NationStates Jolt Archive

Feminists want you to believe their propaganda without question. Failure to accept their dogma without question can result in vicious retribution. Fortunately there are a few brave enough to stand up to their juggernaught. Here are a few, including some infor from Warrenn Farrell, who has been elected three times to the board of directors of the National Organization of Women - that is, until he dared suggest that men have rights too.

Share your thoughts; (And, as an added game, lets see how many posts it takes before some feminist thug suggest in crude or vulgar language I am anti-female for daring to not blindly accept the radical faminist core lies.)

http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2005/0525roberts.html

"A number of years ago University of Delaware professor Suzanne Steinmetz published an article called the "The Battered Husband Syndrome." After culling the findings from five surveys on domestic violence, Steinmetz reached an unexpected conclusion: wives were just as likely as their husbands to kick, punch, stab, and otherwise physically aggress against their spouses."

One man battered every 14 seconds! (http://www.menshealthnetwork.org/library/FV_117_SR1.html)

http://www.menweb.org/menmag/farrheal.htm
"As boys experience the pressures of the male role, their suicide rate goes from being equal to girls’ to being 600% as high as girls. (2) By age 85, the suicide rate for men is 1350% higher than for women of the same age group."

http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/news/articles.asp?ID=2307
" the National Institute of Health has dismally failed to live up to its commitment to gender equality in health funding that it made in the Revitalization Act of 1993. Why? Because of feminist-driven demands to remedy years of illusory inequalities."
"Men in the United States live an average of six years less than women and have a higher death rate for each of the top 10 leading causes of death. They are twice as likely as women to be receiving no regular health care (23.2 percent vs. 11.9 percent, respectively), and men under 65 are less likely than women to even have health insurance with which they can receive such care, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services."

To slanted.

I second that.

Modern feminism is not about equality, its about supremacy. Anyone with half a brain can see that

Hmmm Bozzy...couldn't handle the heat in the other thread, so you had to start your own? Ah...the strawman...oops, I mean straw WOMAN...feminazis to be precise. This site is so biased as to be laughable. Literally laughable. It's actually quite amusing. Yes, abuse of women is all a lie concocted by feminazis to steal our tax dollars, and the real victims are the men. :rolleyes:

Ah, yes, evil feminist propaganda made up on baseless lies. All those centuries they've pretended to be under the thumb of the disadvantaged males they heartlessly ruled over. Forcing them to work long hours while women sat on their asses eating bon-bons pretending to do housework and raise children.
Callously dying in childbirth, leaving husbands to fend for themselves, too.

LOL

Modern feminism is not about equality, its about supremacy. Anyone with half a brain can see that
Funny, because those of us with a full, functioning brain, who happen to be feminists, work for gender equity. Yeah...that includes transgendered people too.

Funny, because those of us with a full, functioning brain, who happen to be feminists, work for gender equity. Yeah...that includes transgendered people too.

You used to, but can you really show me an example of something feminists have really had to do for equality recently?

My partner hits me all the time...[but I love it]. :D

Hmmm Bozzy...couldn't handle the heat in the other thread, so you had to start your own? Ah...the strawman...oops, I mean straw WOMAN...feminazis to be precise. This site is so biased as to be laughable. Literally laughable. It's actually quite amusing. Yes, abuse of women is all a lie concocted by feminazis to steal our tax dollars, and the real victims are the men. :rolleyes:


Good points there. Here I thought our tax money was going to buy Pez dispensers.

Since you didn't answer me in the other thread:

*snip*
http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2005/0525roberts.html

After culling the findings from five surveys on domestic violence, Steinmetz reached an unexpected conclusion: wives were just as likely as their husbands to kick, punch, stab, and otherwise physically aggress against their spouses.
*snip*
So the Sisterhood turned from intimidation to propaganda -- the old-fashioned, in-your-face type. Here are just a few of their neo-Leninist tactics:
This site is rather amusing...it calls itself iFeminist, but is about as anti-feminist as you can get. It's also incredibly biased as evidenced by the words they use when speaking about 'feminists'. I love that this article is trying to say that women are just as abusive as men, and the whole men abusing women thing is just a feminist lie.

In any case, you present this as though it answers my question [which was, why do some men get so indignant about the topic of wife abuse], but really what you have answered is this:

"Do you believe men are abusing women, and if so, are they doing it more than visa versa?"

Bozzy, "No."

There's a good reason for this spate of Ms.-information. The rad-fems want to hoodwink the public and politicians that there's an epidemic of violence against women out there, and it's spiraling out of control. Predictably, the cure for that epidemic is a new federal program that carries a hefty price tag.
This is even funnier...Ms Information...hahaha! The radical feminazis are out to steal our tax dollars by pretending there is violence against women! Watch out! :D

This site is so biased as to be laughable

What site, and how?

This is even funnier...Ms Information...hahaha! The radical feminazis are out to steal our tax dollars by pretending there is violence against women! Watch out! :D

I agree - it's hilarious! The Internet really is full of funny, nutty people.

You used to, but can you really show me an example of something feminists have really had to do for equality recently?
Yup. Right now, we are trying to get Maternity leave changed so that the father can take this time if the woman decides to go back to work. Right now, (in Canada) a woman can take 32 weeks of Maternity leave, but if she doesn't use it all, it's lost. The man can only take 20 weeks of Parental leave. So there *sticks out tongue*.

Oh yeah, and many feminists are also trying to get recognition for transgendered people...and it has worked quite well in some countries...the UK for example, allows a transgendered person to get their gender changed on their birth certificate BEFORE they have the sex-change operation.


But isn't it more fun to believe we're out to install a matriarchy?

My partner hits me all the time...[but I love it]. :D
;)

But isn't it more fun to believe we're out to install a matriarchy?

We wish! Matriarchy is better than what we have now, at least.

Ah, yes, evil feminist propaganda made up on baseless lies. All those centuries they've pretended to be under the thumb of the disadvantaged males they heartlessly ruled over. Forcing them to work long hours while women sat on their asses eating bon-bons pretending to do housework and raise children.
Callously dying in childbirth, leaving husbands to fend for themselves, too.

LOL

Humorous, but irrelevant. The conditions you're talking about happened centuries ago.

Uh Oh- Failed to agree with with liberal thread police. One will happen by and you're toast because they are IWTVF.

Bozzy seems to have cut and run from this thread as well.

Yup. Right now, we are trying to get Maternity leave changed so that the father can take this time if the woman decides to go back to work. Right now, (in Canada) a woman can take 32 weeks of Maternity leave, but if she doesn't use it all, it's lost. The man can only take 20 weeks of Parental leave. So there *sticks out tongue*.

Surely thats fighting for male rights, not female rights? Thats fighting for male equality...which is of course necessary, the masculinity crisis is actually beginning to turn the tables which has to be stopped before it does become hypocrisy. Besides, however you see it its not fighting for equality, its just lobbying for a change in rights.

But isn't it more fun to believe we're out to install a matriarchy?

Hell yeah, I think it should be a widespread view to spread the fear of the dominatrix that is the modern woman lol. The site is ridiculous I'll give you that.

We wish! Matriarchy is better than what we have now, at least.

Ridiculous. If you're going to say that, you could at least be equal-opportunity and advocate bringing back the patriarchy.

the UK for example, allows a transgendered person to get their gender changed on their birth certificate BEFORE they have the sex-change operation.


Um, why would it be changed before the operation (or afterwards) as they are the same sex genetically, although not phyiscally (as only genes matter), but if you did go by physical appearance as gender (which could be offensive to some, like people whose genes are mutated to have XXY instead of XY) then they are still that sex before the operation, so they should change it afterwards/during the operation (if at all).

Yup. Right now, we are trying to get Maternity leave changed so that the father can take this time if the woman decides to go back to work. Right now, (in Canada) a woman can take 32 weeks of Maternity leave, but if she doesn't use it all, it's lost. The man can only take 20 weeks of Parental leave. So there *sticks out tongue*.



That really is progressive. I know in the states a woman can take Maternity leave but alot of times there employeers piss and moan about it. My friend Christie was fired after she came back because her boss was so pissed. She had been the employee of the year for four straight years before that.

Ridiculous. If you're going to say that, you could at least be equal-opportunity and advocate bringing back the patriarchy.

The patriarchy has never gone away. Matriarchy would be a nicer change.

Bozzy seems to have cut and run from this thread as well.


Some people just cannot take the heat of a debate they started.

The patriarchy has never gone away. Matriarchy would be a nicer change.

Neither would be good...this is what I'm talking about! You object to male dominance and openly advocate female dominance without being questioned as sexist. Thats ridiculous.

Some people just cannot take the heat of a debate they started.
I like to start a discussion and then sit back and watch people rip each other's heads off.

The patriarchy has never gone away. Matriarchy would be a nicer change.

Do not assume, especially if it's one of the stereotypical women I know. They are stereotypical in almost all aspects that I know (which aren't alot).

Ridiculous. If you're going to say that, you could at least be equal-opportunity and advocate bringing back the patriarchy.

You could always advocate an atriarchy if you're pro-equal opportunity.

Neither would be good...this is what I'm talking about! You object to male dominance and openly advocate female dominance without being questioned as sexist. Thats ridiculous.

