system, then I can see why you think it is unfair.
However, as I am sure you can see by now, I don't agree that the current system is quite how you have described it: I also don't agree that where boys and men are disadvantaged, feminism is necessarily the cause.

Gonzo, your views on forcible removed custody have been noted. I hope you were joking.

Zarby, I agree that boys may be 'thinking about things like these.' People think about lots of things all the time.

Brian, as we discussed briefly, I am interested to know how you connect feminism to the poor image of men and boys presented in the media. I understand what you are saying about not feeling needed, but really, why would the views of some women, lesbians, that they don't need men, affect you so negatively? They were talking about their own preferences. Why is that so threatening to some men? Furthermore, I would be interested to know why you think (if you think) women aren't presented in negative ways in the media. I think they are.

TBQ, your argument 'the numbers speak for themselves' as regards to boys is fair enough, yet I don't see that same argument 'the numbers speak for themselves' being made by MRAs with regards to rape statistics, DV stats etc. i.e. statistics that show men at fault, or women as primary victims of harm, are strongly contested by MRAs in many areas. Personally, I think that is well and dandy - statistics should be questioned, no problem with that. They should be placed in context and discussed. So:
80% Ritalin users - where did you get this stat? This is, indeed, worrying.
80% teen suicides - I was aware that boys commit suicide more often in the US, but that girls attempt suicide 3x as often as boys. So I don't really agree with making suicide a male-only issue, nevertheless I would support male-oriented services (as well as female-oriented ones) and research into gendered differences in suicide methods and motivations. Do you know of any research that points to reasons given for suicidal tendencies in teens? As far as I am aware, peer bullying is often cited as one of the main reasons. But I would need to research further to comment more on this.

The other stats you quote all relate to the 'boy crisis' in schools that Dr E also emphasised in his intro to this thread. Now I don't think it is as simple as making out that boys' biology is different and the learning environment doesn't suit them. You can't ignore that race and class affect the stats. Why do white boys do better than Hispanic and black girls at grade 4 reading, for example? Here is a report, which shows the trends and breaks down the achievement groups for the NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress) report from the U.S. Dept of Education. http://www.educationsector.org/usr_doc/ESO_BoysAndGirls.pdf
As you can see, it paints a rather different picture to the 'boy crisis' one. Further, it tracks both the national report from 2005 comparing boys and girls, the main NAEP which has tracked students since the early 1990s, and the 'long term trend' NAEP which has tracked students since the early 1970s. I will not detail every place this study contradicts your findings or ideology, you can read for yourselves.

Furthermore, here is preliminary report on Christina Hoff Sommers' 'Where the Boys Are' - specifically, it addresses problems with Sommers' condemnation of feminism: http://www-personal.umich.edu/%7Eeandersn/sommers2.html

Furthermore, Mark Liberman of Language Log has investigated and repudiated the scientific studies cited in several books which popularize the 'boy crisis'. He has posted the critiques AND the original, cited scientific studies online so that anyone may see and judge for themselves. If anyone here is interested in reading the original source material I can post the links. The authors that are found to have misquoted or misused scientific findings include: David Brooks: Leonard Sax: Michael Gurian: and Kathy Stevens. (Bluedye and Shiva: please note that the "talkativeness as a female trait" theory is investigated at length, traced back through popular media and literature and is found to have no basis in any scientific research that the author is aware of. If you know otherwise! Please DO post a link to the actual study/ies!)
Now, please note that I am not arguing that everything these authors have said or written is false. I am very suspicious as to WHY they would argue what is actually an ideological argument from the standpoint of assumed (and it seems, at the very least, extremely exaggerated) 'scientific objectivity.' Dr E - in another thread you said that you would always hope that a scientist is a scientist first and a ___ second. Well, I hope that you have the courage of YOUR convictions and rather than just brush these criticisms off, actually investigate them.

If you are interested in debating these issues from ideological standpoints, without claiming some kind of prior legitimacy derived from exaggerated sex differences, then we might actually be able to find some points of genuine agreement. I will wait and see how it plays out. We can talk about issues like single sex schooling and modern vs traditional teaching methods, which I am not necessarily against...

[Kate]

Capt DMO - as per my 'strand' of feminism, I agree with you that the term has been re-defined and co-opted and the web is chock full of this sort of thing, though I have to say, it is a little ironic to hear an MRA saying this. I've outlined some of my reasons for identifying as feminist in the 'intro' forum. I'm a little disturbed by your cynicism as to my statement that political ideology should not trump compassion. I wonder why you have come to this cynicism.
I invite you cordially to shred academic theories, including mine. It is what they are for - attempted shredding; and actual dialogue on the issues will hopefully proceed. Anecdotal phenomena is indeed touching at times, though I'm not sure it can prove ideology in any real way - art, however, is perhaps the great unifier and common denominator, and perhaps you are also including such things. In fact, the possibilities of creative endeavour have a lot to do with the fact I am still optimistic about human beings, despite the shitty things people do to each other every day.

Sociopathic Revolution, your points are interesting and perhaps we can discuss them at greater length if you are so inclined. Off the bat I would probably say that hypergamy is related to accessing power by proxy. If you read my intro thread you will probably see why I don't see it as a problem that feminism is woman-centric, though in areas which have traditionally been dominated by women or the feminine (eg. childrearing)  men may be, indeed, at a disadvantage. However, I do not lay the blame for this on feminism or even women alone. My problem with the MRM is in trying to find out why they seem to do this. And yes, I am also trying to see it from the point of view of, if you like, the reverse of my own beliefs...i.e., for the sake of argument, I am trying to imagine "what if...?" What if...the MRM was right about feminism? What if the damage done to men was really caused by feminism? What would this mean for the world? Trouble is, to do that, I have to try and balance the good the MRM might be doing for men with the bad consequences for women. So I think one does need to ask, how would the MRM ensure that women are, indeed, treated fairly within their ideology. The question here is really - what if feminism collapsed, and MRM became incredibly powerful? How would women be treated in THAT world? How would non-macho men be treated? Would it be better than now? A question for a separate thread maybe, another time.

Neonsamurai - your beef, as you put it, with feminism is related to the fact that it is woman-centric. As I've already argued, I don't see this as a problem per se. It's not a secret, i.e. NOW is explicitly titled 'for women.' The reason is that feminism, specifically feminist activism and organisations, identify the inequality already existent within society as far as it relates to WOMEN. So they are reacting to already existent inequalities etc. This does not necessarily mean that feminists don't care about men, or that men cannot be pro-feminist, but you're correct in asserting that issues primarily associated with men are not such organisations' priorities. I ask you, why should they be? This isn't a heartless question! I don't think these organisations are stopping men from gaining rights that they don't have, and I don't think feminism is about hating men. Your argument rests on the assumption that equality for women already exists in every area. Maybe you think it does. But that is a different discussion.

Zarby, your argument - which reduces human beings to gambling, greedy money-grubbers -  makes large generalisations about men and women. It's not really related to the topic title of feminism's specific harms. But I agree, your vision of the world is pretty bleak.
Bluedye - I've responded to the question about stats earlier in this post.

TBQ - I must take issue with your statement that disagreeing with NOW means disagreeing with 'modern, mainstream feminism.' This is totally US centric! I won't argue that NOW has no influence on feminism or feminists today, but I do take issue with the statement that I cannot possibly disagree with anything they say and yet be a feminist!!! I have never lived in the US, for one, and actually, I am not totally familiar with NOW or all their policies. This is not to say I agree or disagree with them, necessarily: ask me about a specific issue and we can discuss it, but I would have to research it. I am not sure I can accept, on face value, your assertions that men have no rights re: reproduction, or that VAWA is unfair because it doesn't address all victims of all violence. Are you agreeing that men commit more violence BTW? You don't mention that. Maybe you will attempt to answer the questions I asked earlier in my reply to Sociopathic Revolution - namely, if the MRM is MORE in favour of equality than feminism is, then how do they/will they ensure that equality is not only for Men? As a woman, I'm curious to hear your response to that. How are your rights protected under the MRM?