I don't fear female dominance. Supporters of the patriarchy do.

Then again I am a supporter of neither. Homoarchy rules all!

The patriarchy has never gone away. Matriarchy would be a nicer change.
Make me Queen of the World! :D

The patriarchy has never gone away. Matriarchy would be a nicer change.

What do you mean? The patriarchy is dead, deader than Stalin's ghost.

Make me Queen of the World! :D

Yes, ma'am!

...
One man battered every 14 seconds! (http://www.menshealthnetwork.org/library/FV_117_SR1.html) ...

http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/news/articles.asp?ID=2307

"...the National Institute of Health has dismally failed to live up to its commitment to gender equality in health funding that it made in the Revitalization Act of 1993. Why? Because of feminist-driven demands to remedy years of illusory inequalities."
"Men in the United States live an average of six years less than women and have a higher death rate for each of the top 10 leading causes of death. They are twice as likely as women to be receiving no regular health care (23.2 percent vs. 11.9 percent, respectively), and men under 65 are less likely than women to even have health insurance with which they can receive such care, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services."

why are these sites biased again?

;)
There is no wife-abuse as long as the woman has a cast iron frying pan.

What do you mean? The patriarchy is dead, deader than Stalin's ghost.

Now that's just delusional.

You could always advocate an atriarchy if you're pro-equal opportunity.

How about Anarchy? ;)

I certainly haven't seen too many women barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen lately...

I don't fear female dominance. Supporters of the patriarchy do.

Then again I am a supporter of neither. Homoarchy rules all!

Glad to hear it, though I thought you would play into the hands of my argument a little longer :D

There is no wife-abuse as long as the woman has a cast iron frying pan.

Plus all the access she wants to with the knives :eek:. Said jokingly of course (I don't want to tarnish my reputation as one girl thought I was sexist for 6 months just because I said all the girls in the play The Glass Menagerie (DO NOT READ IT) were evil and holding the brother back (tis true)).

Hmmm Bozzy...couldn't handle the heat in the other thread, so you had to start your own? Ah...the strawman...oops, I mean straw WOMAN...feminazis to be precise. This site is so biased as to be laughable. Literally laughable. It's actually quite amusing. Yes, abuse of women is all a lie concocted by feminazis to steal our tax dollars, and the real victims are the men. :rolleyes:
Did you miss my post in teh other topic? Its not that the abuse of women doesn't exist, it is just overplayed probably and that its that abuse of men exists as well

I certainly haven't seen too many women barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen lately...


My baseball coach used to say that all the time. That and "HIT A HOMER TO IMPRESS THE SKIRTS!"

Now that's just delusional.

I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I believe that you're the one who's delusional, and the patriarchy is gone. We might well be on our way to matriarchy, though I hope not with all my soul.

Hmmm Bozzy...couldn't handle the heat in the other thread, so you had to start your own? Ah...the strawman...oops, I mean straw WOMAN...feminazis to be precise. This site is so biased as to be laughable. Literally laughable. It's actually quite amusing. Yes, abuse of women is all a lie concocted by feminazis to steal our tax dollars, and the real victims are the men. :rolleyes:
Wow, only post five before a personal attack. Make fun of the findings before someone takes them serious. That was the same tactic those who opposed suffrage took.

I really love it when people who are, themselves, making baseless generalizations based on the actions of a few complain about people making baseless generalizations based on the actions of a few.

I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I believe that you're the one who's delusional, and the patriarchy is gone.

Then you are socially blind.

We might well be on our way to matriarchy, though I hope not with all my soul.

Given a choice between our current patriarchy and a future matriarchy, I'd choose a matriarchy any day of the week.

Sexism, like racism, still exists. It's just more covert than overt.
Twelve years ago in Texas it was still legal for a man to rape his wife. That's within the lifetime of almost everyone on NS.
When my parents got divorced, it was still legal to refuse to rent to a divorced woman.
The first job I ever applied for I was told I wouldn't be hired because I was female. Point blank, no dodging the issue.

Yes things are better. But though law may say we are equal, there are plenty of times we are told in no uncertain terms that we are not.

Ah, yes, evil feminist propaganda made up on baseless lies. All those centuries they've pretended to be under the thumb of the disadvantaged males they heartlessly ruled over. Forcing them to work long hours while women sat on their asses eating bon-bons pretending to do housework and raise children.
Callously dying in childbirth, leaving husbands to fend for themselves, too.

LOL

Wow, Is your ability to address the information and supporting research at hand so weak that you have to bring in your own fairy-tale topic? I would expect better than that from you.

Making a gender issue here is insane, the fact is that domestic violence happens, it happens when men beat up women and vice versa. It doesn't matter if it happens more to women than to men, what matters is that each case is dealt with as an individual case not simply labeling the man a "wife beater". Violence happens in our homes, fact, the way to solve it is not to demonise one gender or the other its a matter of individual personality and character that determines whether or not you are going to beat your partner, not your sex.

Then you are socially blind.



Given a choice between our current patriarchy and a future matriarchy, I'd choose a matriarchy any day of the week.

Would you care to offer some arguments? If you want to fence a bit, I'm game.

How about Anarchy? ;)

Possibly...although patriarchy/matriarchy isn't just to do with the government. Social institutions such as the family can also be patriarchal or matriarchal.
Although certain radical feminists have actually advocated abolishing the family, I can't really see both the family and the government being gotten rid of.

Possibly...although patriarchy/matriarchy isn't just to do with the government. Social institutions such as the family can also be patriarchal or matriarchal.
Although certain radical feminists have actually advocated abolishing the family, I can't really see both the family and the government being gotten rid of.



Gramnonia Quote:
Originally Posted by Fass
Then you are socially blind.



Given a choice between our current patriarchy and a future matriarchy, I'd choose a matriarchy any day of the week.



Would you care to offer some arguments? If you want to fence a bit, I'm game.

nice threadjack guys :P

I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I believe that you're the one who's delusional, and the patriarchy is gone. We might well be on our way to matriarchy, though I hope not with all my soul.
Please do tell me the year we started the slide into matriarchy. When did women take over the White House? The legislature? The judiciary?
When did women take over the majority of Fortune 500 companies?

nice threadjack guys :P

Lol, so posts about the supposed existence of the patriarchy are threadjacking, but posts about getting people liquored up at family events are just fine? :)

Please do tell me the year we started the slide into matriarchy. When did women take over the White House? The legislature? The judiciary?
When did women take over the majority of Fortune 500 companies?

They haven't. I don't think there are more than 2 or 3 that run Fortune 500 companies if any.

Please do tell me the year we started the slide into matriarchy. When did women take over the White House? The legislature? The judiciary?
When did women take over the majority of Fortune 500 companies?
Well he did say that we are on our way.

Women are gaining higher and higher posts in the White House. More women-run companies are peeking into the Fortune 500 companies. Who's to say 20 years from now that this trend might not continue into something much bigger.

Please do tell me the year we started the slide into matriarchy. When did women take over the White House? The legislature? The judiciary?
When did women take over the majority of Fortune 500 companies?

Why, that was the year 1978, of course.

Do you think I know, dammit? I just said that we may be on the road to matriarchy, by which I meant that (supposing we do go that way), future historians may look back on today and see the seeds of matriarchy beginning to germinate. Long-term trends are rarely as clear when they're happening as they are to the person looking back with the benefit of decades of hindsight.

Lol, so posts about the supposed existence of the patriarchy are threadjacking, but posts about getting people liquored up at family events are just fine? :)


YUP :D

Lol, so posts about the supposed existence of the patriarchy are threadjacking, but posts about getting people liquored up at family events are just fine? :)

Yes, family reunions are like holidays (I consider them so shhhh.), but there is an answer for the patriacharal existance (sp a few words ago) which is dependant on the specific area you are referring to.

Lol, so posts about the supposed existence of the patriarchy are threadjacking, but posts about getting people liquored up at family events are just fine? :)

damn skippy..


well, not really :P but eh, i just picked you guys out cos it started to get into a deep conversation about patriarchy v. anarchy v. matriarchy(is that what it was called?) so i choose that one to pick on.

i really wanted my question answered about the biased websites....

Since you didn't answer me in the other thread:

Sorry if 20 minutes is not prompt enough for you. There are occasions when I actually leave the PC to tend to something called 'my life'.

http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2005/0525roberts.html


This site is rather amusing...it calls itself iFeminist, but is about as anti-feminist as you can get. It's also incredibly biased as evidenced by the words they use when speaking about 'feminists'. I love that this article is trying to say that women are just as abusive as men, and the whole men abusing women thing is just a feminist lie.
Just because it does not view gender equality through the same biased lense you do does not make it anti-feminist. grow up. Different people have differet opinions. Lableing them anti- something just because you cannot grasp their point is not constructive and small-minded.

In any case, you present this as though it answers my question [which was, why do some men get so indignant about the topic of wife abuse], but really what you have answered is this:

"Do you believe men are abusing women, and if so, are they doing it more than visa versa?"

Bozzy, "No."

Um, no. I provided (and even bolded for the comprehension challenged) exactly why some men become indignant at the mention of gender abuse. If you are so indignant as to not be able to see that then I suggest you need to take a break for a while and come back later when you feel more rational.