[Kate]

Gonzokid - your questions re: what is feminism are valid ones, and I have posted a part of my own motivations on the intro thread. It's a bit off topic here so I will try to answer your questions another time on that thread, regarding definitions and so on. I do note that you have indeed posted your own manifesto, yet nobody else here has answered my question as to whether other MRAs must agree with that manifesto or indeed any manifesto to subscribe to being an MRA. Intellectually dishonest? Or able to appreciate that there are shades of grey in the world of human understanding? Your arguments here tend towards a kind of fundamentalism. I'm not sure on affirmative action, actually - I need to check my understanding of that term and find out how it was implemented in the US as opposed to the UK (not even sure if it ever was, I certainly never benefited knowingly that I remember). So I'll answer that another time. Meanwhile, I think it's only fair that you answer my questions about science in the Healthy Masculinity thread.
Not sure what your point is with the divorce story. Are you saying that someone always winds up hurt so...what does this mean for equality?
Re: your personal history with DV. As you know that is a huge topic, too much for me to go into detail with here. I will say that I don't necessarily follow what I imagine YOU think is the 'feminist' line of thinking on the subject, however, I have yet to see a convincing argument on the MRM side either. Please see the end of this post as regards my main worry with the MRA ideological position on DV.

Bachelor Tom - I find your worry about 'western women' will stop breeding curious. Also, if you are so worried about that, why be a bachelor??? And, how is feminism responsible for stopping women breeding?

Dr X - not only is your post about my honest attempts at dialogue an ad hom attack, but you manage to shame anyone here who actually wants to reply or read posts written by the so-called enemy. Nice one. "Make her prove herself to you." - If this is the attitude, then why should I even bother?  If you would care to read my very first couple of posts, you can find out for yourself how I got here and why. I also stated that in this thread, anyone who does not wish to respond to me does. Not. Have. To.  "You're the ones with the facts." Well, really, if that were true, then why has nobody actually answered my questions with serious substantiated facts, links to studies they endorse, text sources they can actually produce as evidence of their claims etc? OK: maybe this will actually happen. As I've said, I will wait and see.

High desert - I do not endorse killing infants, nor do I agree that rape victims should pay child support. I find it incredible that you are suggesting these are feminist agendas or something. Links/evidence, please.

Overall note to everyone: from what I can see, the main problem with your arguments is that on the one hand, you argue from biological differences to promote policy changes in schools etc. Yet you will not acknowledge the part biological differences may play in issues of violence, including rape and domestic violence. If ANYONE here can refute this apparent contradiction in a logical way, I would like to hear it....also, if anyone actually wants to answer any of the questions I have asked about the MRM that would be nice, too.

[brian44]

Brian, as we discussed briefly, I am interested to know how you connect feminism to the poor image of men and boys presented in the media. I understand what you are saying about not feeling needed, but really, why would the views of some women, lesbians, that they don't need men, affect you so negatively? They were talking about their own preferences. Why is that so threatening to some men? Furthermore, I would be interested to know why you think (if you think) women aren't presented in negative ways in the media. I think they are.

If you live in the US or UK then you must have an extremely low ability to empathize. Look at adverts that deride men to sell products and then imagine it was a woman instead. Then (I know it's asking a lot), imagine that it wasn't just one advert, but tens of thousands, shown over a period of decades. Then try to imagine its effect on you consciously and subconsciously. Feminism caused this by pressuring the media/advertising to always portray women is as positive a light as possible, rather than asking for equality. It is also caused by political correctness (of which feminism is a part) and the incredible power that feminists hold over the media. So men have to become the butt of nearly every advertising joke. We are the negative stereotypes. If you look at what feminists say about men they also negatively stereotype men, or believe them to be inferior.

The thing about the lesbians (if you actually read what I said) was my first experience of feminism in the early 70s, that left a scar on me as a young boy. They were female supremacists who not only didn't need men, but thought that, as men were inately evil and inferior, had no right to exist.

Even Australian boys/men are suffering (although, I believe, to a lesser extent):

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20866939-5007146,00.html

"They are branded as troublemakers in schools - and they often have no role models in the home because of the high rate of single-parent households - and then in the media the role models they see are overwhelmingly negative."