This is even funnier...Ms Information...hahaha! The radical feminazis are out to steal our tax dollars by pretending there is violence against women! Watch out! :D
'Ms. Information' is funny. Sadly it is funny because there is just enough truth in it to sting. Not about violence, but by the radical feminist attempt to make it into a gender problem rather than a social problem which victimizes both sexes. I suppose only someone who does not care what happens to men could miss that.

Well he did say that we are on our way.

Women are gaining higher and higher posts in the White House. More women-run companies are peeking into the Fortune 500 companies. Who's to say 20 years from now that this trend might not continue into something much bigger.

You don't mean...women are starting to obtain similar positions of power to men? :eek:

Oh, and if women ever took over all three branches of government, plus a majority of the Fortune 500 companies, that wouldn't be a sign that the slide toward matriarchy is beginning, that would mean that matriarchy was already here.

Oh, and if women ever took over all three branches of government, plus a majority of the Fortune 500 companies, that wouldn't be a sign that the slide toward matriarchy is beginning, that would mean that matriarchy was already here.

Whereas the current dominance of men in these areas isn't an indication of patriarchical influences?

el snippo

Yet you provide absolutely no evidence to support your belief. You frequently claim that statistics held up by feminists are false, well then provide the true, factual statistics. So far your argument has consisted of, "Nuh-uh."

Bozzy seems to have cut and run from this thread as well.
gawd, is having a life outside of here so bad?

gawd, is having a life outside of here so bad?

Next time don't start a volatile subject and then immediately leave.

Yet you provide absolutely no evidence to support your belief. You frequently claim that statistics held up by feminists are false, well then provide the true, factual statistics. So far your argument has consisted of, "Nuh-uh."
Apparently you didn't bother to read the four links I prvided to support my case - which are all well documented and grounded in fact and research.

Really, you are so shrill right now that you are doing yourself and your argument a disservce.

-Snippy-


Yea, I think she referred to you as a strawman because your first post said something along the lines of "Lets see how long it takes for ____ to say ____".

Now would someone explain to me what sites where biased, and why?

Whereas the current dominance of men in these areas isn't an indication of patriarchical influences?

Influences, perhaps. There won't be a female president for some time largely because voters are accustomed to male candidates for office. An actual, active patriarchy, no.

Now, if positions of power suddenly were dominated by women, such a thoroughgoing transformation as that could not fail to be called matriarchy, because the pendulum would have swung clear to the other side. It would entail a revolution in how we perceive society.

Yes :)


Good good.. It has been far to long that I have been in any history class. My mind is a little fuzzy on some details.

Feminists want you to believe their propaganda without question. Failure to accept their dogma without question can result in vicious retribution. Fortunately there are a few brave enough to stand up to their juggernaught. Here are a few, including some infor from Warrenn Farrell, who has been elected three times to the board of directors of the National Organization of Women - that is, until he dared suggest that men have rights too.

Share your thoughts; (And, as an added game, lets see how many posts it takes before some feminist thug suggest in crude or vulgar language I am anti-female for daring to not blindly accept the radical faminist core lies.)

http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2005/0525roberts.html

"A number of years ago University of Delaware professor Suzanne Steinmetz published an article called the "The Battered Husband Syndrome." After culling the findings from five surveys on domestic violence, Steinmetz reached an unexpected conclusion: wives were just as likely as their husbands to kick, punch, stab, and otherwise physically aggress against their spouses."

One man battered every 14 seconds! (http://www.menshealthnetwork.org/library/FV_117_SR1.html)

http://www.menweb.org/menmag/farrheal.htm
"As boys experience the pressures of the male role, their suicide rate goes from being equal to girls’ to being 600% as high as girls. (2) By age 85, the suicide rate for men is 1350% higher than for women of the same age group."

http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/news/articles.asp?ID=2307
" the National Institute of Health has dismally failed to live up to its commitment to gender equality in health funding that it made in the Revitalization Act of 1993. Why? Because of feminist-driven demands to remedy years of illusory inequalities."
"Men in the United States live an average of six years less than women and have a higher death rate for each of the top 10 leading causes of death. They are twice as likely as women to be receiving no regular health care (23.2 percent vs. 11.9 percent, respectively), and men under 65 are less likely than women to even have health insurance with which they can receive such care, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services."

I knew it! I'm all for equality, but not women>men

Influences, perhaps. There won't be a female president for some time largely because voters are accustomed to male candidates for office. An actual, active patriarchy, no.

Now, if positions of power suddenly were dominated by women, such a thoroughgoing transformation as that could not fail to be called matriarchy, because the pendulum would have swung clear to the other side. It would entail a revolution in how we perceive society.

As I always said, "Popular votes (our votes), do not count, but electorial votes do (people who hold office, all of the electorial votes from almost all states (not all, I think Nebreska actually splits it dependant on the popular))."

There was a female candidate in the 04 election but she dropped out for some reason. It could be 08 when we see a female president.

Apparently you didn't bother to read the four links I prvided to support my case - which are all well documented and grounded in fact and research.

I read your four links. They provide numerous statistics about how women commit violent crimes, and how men die earlier from disease and suicide, but they do absolutely nothing to disprove a word of the feminist argument. Yes, men die too. Yes, women commit crimes too. Does that make domestic abuse okay?


Really, you are so shrill right now that you are doing yourself and your argument a disservce.

So, what you're trying to say here is, "Sdaeriji, please report me to the moderators"?

You all have a great night and or day depending on where you live. Try to keep things civil. :D

see what i'm talking about Gramnonia? a different discussion entirely. o well, i didn't want to debate the domestic violence case anyway :P ya'll have fun talking about when women will start rulling the world.

Sorry man, I was really hoping you'd get your questions answered. But the People have spoken...

Some people just cannot take the heat of a debate they started.
oooh, so that's it. And I thought I was talking with Wayne on the phone.

why are these sites biased again?

Because they dare to questio the gender feminist dogma, don't you get it? ;)

You can't attack radical feminism with reason - you'll get shot down with character assassination. This thread demonstrates it pretty well I think.

You can't attack radical feminism with reason - you'll get shot down with character assassination. This thread demonstrates it pretty well I think.


Nah - Their attempts are so transparent as to be funny. My character is intact and healthy.

There was a female candidate in the 04 election but she dropped out for some reason. It could be 08 when we see a female president.

I'm personally hoping for Condoleeza Rice vs. Hillary Clinton :D

Why, that was the year 1978, of course.

Do you think I know, dammit? I just said that we may be on the road to matriarchy, by which I meant that (supposing we do go that way), future historians may look back on today and see the seeds of matriarchy beginning to germinate. Long-term trends are rarely as clear when they're happening as they are to the person looking back with the benefit of decades of hindsight.

I doubt that will ever happen. Hopefully women will continue to gain in these areas until they are represented in numbers roughly equal to their percentage of the population.
Or, god forbid, the day when no one even notices what sex a qualified candidate unless they're planning to sleep with them. :eek:

I'm personally hoping for Condoleeza Rice vs. Hillary Clinton :D

I do not like them.

Maybe some one that isn't in power already, who could actually improve things.

Oh I could name two female rulers, Catherine the Great, and who was Charles XVI's daughter?

Making a gender issue here is insane, the fact is that domestic violence happens, it happens when men beat up women and vice versa. It doesn't matter if it happens more to women than to men, what matters is that each case is dealt with as an individual case not simply labeling the man a "wife beater". Violence happens in our homes, fact, the way to solve it is not to demonise one gender or the other its a matter of individual personality and character that determines whether or not you are going to beat your partner, not your sex.

Sadly, that opinion puts you in the minority here. Start a poll and test me if you dare.

I doubt that will ever happen. Hopefully women will continue to gain in these areas until they are represented in numbers roughly equal to their percentage of the population.
Or, god forbid, the day when no one even notices what sex a qualified candidate unless they're planning to sleep with them. :eek:

HOT! I definitely look forward to those days. As a matter of fact, many people (myself included) are already living in them.

I think it's safe to say that most people only want equality between the sexes. The difference is that some want laws to enforce equality, and some want the change to be natural. That's where the real debate is.

I read your four links. They provide numerous statistics about how women commit violent crimes, and how men die earlier from disease and suicide, but they do absolutely nothing to disprove a word of the feminist argument. Yes, men die too. Yes, women commit crimes too. Does that make domestic abuse okay?
Who said anything about disproving the entire feminist argument? I simply pointed out that the argument that women are victims more often than perpetrators is indeed incorrect. I also pointed out that their gender inequality suggested for health research, mental health and considerably more quality of life issues is in fact reversed from reality. It most certainly does not suggest that domestic abuse is ok - for EITHER gender. I don't see how any sensible could draw THAT conclusion from my post.[/QUOTE]



So, what you're trying to say here is, "Sdaeriji, please report me to the moderators"?
Um, sorry, but there is no forum rules against suggesting your argument is becoming shrill - and this suggestion makes it more so.

Feminists want you to believe their propaganda without question. Failure to accept their dogma without question can result in vicious retribution. Fortunately there are a few brave enough to stand up to their juggernaught. Here are a few, including some infor from Warrenn Farrell, who has been elected three times to the board of directors of the National Organization of Women - that is, until he dared suggest that men have rights too.

Share your thoughts; (And, as an added game, lets see how many posts it takes before some feminist thug suggest in crude or vulgar language I am anti-female for daring to not blindly accept the radical faminist core lies.)

http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2005/0525roberts.html

"A number of years ago University of Delaware professor Suzanne Steinmetz published an article called the "The Battered Husband Syndrome." After culling the findings from five surveys on domestic violence, Steinmetz reached an unexpected conclusion: wives were just as likely as their husbands to kick, punch, stab, and otherwise physically aggress against their spouses."

One man battered every 14 seconds! (http://www.menshealthnetwork.org/library/FV_117_SR1.html)

http://www.menweb.org/menmag/farrheal.htm
"As boys experience the pressures of the male role, their suicide rate goes from being equal to girls’ to being 600% as high as girls. (2) By age 85, the suicide rate for men is 1350% higher than for women of the same age group."

http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/news/articles.asp?ID=2307
" the National Institute of Health has dismally failed to live up to its commitment to gender equality in health funding that it made in the Revitalization Act of 1993. Why? Because of feminist-driven demands to remedy years of illusory inequalities."
"Men in the United States live an average of six years less than women and have a higher death rate for each of the top 10 leading causes of death. They are twice as likely as women to be receiving no regular health care (23.2 percent vs. 11.9 percent, respectively), and men under 65 are less likely than women to even have health insurance with which they can receive such care, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services."
warren farrell seems quite proud of his service to NOW. he certainly didnt seem to have any rants against them on his webpage. unless maybe he got tossed out this week???

for the rest, so what?

yes there are women who abuse their husbands physically, sometimes severely so.

yes men commit suicide way more often than women do.

yes men die earlier and dont seek appropriate health care

SO WHAT? what does that have to do with feminism?

feminists work on women's issues. they dont NEED to work on men's issues. thats men's jobs. sorta like how your local gardening club doesnt picket red lobster for the killing of baby seals.

if men want to organize and push for help with these things, they are more than welcome to. there are several men's organizations in existance. join one.

why would it ever be women's jobs??

damn skippy..


well, not really :P but eh, i just picked you guys out cos it started to get into a deep conversation about patriarchy v. anarchy v. matriarchy(is that what it was called?) so i choose that one to pick on.

i really wanted my question answered about the biased websites....
Unlikely they will - it is easier to just call it biased and attempt to sweep it under the carpet than it is for them to disupte fact.

warren farrell seems quite proud of his service to NOW. he certainly didnt seem to have any rants against them on his webpage. unless maybe he got tossed out this week???

for the rest, so what?

yes there are women who abuse their husbands physically, sometimes severely so.

yes men commit suicide way more often than women do.

yes men die earlier and dont seek appropriate health care

SO WHAT? what does that have to do with feminism?

feminists work on women's issues. they dont NEED to work on men's issues. thats men's jobs. sorta like how your local gardening club doesnt picket red lobster for the killing of baby seals.

if men want to organize and push for help with these things, they are more than welcome to. there are several men's organizations in existance. join one.

why would it ever be women's jobs??

You miss the point. Feminism is about gender equality, no? If it is not about equlity then what is it about? If it is about equality then why are they distorting facts to suppress information about violence against men and the disproportionate healthcare men get?

why would it ever be women's jobs??

B0zzy isn't saying that women's rights campeigners should deal with men's rights, he is saying that some of the women's organisations distort statisics and lie about what is really going on.

Whatever the past was like, things are definately better for women now, I know it isn't perfect but then again nothing ever is and that is why there are still women's organisations campeigning for equality and good luck to them, I even contribute where I can. The thing is, without a doubt it's beggining to slide the other way in some areas(just look at the ads on your TV), even my mother has noticed and she is one of the strongest feminists I know.

I'm all for equality, but equality means just that, equal. Women should not be treated worse then men, I agree, but i don't agree that women should be treated better than men, which is how some of the feminist groups are beggining to go, which goes against their goal of gender equality. I wouldn't dream of suggesting they all do, but minorities have surprisingly loud voices.

You miss the point. Feminism is about gender equality, no? If it is not about equlity then what is it about? If it is about equality then why are they distorting facts to suppress information about violence against men and the disproportionate healthcare men get?
yes dear. thats why its the national organization for WOMEN. the theory is that if you make women as equal as men, there will be gender equality. they do it by supporting womens issues so that the problems of women are address

yes there are seperate issues that men face. men really ought to be working on those.

ive seen women on TV talking about those issues you brought up. thats not enough for you? i see no big distortion of facts going on. a woman here and there does not a grand conspiracy make.

its also as difficult for women to accept the bad sides of women as it is for men to accept the bad sides of men (go figure) i remember back in the early 80s one of my friends was enamored of lesbianism (too bad she was solidly straight) because she thought women would treat each other better. it was terribly disillusioning to her to go to some feminist meeting or other where lesbian partner abuse was discussed. it was hard to accept that a woman can abuse another woman.

B0zzy isn't saying that women's rights campeigners should deal with men's rights, he is saying that some of the women's organisations distort statisics and lie about what is really going on.

Whatever the past was like, things are definately better for women now, I know it isn't perfect but then again nothing ever is and that is why there are still women's organisations campeigning for equality and good luck to them, I even contribute where I can. The thing is, without a doubt it's beggining to slide the other way in some areas(just look at the ads on your TV), even my mother has noticed and she is one of the strongest feminists I know.

I'm all for equality, but equality means just that, equal. Women should not be treated worse then men, I agree, but i don't agree that women should be treated better than men, which is how some of the feminist groups are beggining to go, which goes against their goal of gender equality. I wouldn't dream of suggesting they all do, but minorities have surprisingly loud voices.

tv is for the most part run by men, not feminists. where they get off making men look like idiots i dont know but maybe men should start complaining about it.

there are instances where things have gone unjustly against a specific man. its always going to happen. i can think of several but its not really important to give specifics. sometimes things do get out of balance

there is also a terrible tendency amongst feminist professors and university groups to paint women as constant victims of men. it must piss off the strong women who attend university in greater numbers than men do these days.

as far as i can tell that "feminists are lying about stuff" is hyperbole based on a few real instances and a few more instances where some man has decided that the woman's interpretation is wrong. limbaughesque so to speak.

And here I thought this was going to be a joke thread. Ah well. :rolleyes:

the UK for example, allows a transgendered person to get their gender changed on their birth certificate BEFORE they have the sex-change operation.

Only just, for less than 3 months...the Gender Recognition Act only came into force on the 4th of April!

Unlikely they will - it is easier to just call it biased and attempt to sweep it under the carpet than it is for them to disupte fact.
http://www.ncfmla.org/gelles.html
http://www.europrofem.org/02.info/22contri/2.04.en/4en.viol/33en_vio.htm
http://members.aardvark.net.au/~korman/dv/controversy/

Your sources were biased, for one thing, they are all editorials. The first link does not include hard number or the research methodology, or even where it is pulling some of its stats from. Indeed, it cites a study from 1978.

The second link uses newspapers as its primary source, a fallacy in research, and again, it is an editorial.

The third link is actually researched, but has more to do with the spending on health related issues, not domestic voilence.

The fourth link is also an editorial from a men's advocy group and does not include any hard number beyond vague references. I would also question the relavance of the Department of Defence's spending on prostate vs breast cancer.

The above links are journal reprints from the orginal researchers that point out a few problems with the 1978 study as well as some current thoughts. It seems that while men and women are as equally likely to start violence within the home, women are far more likely to be seriously hurt/killed by violence from men than the other way around.

Take from that what you will.

yes dear. thats why its the national organization for WOMEN. the theory is that if you make women as equal as men, there will be gender equality. they do it by supporting womens issues so that the problems of women are address

yes there are seperate issues that men face. men really ought to be working on those.
Well sweetheart,

Considering that you have confirmed these illustrations show that there is inequality where women are greater than men, why is not this NOW working to equalize that? Are you suggesting that they accept instances where wome have more privelege than men? If so, then they really are not about equality at all, are they?

The issue of violence is really not a seperate issue at all - it affects both genders equally as I illustrated. However the NOW gang has done all they can to portray it as a problem which only affects women and perpetrated by men. This is not equality nor anything approaching it. It is a cover up and a disservice to men, particularly those who are victims of violence.

Ironic, isn't it. Their cover up makes NOW is a silent partner in the perpetration of violence against men.


ive seen women on TV talking about those issues you brought up. thats not enough for you? i see no big distortion of facts going on. a woman here and there does not a grand conspiracy make.
So? I saw a squirrel on TV waterskiing.

meanwhile.... http://www.10forchange.org/issues/violence_brief.html.
"VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Domestic Violence: Domestic violence is a pattern of violent or coercive behavior in which a partner seeks to control the thoughts, beliefs, or conduct of their intimate partner. Violent juvenile offenders are four times more likely to have witnessed violence in their homes. Domestic violence destroys families, harms women, and children, and devastates our communities. "
but nothing about the male victims of violence. That exclusion = a distortion.

Here's another that we've not yet discussed;
http://www.capwiz.com/now/mail/oneclick_compose/?alertid=7754631
"ACCESS TO BIRTH CONTROL
Women can only prevent unintended, unwanted, involuntary and criminal pregnancies if they have full access to contraception."