And the trend towards "demonising, marginalising and trivialising of men and male identity" could turn into a tug-of-war with serious mental health consequences for a generation of young boys.

"We are probably having a negative impact on young men's esteem and we are definitely having an impact on young boy's self esteem," he says.

"Ultimately such portrayals could lead to negative social and even financial costs for society in areas such as male health, rising suicide rates and family disintegration."

[brian44]

Overall note to everyone: from what I can see, the main problem with your arguments is that on the one hand, you argue from biological differences to promote policy changes in schools etc. Yet you will not acknowledge the part biological differences may play in issues of violence, including rape and domestic violence. If ANYONE here can refute this apparent contradiction in a logical way, I would like to hear it....also, if anyone actually wants to answer any of the questions I have asked about the MRM that would be nice, too.

http://www.fatherhoodcoalition.org/cpf/inthenews/MassNews990802women_violent.htm

August 2, 1999--Women are just as violent to their spouses as men, and they are almost three times more likely to initiate violence in a relationship, according to a new Canadian study, as reported in the National Post.

Perhaps the most surprising aspect of the study, however, is the source of the data -- a 1987 survey of 705 Alberta men and women that reported how often males hit their spouses. 

Although women were asked the same questions as men in 1987, their answers were never published until now. When the original study was published in the Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science in 1989, it was taken up by feminist groups as evidence of the epidemic of violence against women. 

[hansside]

Overall note to everyone: from what I can see, the main problem with your arguments is that on the one hand, you argue from biological differences to promote policy changes in schools etc. Yet you will not acknowledge the part biological differences may play in issues of violence, including rape and domestic violence. If ANYONE here can refute this apparent contradiction in a logical way, I would like to hear it....also, if anyone actually wants to answer any of the questions I have asked about the MRM that would be nice, too.

That biological differences exist between the sexes is beyond dispute.

To argue that such differences has no bearing on violence is also very unrealistic.

For example if men and women commit domestic violence at a similar rate, women will get hurt more. Not because of more evil will from men, after all they initiate equally, but simply because men are bigger and thus hit harder.

I find it ironic that you blame us for trying to deny logical consequences.

I have read a lot of feminist literature and very, very often will it say some trait is biological when it favours women and that it is a social construction when it somehow disfavors women. Then they will hide behind "yes, but there are different kinds of feminisms". Well, how appropriate. This way feminism will never be made to account for it body if incoherent ideas.

[The Gonzman]

Gonzokid - your questions re: what is feminism are valid ones, and I have posted a part of my own motivations on the intro thread. It's a bit off topic here so I will try to answer your questions another time on that thread, regarding definitions and so on. I do note that you have indeed posted your own manifesto, yet nobody else here has answered my question as to whether other MRAs must agree with that manifesto or indeed any manifesto to subscribe to being an MRA.

Kate, strip away the language and the "manifesto" is really pretty "Least Common Denominator."

But let's pull a random example.  I would assert that any man who said, "Rape is such a heinous crime and hurts women so badly, that men need to accept a little less in due process for the sake of women" to be a person I would show the door of the movement, and were it in my power, I would forbid him from identifying as one of us - and whom I would never call "brother."

Intellectually dishonest? Or able to appreciate that there are shades of grey in the world of human understanding?

Shades of gray are one thing.  I recognize plenty of shades of gray.  I also recognize black and white, too.

Yes, Intellectually dishonest.  I'm a Catholic.  I can easily come up with ten things you must either believe - or not believe - to be a "good Catholic."  This gives clarity, both of thought and of expression.

Your arguments here tend towards a kind of fundamentalism.

Nice try at shaming language. 

I'm not sure on affirmative action, actually - I need to check my understanding of that term and find out how it was implemented in the US as opposed to the UK (not even sure if it ever was, I certainly never benefited knowingly that I remember). So I'll answer that another time. Meanwhile, I think it's only fair that you answer my questions about science in the Healthy Masculinity thread.

Well, I will answer that later too, then.