Incorrect. Men are also able to participate in the birth control process. However, the options for men are severely limited (1). The effort to create male contraceptive pills is incomparable to the effort for female birth control products. It would seem unequal to put so much of the onus on women...(but then, there is also power in that.)


its also as difficult for women to accept the bad sides of women as it is for men to accept the bad sides of men (go figure) i remember back in the early 80s one of my friends was enamored of lesbianism (too bad she was solidly straight) because she thought women would treat each other better. it was terribly disillusioning to her to go to some feminist meeting or other where lesbian partner abuse was discussed. it was hard to accept that a woman can abuse another woman.
I like lesbians too! ... for different reasons. ;)

tv is for the most part run by men, not feminists..
A bold assertation to make without any evidence. I particularly like how you describe "men" and "feminist" as mutually exclusive. Talk about a gender bigot!


where they get off making men look like idiots i dont know but maybe men should start complaining about it.

Men are far too pragmatic for that. We just turn the channel. There are bigger problems to deal with - such as family access for divorced fathers, healthcare, male birth control pills, the acceptance of violence against men (which is also shown dispropotionately on TV), the glass basement, low college attendance among men, etc. etc. etc.

there are instances where things have gone unjustly against a specific man. its always going to happen. i can think of several but its not really important to give specifics. sometimes things do get out of balance

there is also a terrible tendency amongst feminist professors and university groups to paint women as constant victims of men. it must piss off the strong women who attend university in greater numbers than men do these days.

as far as i can tell that "feminists are lying about stuff" is hyperbole based on a few real instances and a few more instances where some man has decided that the woman's interpretation is wrong. limbaughesque so to speak.

Hmm, that's funny. I just though lieing was the same as not telling the truth. I didn't know it wasn't lieing if it was a man who disagreed with the conclusion.

Here's another that we've not yet discussed;
http://www.capwiz.com/now/mail/oneclick_compose/?alertid=7754631
"ACCESS TO BIRTH CONTROL
Women can only prevent unintended, unwanted, involuntary and criminal pregnancies if they have full access to contraception."

Incorrect. Men are also able to participate in the birth control process. However, the options for men are severely limited (1). The effort to create male contraceptive pills is incomparable to the effort for female birth control products. It would seem unequal to put so much of the onus on women...(but then, there is also power in that.)
I am not sure of the point you are trying to make here, could you please clarify it? Historically, condoms were the ONLY method of birth control (that worked, dancing naked around stone pillars or using Coke in a way it was never intended for doesn't count. ;) ). However, this assumed that a woman was able to get a guy to wear one. Birth control was fully in control of the guy, and the woman had very little say in this. Male birth control pills have had a slow development due to more guys being unwilling to do ANYTHING that might possibly rob or reduce their manly virtality (which I think is unfair, I'd be more than happy to take one).

*heh* It's really shown in how birth control pills are not covered by medical insurance in some places, but viagra is.

A bold assertation to make without any evidence. I particularly like how you describe "men" and "feminist" as mutually exclusive. Talk about a gender bigot! pfffft mea culpa? you mean you think there is a chance that while i wasnt looking tv became female dominated?


Men are far too pragmatic for that. We just turn the channel. There are bigger problems to deal with - such as family access for divorced fathers, healthcare, male birth control pills, the acceptance of violence against men (which is also shown dispropotionately on TV), the glass basement, low college attendance among men, etc. etc. etc. then dont whine about it (ya ya i know it was someone else who brought it up)


Hmm, that's funny. I just though lieing was the same as not telling the truth. I didn't know it wasn't lieing if it was a man who disagreed with the conclusion.
not to rush limbaugh. sometimes lying is lying, and sometimes its called lying by someone who simply disagrees with what the other person said. (in which case it isnt really lying now is it?)

well, i dont log in here much anymore, so i cant guarantee that ill be around to reply, ill try to log in tonight and check, but no promises.

anyways, mebbe its sexism, mebbe its apathy, but i tend to be somewhat dismissive of the whole battered-man thingy. not saying it doesnt happen, but i feel pretty certain that the number of cases of it that result in serious injury to the male are far dwarfed by the number of females that are seriously injured in domestic violence.

also, aside from that, there are a few reasons why domestic violence is seen as more of a problem affecting women.
(granted, some of these things are changing, and some may have already changed, but not all of them have)

traditionally, the male would be the one in the family who would have a job, and earn the income, and the female would be the 'housewife'. no this may not affect which one is more liable to beat the other, but it puts the 'housewife' in a trapped sort of situation, she is dependant on the male for income and livelyhood, and in the past, this caused a serious problem for those in abusive relationships, since they couldn't just get up and leave. furthermore, aside from the economic aspect, society tended to be much more scornful of divorced/seperated women, which just made it all that much harder to escape a given situation.

i know this isnt the case as much now as it was in, say, like the 50's or 60's or something, but im pretty sure (sorry, i have no studies or anything to back this up on) that there are more females dependant on males then vice versa in many households today.

okay, and on with another probabally sexist view; now, dont get me wrong, i dont advocate violence in any form (aside from defense of self and others...) but i think that a male is much more likely to injure a woman when striking her then vice-versa. I believe there are two components to this.
1: males tend to be bigger then women, and stronger.
2: males tend to be better trained/more experienced in violent activity.
I know this isnt the case all of the time, and its a gross generalization, but i dont think its incorrect for me to say the average guy can hit harder, and with better form/technique then the average women. (again, gross generalizations, i realize individuals differ greatly)

eh, enough for now, if its not too flamey, i may drop in later and try and reword/support some of this a bit better.

Well sweetheart,

Considering that you have confirmed these illustrations show that there is inequality where women are greater than men, why is not this NOW working to equalize that? Are you suggesting that they accept instances where wome have more privelege than men? If so, then they really are not about equality at all, are they?
no i dont think i confirmed that at all. i just agreed that there are women who abuse men, men who kill themselves and men who dont bother to go to the doctor. i wouldnt call that greater. and NO feminists dont work AS FEMINISTS on men's issues. they work toward eliminating the discrimination that exists against women. the discrimination that exists toward men is not their job.

most feminists are also wives and mothers and many of them work on mens issues in other forums.



The issue of violence is really not a seperate issue at all - it affects both genders equally as I illustrated. However the NOW gang has done all they can to portray it as a problem which only affects women and perpetrated by men. This is not equality nor anything approaching it. It is a cover up and a disservice to men, particularly those who are victims of violence.

Ironic, isn't it. Their cover up makes NOW is a silent partner in the perpetration of violence against men.


So? I saw a squirrel on TV waterskiing.

meanwhile.... http://www.10forchange.org/issues/violence_brief.html.
"VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Domestic Violence: Domestic violence is a pattern of violent or coercive behavior in which a partner seeks to control the thoughts, beliefs, or conduct of their intimate partner. Violent juvenile offenders are four times more likely to have witnessed violence in their homes. Domestic violence destroys families, harms women, and children, and devastates our communities. "
but nothing about the male victims of violence. That exclusion = a distortion.

i disagree. i dont see that emphasizing the abuse of women has any effect whatsoever on the abuse of men, and im not in any way convinced that there are NO feminists who recognize that women do abuse men sometimes.


Here's another that we've not yet discussed;
http://www.capwiz.com/now/mail/oneclick_compose/?alertid=7754631
"ACCESS TO BIRTH CONTROL
Women can only prevent unintended, unwanted, involuntary and criminal pregnancies if they have full access to contraception."

Incorrect. Men are also able to participate in the birth control process. However, the options for men are severely limited (1). The effort to create male contraceptive pills is incomparable to the effort for female birth control products. It would seem unequal to put so much of the onus on women...(but then, there is also power in that.)


I like lesbians too! ... for different reasons. ;)
you misread that statement. its not ONLY WOMEN CAN etc, its "the only way women can"

men need to participate in the bc process if THEY want to be sure that no pregnancy occurs. (not that they have much control if an unwanted pregnancy does occur). some women are quite willing to pretend to be on bc so they can conceive without the mans acceptance of the risk.

Feminists want you to believe their propaganda without question. Failure to accept their dogma without question can result in vicious retribution.

LOL

Do packs of wild feminists beat you up for posting crap like this?

I love the irony of you complaining about "dogma without question" and then your primary argument in the thread is "read my four links!."

Sorry, some of us are critical thinkers and recognize your bullshit.

Fortunately there are a few brave enough to stand up to their juggernaught. Here are a few, including some infor from Warrenn Farrell, who has been elected three times to the board of directors of the National Organization of Women - that is, until he dared suggest that men have rights too.

Wrong.

Farrell was briefly a member and on the board of directors of one local chapter of NOW in the early 1970s. He left NOW voluntarily to pursue his own theories -- prior to his publishing anything on men's rights.

Farrell has some interesting and occasionally valid things to say. But he is also a notorious crank, with many bizarre views (such as on incest and date rape.) If you are going to appeal to Farrell's alleged authority, I'll be forced to expose him. I suggest you not persist in either that fallacy or tactical error.

Share your thoughts; (And, as an added game, lets see how many posts it takes before some feminist thug suggest in crude or vulgar language I am anti-female for daring to not blindly accept the radical faminist core lies.)

Pot, meet Kettle.

You call feminists names and then suggest they may *gasp* dare to fall for your baiting.

I call you a misogynist because of your many rants against women and gender equality. And we'll see who spreads lies.

http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2005/0525roberts.html

"A number of years ago University of Delaware professor Suzanne Steinmetz published an article called the "The Battered Husband Syndrome." After culling the findings from five surveys on domestic violence, Steinmetz reached an unexpected conclusion: wives were just as likely as their husbands to kick, punch, stab, and otherwise physically aggress against their spouses."

ROTFLASTC

"a number of years ago" = 1978??!!

Real feminists don't deny that men are also victims of domestic violence. And women can be perpetrators. But fake feminists and other anti-feminists try to deny the reality of domestic violence at all and flatly lie about the true statistics.

The conclusions you draw (or the hack you quote draws) from this "study" and other similar research has been thoroughly discredited. In fact, the authors of many of these studies have denounced their misuse.

Here are a few examples of the refutation of this silly "conclusion":
The Myth of the "Battered Husband Syndrome" (http://www.europrofem.org/02.info/22contri/2.04.en/4en.viol/33en_vio.htm)
The Battered Husband Controversy. (http://members.aardvark.net.au/~korman/dv/controversy/)
Claims About Husband Battering. (http://www.xyonline.net/husbandbattering.shtml)
Four Variations of Family Violence: A Review of Sociological Research. (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hppb/familyviolence/html/1variation.htm)
Battered Men? Battered Facts (http://www.fair.org/extra/9410/battered-men.html)
Measuring the Extent of Woman Abuse in Intimate Heterosexual Relationships: A Critique of the Conflict Tactics Scales. (http://www.vaw.umn.edu/finaldocuments/Vawnet/ctscritique.htm)
The Myth Of 'Battered Men': Men and Women Are Not Equally Abusive (Critiques of the Conflict Tactic Scales). (http://members.aol.com/asherah/cts.html)

(BTW, am I going to be forced to expose Wendy McElroy, ifeminists, and the so-called Independent Institute as well? Have you no decent sources?)

One man battered every 14 seconds! (http://www.menshealthnetwork.org/library/FV_117_SR1.html)

Pathetic.

An old "article" from a self-proclaimed "group of men's activists" that mainly relies on recycled bad information. Its "citations" are primarily to editorials by Farrell and a couple others -- misreporting studies in ways denounced by the authors of the studies themselves! Nice. :rolleyes:

http://www.menweb.org/menmag/farrheal.htm
"As boys experience the pressures of the male role, their suicide rate goes from being equal to girls’ to being 600% as high as girls. (2) By age 85, the suicide rate for men is 1350% higher than for women of the same age group."

And this is relevant because ..... ?

And this has what to do with feminism? Nothing.

To the contrary, it expressly says the pressures of male stereotypical roles and peer pressure cause high rates of suicide. Good thing feminists are fighting those stereotypes! Hurray for feminists!

(Another dated article by Farrell here. At least these 2 sentences are based on actual statistics.)

http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/news/articles.asp?ID=2307
" the National Institute of Health has dismally failed to live up to its commitment to gender equality in health funding that it made in the Revitalization Act of 1993. Why? Because of feminist-driven demands to remedy years of illusory inequalities."
"Men in the United States live an average of six years less than women and have a higher death rate for each of the top 10 leading causes of death. They are twice as likely as women to be receiving no regular health care (23.2 percent vs. 11.9 percent, respectively), and men under 65 are less likely than women to even have health insurance with which they can receive such care, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services."

Again, this is relevant because ... ?

This is the fault of feminists because ... ?

And, again, what a pathetic source. An old editorial from a college newspaper written by a self-proclaimed mens' activist who relies heavily on ... (guess who?) ... Farrell.

I think it is clear who is spreading false propaganda and lies, but I'll post some real stastics in my next post.

(@#%^@ jolt already ate this response once)

*Nearly 5.3 million intimate partner victimizations occur each year among U.S. women ages 18 and older. This violence results in nearly 2 million injuries and nearly 1,300 deaths (Centers for Disease Control, 2003 (http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/ipv_cost/index.htm))

*The US Department of Justice (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/ipv01.htm) (February 2003) reports that women were 85% of the victims of intimate violence (other than murder) in 2001. Previously (October 2001), the Department (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/ipva99.htm) had also reported that "Women accounted for 85% of the victims from among the more than 790,000 victims of intimate violence in 1999".

*In the United States, researchers estimate that 40% to 70% of female murder victims were killed by their husbands or boyfriends, frequently in the context of an ongoing abusive relationship. (Centers for Disease Control (http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/ipvfacts.htm)) On average, more than three women are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends in this country every day. In 2000, 1,247 women were killed by an intimate partner. The same year, 440 men were killed by an intimate partner.

*The National Institute of Justice (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/181867.htm) found in 2000 that "approximately 1.5 million women and 834,732 men are raped and/or physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually in the United States." Almost 25% of women, and 7.5% of men, had been raped and/or assaulted by a date or partner at some time in their lives. Women who were assaulted by an intimate sustained a higher number of assaults, and were more likely to have been injured in the most recent attack, than men who were assaulted. In addition, the study found that "503,485 women and 185,496 men are stalked by an intimate partner annually in the United States."

*According the US Department of Justice (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/vbi.htm) in 1994, "Annually, compared to males, females experienced over 10 times as many incidents of violence by an intimate. On average each year, women experienced over 572,000 violent victimizations committed by an intimate, compared to approximately 49,000 incidents committed against men."

*The Study of Injured Victims of Violence (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/vrithed.htm) (US Department of Justice, 1997) surveyed injuries treated in hospital emergency departments. 4.5% of male victims had been injured by an intimate, compared to 36.8% of the female victims. Of the 243,000 people who had been injured by an intimate, 39,000 (16%) were men and 204,000 (84%) were women. (In 30% of cases, the relationship between the injured person and their attacker was not identified.)

Among more statistics (http://www.abanet.org/domviol/stats.html):
*as many as 95% of domestic violence perpetrators are male.
(A Report of the Violence against Women Research Strategic Planning Workshop sponsored by the National Institute of Justice in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1995. )

*much of female violence is committed in self-defense, and inflicts less injury than male violence. (Chalk & King, eds., Violence in Families: Assessing Prevention & Treatment Programs, National Resource Council and Institute of Medicine, p. 42 (1998)).

Note: I cited objective, reliable sources with no feminist agenda. Do I really need to continue or is this sufficient?

Thankee, Cat.
Bozzy will probably go home in tears now.

Note: I cited objective, reliable sources with no feminist agenda. Do I really need to continue or is this sufficient?
Of course not, those places obviously either have a hidden feminist agenda or have fallen into the power of radical feminist, or are afraid to publish the REAL numbers. ;)

No, I don't believe the above, I though'd I'd get it out of the way before someone else did, and did so in all seriousness.

You used to, but can you really show me an example of something feminists have really had to do for equality recently?

In Canada, LEAF, the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, took on the case of a white British male who was hardly disadvantaged, but had nonetheless been discriminated against by the Law Society of British Columbia. They did it to advance equality rights under the Charter. For everyone.

Humorous, but irrelevant. The conditions you're talking about happened centuries ago.
Ah yes...because women all around the world enjoy the same freedom as western women. Honour killings? Feminist lies. Systematic rapes in South Africa? Feminist lies. The Taliban? History, and everything has been put to rights for Afghani women.

Liverbreath']Uh Oh- Failed to agree with with liberal thread police. One will happen by and you're toast because they are IWTVF.
You have every right to your opinion. You do not have the right to back it up with bunk. Defend yourself!

Bozzy seems to have cut and run from this thread as well.
Ah...the true definition of a troll...post and run.

Surely thats fighting for male rights, not female rights? (talking about changing Mat leave so that men can take the unused portion if the couple decide this)
Feminists fight for gender equity. For ALL genders.

Thats fighting for male equality...which is of course necessary, the masculinity crisis is actually beginning to turn the tables which has to be stopped before it does become hypocrisy. Besides, however you see it its not fighting for equality, its just lobbying for a change in rights. No, it's fighting for equality, which right now does not exist in the Maternity/Parental leave system of Canada. Fighting for a change in rights IS fighting for equality in this case. And it benefits everyone, not just men. It benefits the woman, should she choose to go back to work early, as someone is still able to stay with the children, and it benefits the children to have one of their parents (at the least) with them during this time.

Ridiculous. If you're going to say that, you could at least be equal-opportunity and advocate bringing back the patriarchy.
The patriarchy would actually have to be gone before you could 'bring it back'. :D

What do you mean? The patriarchy is dead, deader than Stalin's ghost.
Do you really think the West is the sum of the world? Is it unthinkable for you to look outside your borders and realise that the patriarchy on a global scale, is far from gone? Visit Pakistan if you doubt this.

Bah, what is it with you people and pointless bickering?

Ihatevacations']Did you miss my post in teh other topic? Its not that the abuse of women doesn't exist, it is just overplayed probably and that its that abuse of men exists as well
Clearly you miss the point in THIS topic. That is not what the OP has stated. Bozzy is saying that the abuse of men is at least equal to, if not MORE serious than the abuse of women, and any attempt to deny that (you know, with FACTS) is a feminist cover up.