Not sure what your point is with the divorce story. Are you saying that someone always winds up hurt so...what does this mean for equality?

It's an indirect question - I will make it direct:  As a feminist, do you place more value on women or fairness? If reforming something to be more objectively gender blind resultedd in women losing socio-legal advantage, would you support it?

Re: your personal history with DV. As you know that is a huge topic, too much for me to go into detail with here. I will say that I don't necessarily follow what I imagine YOU think is the 'feminist' line of thinking on the subject, however, I have yet to see a convincing argument on the MRM side either. Please see the end of this post as regards my main worry with the MRA ideological position on DV.

It is plainly obvious to me that the feminist position of DV is one of "Woman = Always Victim" and "Men = Always Victimizer."

Overall note to everyone: from what I can see, the main problem with your arguments is that on the one hand, you argue from biological differences to promote policy changes in schools etc.

Ah, the great "boogeyperson" of sex segregated schools?

Sufficient evidence exists to indicate that a great many boys and a great many girls benefit from single-sex education.  So what is wrong with making it an option?

You lefties seem to have no problem with "gay" schools, or "Ethnic" schools - why is sex schools such a problem ... oh yeah - you all seem to have no problem with all girls schools either.

It's just the all boy schools that you have an issue with.

Yet you will not acknowledge the part biological differences may play in issues of violence, including rape and domestic violence. If ANYONE here can refute this apparent contradiction in a logical way, I would like to hear it...

First - violent criminals, in any event, are less than 1% of society.

Second, who is more violent?  The Feiberg list shows the incidence of violence, and initiating thereof, tends towards parity.

Well, let's just be blunt - as a seven foot 300# man with four black belts, how much violence I am expected to take from Jane Q. Random?  If she attacks me with a hot iron skillet full of grease, and I break her wrist while disarming her, who do you classify as the "abuser?"

Or how about this - woman punches, slaps, claws at a man and won't let him get away. She won't let him call the police.  She blocks him from leaving the house.  He finally pushes her down (Goddamn, bitch!  Get off me!)  Who would you haul to jail?

[dr e]

Apologies for the lengthy post(s). I have tried to reply to as many as I could.

No need to apologize.  This is what we want.

Dr E: the system you describe sounds like it would indeed, hurt men and boys. If you TRULY believe that is the current system, then I can see why you think it is unfair.
However, as I am sure you can see by now, I don't agree that the current system is quite how you have described it: I also don't agree that where boys and men are disadvantaged, feminism is necessarily the cause.

Many many examples have been given on this thread about how boys and men have been put into a situation similar to what I have described.  You have brought up domestic violence and maybe that is a good place to start.  The feminist VAWA has been causing a great deal of pain and suffering for men and boys.  Can you see how the VAWA focuses on girls and women, gives them special treatment, special services and special advantages that are simply not available to boys and men?  This is the template I described in the first post and the VAWA helps us see it clearly.  The feminist claim is that women are almost always the victims of DV and therefore should get the services.  This claim is bogus.  They have known it was bogus from the beginning.  If you look at the stats from surveys, hospitals and  police records their bias will seem to be affirmed.  But try looking at the peer reviewed research and you get a totally different story.  The initiation of DV is much more equal between men and women and the serious injury rate is about 62% female and 38% male.  Well over one third of the seriously injured victims of dv are men.  Even the justice department estimates that there are 835,000 male victims of dv each year in the US.   Now tell me just how this feminist legislation has not hurt men?  Focus on women?  Yes.  Hurtful to men and boys?  Yes.

http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

[neonsamurai]

Neonsamurai - your beef, as you put it, with feminism is related to the fact that it is woman-centric. As I've already argued, I don't see this as a problem per se. It's not a secret, i.e. NOW is explicitly titled 'for women.' The reason is that feminism, specifically feminist activism and organisations, identify the inequality already existent within society as far as it relates to WOMEN. So they are reacting to already existent inequalities etc. This does not necessarily mean that feminists don't care about men, or that men cannot be pro-feminist, but you're correct in asserting that issues primarily associated with men are not such organisations' priorities. I ask you, why should they be? This isn't a heartless question! I don't think these organisations are stopping men from gaining rights that they don't have, and I don't think feminism is about hating men. Your argument rests on the assumption that equality for women already exists in every area. Maybe you think it does. But that is a different discussion.