Yes, men are abused. There is no doubt about it. And the stats will be a bit skewed as many women fail to report, and many more men fail to report. But when you look at unavoidable reportages (re: violent crime, ending in hospitalisation or murder), 3/4 of cases are WOMEN abused by men, not visa versa. Meaning, 25% are male victims. Yes, we need to take that seriously...more seriously than it is currently being taken. But we do NOT need to focus on men OVER women in some weird belief that they are somehow more important. Take it as it comes. If women are the majority of victims of violent abuse, focus your resources appropriately...but don't leave the minority of victims that are male.

Wow, only post five before a personal attack. Make fun of the findings before someone takes them serious. That was the same tactic those who opposed suffrage took.
That you are comparing the fight for suffrage to your attempt to make it seem as though men are being abused as much as women is...well, I'm not sure what it is, but it's awfully funny:)

Hey, my comments in no way will stop anyone from taking these findings seriously. I'm flattered you think I have that much power! Hopefully, reading through your 'findings' will allow people to make their own judgments as to the validity of the 'evidence'. Would you really want people to support you based solely on your assertations, without reviewing the evidence for themselves?

Making a gender issue here is insane, the fact is that domestic violence happens, it happens when men beat up women and vice versa. It doesn't matter if it happens more to women than to men, what matters is that each case is dealt with as an individual case not simply labeling the man a "wife beater". Violence happens in our homes, fact, the way to solve it is not to demonise one gender or the other its a matter of individual personality and character that determines whether or not you are going to beat your partner, not your sex.
I agree with everything except the idea that it doesn't matter that it happens more to women than to men. Of course it does. When you are raising money for shelters, do you divide the money equally between shelters for men and shelters for women? Why on earth would you do that, if the men's shelter is going to be sorely underused, and the women's shelter too crowded to be useful? There is looking at an issue with clear bias (all men are wife-beaters, so let's accuse them first in a domestic dispute) and there is looking at an issue based on trends (more women than men are battered,
and therefore need more resources to deal with the problem).

Ignoring the trends is tantamount to discrimination. It is like saying, sure, there are more patients with AIDS in the African continent than the North American one, but we are all human, and we are all equal, and we should therefore split the money for AIDS drugs right down the middle for the two continents to be fair. Not very effective, is it?

Although certain radical feminists have actually advocated abolishing the family, I can't really see both the family and the government being gotten rid of.
Yes, and certain radical mysoginists have advocated forbidding women to work, to study, to go out on the streets without a man's permission. And hey, guess what...these men actually have political power...unlike the feminazis everyone likes to imagine.

Well he did say that we are on our way.

Women are gaining higher and higher posts in the White House. More women-run companies are peeking into the Fortune 500 companies. Who's to say 20 years from now that this trend might not continue into something much bigger.
Goodness! We might even have 50/50 representation in government like *gasp* Rwanda and Wales! What barbarity! Truly, the matriarchy must stop before we become like Rwanda and Wales....look what the women have done there!

Just because it does not view gender equality through the same biased lense you do does not make it anti-feminist.
No, the fact that on every page it denounces feminists as feminazis, uses derogatory language to refer to feminists and completely let's any pretense of unbiased reporting fly out the window makes this source suspect AND anti-feminist:

Sometimes it seems the Gender Warriors will stop at nothing to get their way.
The fem-thugs
Here are just a few of their neo-Leninist tactics:
The rad-fems want to hoodwink the public and politicians that there's an epidemic of violence against women out there
That's their socialist vision of the future.
Their anti-feminist bias is so overwhelming, it's hard to wade through the ideological babbling enough to glean any real information out of this article. Which is sad, and counter-productive, because abuse against man is a serious issue that needs to be tackled. But again, not at the sake of women's programs, since despite all claims to the contrary by a few hysterical anti-feminists, is MORE of a problem and needs to be addressed as such.


grow up. Different people have differet opinions. Lableing them anti- something just because you cannot grasp their point is not constructive and small-minded.

I suppose only someone who does not care what happens to men could miss that.
Hi pot, I'm kettle.

Yea, I think she referred to you as a strawman because your first post said something along the lines of "Lets see how long it takes for ____ to say ____".

Now would someone explain to me what sites where biased, and why?
Read the first post for Dobb's sake!

You can't attack radical feminism with reason - you'll get shot down with character assassination. This thread demonstrates it pretty well I think.
Santa Barbara. Seriously. Did YOU read the links? Does this argument, in your mind, counteract the argument that others (not all of them are even feminists, by the way) make that MORE women than men are abused?

Bozzy has made no argument. Bozzy posted a couple of links, said, here, this proves my point that domestic violence is a feminist lie, then sits back and watches the fur fly. Since Bozzy seems disinclined to actually have a point, or defend it with anything but this set of links, perhaps you'll take up the shining sword of reason and cut through all this bullshit?

You can't attack radical feminism with reason -
And by the way...how is it RADICAL FEMINISM to look at the facts, and say, hey, lookey here...more women are victims of violent domestic crime than men? Is it racism to say, hey lookey here, more Africans die of AIDS than North Americans?

HOT! I definitely look forward to those days. As a matter of fact, many people (myself included) are already living in them.

Where and when are you living? I'd like to live there too. I still live in a country that is 51% female, but overwhelmingly run by males. I work in a company that is just about 51% female and 49% male, but 3/4 of the VP level positions (as well as the position of CEO) are held by males. I still live in a society where a female is paid, on average, 75% of the salary of a male. Granted, in the current generation, a female is likely to have slightly (read up to five years) less experience and can expect to make a proportionately lower salary. That proportion is not, however, 25%. The patriarchy, while not legally endorsed, still exists.

I don't ever want women to hold all positions of power. I don't ever want men to cower in fear of all of the women. I just hope for a day when there is equal representation in the government and private industries.

Is that too much to ask? Does that make me a "radical" feminist? I think not. I think it makes me someone who wishes for true gender equity. But, I'm sure you'll tell me I'm wrong.

B0zzy isn't saying that women's rights campeigners should deal with men's rights, he is saying that some of the women's organisations distort statisics and lie about what is really going on. No, he is saying that feminists, period do this. And how is it lying to say, more women are abused than men? When the facts clearly support this?

http://www.letswrap.com/dvinfo/stats.htm

http://www.rileycenter.org/domestic-violence-statistics.html

http://incestabuse.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fendabuse.org%2Ffacts%2F

http://www.mbcc.state.mt.us/sac/sdvstudy.shtml

Females were much more likely to be victims of sexual and domestic violence offenses than were males, while males were more likely to be victims of physical assault and homicides.
Read this quote carefully. Much like what Bozzy is presenting, it can be a bit confusing because the information on two different issues is presented together.

Women are the largest proportion of victims of domestic violence. Men are more likely to be victims of physical assaults and homicides. But not within domestic relationships. They are not being beaten and killed by their spouses...not the majority of times. They are more likely to be violently harmed by OTHER MEN, not within a relationship. So, focusing on providing help to women in abusive relationships makes sense. Focusing on providing help to men in general everyday life, where they may encounter NON-DOMESTIC violence makes sense.


Whatever the past was like, things are definately better for women now,
In some countries. IN SOME COUNTRIES. People, you need to understand that feminism is not a battle won, and in many nations, women are still second class citizens at best. Just because feminists have done a good job in the west of getting women's right up to par with men's, doesn't mean things have gone TOO far and that we should reject ALL feminism.

Only just, for less than 3 months...the Gender Recognition Act only came into force on the 4th of April!
So? It's still pretty far ahead of other nations. And you don't think people fought (feminists among them) for this legislation? That it came in all by itself? Even better, look at this as a current and recent victory.

*snip*
Cat, you are the coolest feminist I've ever had the pleasure to meet. Ever. :fluffle:

Bah, what is it with you people and pointless bickering?
Hahahahha...welcome to NS!

Go back to Counterearth, Bozzy.

Go back to Counterearth, Bozzy.

I second this.

And by the way...how is it RADICAL FEMINISM to look at the facts, and say, hey, lookey here...more women are victims of violent domestic crime than men? Is it racism to say, hey lookey here, more Africans die of AIDS than North Americans?

It's radical feminism to guys who beat their wives ;).

(snip) LOL

Do packs of wild feminists beat you up for posting crap like this?

I love the irony of you complaining about "dogma without question" and then your primary argument in the thread is "read my four links!."

Sorry, some of us are critical thinkers and recognize your bullshit.

(snip)




That could explain the illogical reasoning. :p

I second this.

Yes, I think Bozzy should try pulling his nose out of those Gor novels for a few minutes.

And by the way...how is it RADICAL FEMINISM to look at the facts, and say, hey, lookey here...more women are victims of violent domestic crime than men? Is it racism to say, hey lookey here, more Africans die of AIDS than North Americans?
According to some dumb bitch who wrote into our local paper it is, but thats neither here nor there

What do you mean? The patriarchy is dead, deader than Stalin's ghost.

How many female presidents or vice presidents has the US had again? Yep, sure is dead.