Thanks for replying Kate. Your right that the Fawcett Society and NOW are organisations for women and in being so they only look at half the problem. You can't talk about 'equality' and only look at half of the problem, so it's clear that they aren't interested in equality as such, just more rights for women.

It's like going to a marriage guidance counselor with your wife and having them only listen to your wifes problems. Just solving the issues that she has with the marriage doesn't mean that it'll make everything better, it will just breed resentment, which if you like, is where we are now. Feminism will only go so far and then it will fail to solve women's problems, which is the postion it is in now, since most of women's problems involve men. When we all thought that it was about 'equality' we were a lot more receptive, but they're still using that word to campaign for some very women-centric rights.

My example about the pensions is a classic case for this. The fawcett Society are campaigning for women to recieve an equal pension to men, even though on average they will contribute much less to it. In this case they want an equal outcome, not equal treatment, which is a pretty huge difference. Kate, how would you address such an issue? Should the average woman who works 14 years less recieve the same pension as a man who's worked 14 years longer and retired later? Or should we scrap the UK pension system and force everyone to get a private pension (which would also discriminate).

Asserting issues such as these will also impact on men, one way or another. Be it through our taxes or where the country's money is spent.

As you've asked, why should NOW or FS care about men's issues considering they are based around furthering women's rights? Well when you look at it like that, they clearly shouldn't. But how are these organisations funded? If they are private companies then by all means they can behave how they like. But if they recieve government donations to operate (provided by taxes raised mostly off the backs of men), then surely they are biting a sizeable chunk of the hand that feeds them. Can an organisation funded by the government or who are registered as a charity be allowed to promote descrimination under the pretence of equality?

Do you know of any Men's Rights Organisations funded by the government? Should F4J recieve grants from the Home Office, or be registered as a charity?

But my argument against these feminist organisations doesn't rest on the presumption of equlity, but on these feminist organisations definition of equality which I fear is very subjective. Who decides when we have reached true equality, and when we have what will NOW and the Fawcett Society do?

I reckon they'll just pretend that there's still descrimination.

Thanks for reading.

[Mr. X]

Dr X - not only is your post about my honest attempts at dialogue an ad hom attack, but you manage to shame anyone here who actually wants to reply or read posts written by the so-called enemy. Nice one. "Make her prove herself to you." - If this is the attitude, then why should I even bother?  If you would care to read my very first couple of posts, you can find out for yourself how I got here and why. I also stated that in this thread, anyone who does not wish to respond to me does. Not. Have. To.  "You're the ones with the facts." Well, really, if that were true, then why has nobody actually answered my questions with serious substantiated facts, links to studies they endorse, text sources they can actually produce as evidence of their claims etc? OK: maybe this will actually happen. As I've said, I will wait and see.

That's Mr. X not Dr. X. I didn't spend 8 years in evil medical school so I can't be called Dr.

As for my post, we get lots of posers and fems pooping and running to get attention. I'm all out of attention. I refuse to give any out. I'll have to go through and read your posts for your questions but I'll gladly reply to any you have and produce facts. I have tons of urls and articles and fact sources. But why should I bother when I have wasted time in the past trying to prove myself to some female who just blows off anything presented and insists with irrational brow beating she is right, women are victims and men owe women and men have no issues.  For me the proving time is over. I'm in the non-cooperation stage. I am not here for you nor any female and will not waste time trying to validate myself. And again, your post simply proves my point that you, as a woman, once more set yourself up as the victim yet again. Is this a college course you fems take? Is there a book or cartoon that teaches you this? Its amazing how it always comes down to you being a victim.

Yes this is my attitude and yes, don't bother. If you have a serious discussion bring it. But if its little girl snickering and "men are evil" labels then don't waste my time.

Tell you what. Ask a question that isn't begging or vague and I'll try and answer it.