How many female presidents or vice presidents has the US had again? Yep, sure is dead.
But if ever there IS a female president, it will surely mean the Matriarchy is nigh...

But if ever there IS a female president, it will surely mean the Matriarchy is nigh...

Yuh, ever since Margaret Thatcher, we Britishers live under the maniacal rule of the Matriarch.... you've heard of us, surely? "The nanny state"? Can't talk long. Lights out.

:D

Santa Barbara. Seriously. Did YOU read the links? Does this argument, in your mind, counteract the argument that others (not all of them are even feminists, by the way) make that MORE women than men are abused?

Bozzy has made no argument. Bozzy posted a couple of links, said, here, this proves my point that domestic violence is a feminist lie, then sits back and watches the fur fly. Since Bozzy seems disinclined to actually have a point, or defend it with anything but this set of links, perhaps you'll take up the shining sword of reason and cut through all this bullshit?

First, I despise the absurd emphasis on finding "sources" on this forum. In my mind Bozzy was just satisfying the implied minimum requirement of having "sources" for any statement, as if nothing is valid unless it comes from an "unbiased source," which frankly just doesn't exist.

My shining sword of reason came into play when people fulfilled Bozzy's expectations by attacking his character (and of course the almighty 'sources') with really, all the reasonability of a pack of rabid wolves tearing into a carcass.

Further he's never said "domestic violence is a feminist lie" anywhere I can see, so I'd say that is just one example of reading too much into his statements in the effort to paint him as a demon. (Startingly similar to attempts to show I am pro-rape, or blaming the victim, in that Natalee Holloway thread.) Now his statements may or may not have validity, but they should be addressed instead of what people interpret his statements are, and definitely instead of who Bozzy is.

I still live in a society where a female is paid, on average, 75% of the salary of a male. Granted, in the current generation, a female is likely to have slightly (read up to five years) less experience and can expect to make a proportionately lower salary. That proportion is not, however, 25%.

Sorry, I dislike inaccuracy. The 25% figure does not account for women who took long periods off to support children, women who were housewives until very late in their life, level and type of education, etc. When comparing equal profession, equal experience, etc. the gap is less than seven cents and improving last I heard. It's really not a very accurate statistic and using it hurts your argument. I agree with everything else you said however.

First, I despise the absurd emphasis on finding "sources" on this forum.

Yeah, that stupid idea that people should support their arguments with data is just absurd. It's better to just suggest that all attempts to link your arguments to authorities on the matter is a waste of time. Those silly people are wasting their lives studying an issue why would we want to hear what they have to say on the subject.

But if ever there IS a female president, it will surely mean the Matriarchy is nigh...

When it's impossible for a man to get elected president and the vast majority of CEO's are women, then I think I'll agree that we live in a Matriarchy. Till then, I think I might not worry too much about the pendulem swinging too far.

By the way SB...I wasn't asking for unbiased sources, as such sources do not exist. But when the vast majority of sources support one thing, and a bare minimum of obviously hostile sources support another, based on conjectures, little evidence, and sleight-of hand (hey look! Women get beaten, but men are murdered more! Who cares that these are two different issues!), then yes, I will attack the 'source' as not credibly 'proving' or 'supporting' a point.

Well he did say that we are on our way.

Women are gaining higher and higher posts in the White House. More women-run companies are peeking into the Fortune 500 companies. Who's to say 20 years from now that this trend might not continue into something much bigger.

God, I hope it does continue. Since when is on our way to equality on our way to a Matriarchy? That's like saying if I was heading to Chicago from Austin you could say I was on my way to Canada. You can't. Because my intention is to go to Chicago. I'm no more on my way to Canada than I'm on my way to San Francisco.

Yeah, that stupid idea that people should support their arguments with data is just absurd. It's better to just suggest that all attempts to link your arguments to authorities on the matter is a waste of time. Those silly people are wasting their lives studying an issue why would we want to hear what they have to say on the subject.

Now now Jocabia, I know Bozzy has taken to posting in one thread to respond to another, does that mean you should do the same thing?

It is stupid because people argue about these "sources" instead of realizing that we are individuals who are largely arguing opinion. Hell why have arguments at all, why not just post links to other people who are arguing? That's what the absurd - yes, absurd - emphasis on finding "sources' for everything leads naturally to. Everyone parading around their representative authorities and being ever so careful not to contaminate things with their own thinking.

By the way SB...I wasn't asking for unbiased sources, as such sources do not exist. But when the vast majority of sources support one thing, and a bare minimum of obviously hostile sources support another, based on conjectures, little evidence, and sleight-of hand (hey look! Women get beaten, but men are murdered more! Who cares that these are two different issues!), then yes, I will attack the 'source' as not credibly 'proving' or 'supporting' a point.

But why is it OK to dismiss a source as being biased, and not to dismiss someone here for the same reason? Do these sources serve mainly as punching bags, virtual targets, proxies for the inclination towards ad hominem?

The vast majority of sources, by the way, are not necessarily factual for being in the vast majority. Ugh, democracy.

Oh no, not another JOCABIA VERSUS SANTA BARBARA thread....*runs for the hills*

But why is it OK to dismiss a source as being biased, and not to dismiss someone here for the same reason? Do these sources serve mainly as punching bags, virtual targets, proxies for the inclination towards ad hominem?

The vast majority of sources, by the way, are not necessarily factual for being in the vast majority. Ugh, democracy.
When you have a number of independent organisations gathering statistics from reliable sources, and coming up with the same stats, you can generally trust those stats, taking into account the margin of error and the limits of the original studies.

What people absolutely should be doing is looking at the sources, looking at the sources THESE sources use, and then deciding if they can be called 'credible' and use to back up any sort of argument. It's called critical thinking. Sources are important. I want to know where you are getting your information. If you latch onto one particular source, refuse to see any other evidence, and use that one source as the basis for your whole argument, be prepared to be called on it.

It becomes difficult however when people simply post links, or snatches of articles, then run off without actually making a point themselves. This leads to others making conjectures about their intent, conjectures which I feel are justified, since no other alternative has been given, and the sources themselves are presented as an argument. If you can't be bothered to say, "This is my argument, here is what I've found to back me up, bring it on", then don't bother posting.

(You in this sense is used in the third person impersonal, not second person direct)

When you have a number of independent organisations gathering statistics from reliable sources, and coming up with the same stats, you can generally trust those stats, taking into account the margin of error and the limits of the original studies.

What people absolutely should be doing is looking at the sources, looking at the sources THESE sources use, and then deciding if they can be called 'credible' and use to back up any sort of argument. It's called critical thinking. Sources are important. I want to know where you are getting your information. If you latch onto one particular source, refuse to see any other evidence, and use that one source as the basis for your whole argument, be prepared to be called on it.

Yeah, I guess I tend to go by the adage, "there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics" more than the collegiate emphasis on thesis statements backed by bibliographed annoted reference.

I think, when it comes to politics, it's all basically opinion and gray areas with facts and statistics playing a secondary role.

The reelection of GW Bush supports that statement. :)

I think, when it comes to politics, it's all basically opinion and gray areas with facts and statistics playing a secondary role.


Depends on the issue, doesn't it? You can have the opinion, for example, that more siamese cats get testicular cancer than tabbys...but your opinion equals shit unless you can somehow prove it. If you dredge up stats that seem to back you up, but others dredge up a bevy of stats from different sources proving you wrong, will it change your opinion? It might not...but it should at least prove you don't have much to base that opinion on.

My shining sword of reason came into play when people fulfilled Bozzy's expectations by attacking his character (and of course the almighty 'sources') with really, all the reasonability of a pack of rabid wolves tearing into a carcass.

im hoping you now acknowlege that his points have been adequately addressed.

Now now Jocabia, I know Bozzy has taken to posting in one thread to respond to another, does that mean you should do the same thing?

It is stupid because people argue about these "sources" instead of realizing that we are individuals who are largely arguing opinion. Hell why have arguments at all, why not just post links to other people who are arguing? That's what the absurd - yes, absurd - emphasis on finding "sources' for everything leads naturally to. Everyone parading around their representative authorities and being ever so careful not to contaminate things with their own thinking.

Generally, when people ask for sources they are asking for non-editorial sources. In other words, a reporting of the facts in either national newspapers, studies, statistics, etc. No one is saying, prove that other people think the same thing you think.

If men are victims of domestic violence more than women, link a source that shows the statistics and studies behind this.

If feminists are guilty of a coverup, link a source that shows them lying or covering up anything or link a source that shows them making a claim and another source that shows the statistics and studies that disprove that claim.

Things like the above are far more useful than "those feminazis are just trying oppress men". See the difference?

Oh no, not another JOCABIA VERSUS SANTA BARBARA thread....*runs for the hills*

we're being reasonable. Don't you start.

we're being reasonable. Don't you start.
Don't you always start that way? And we all know how it ends....*Sinuhue having to break you pups apart before you do each other damage*

hehehehee...KIDDING!

Don't you always start that way? And we all know how it ends....*Sinuhue having to break you pups apart before you do each other damage*

hehehehee...KIDDING!

You have never successfully broken me apart from someone I'm arguing with. Yes, that's right, I said arguing and not debating. Why pussyfoot around?

One of your links comes from a blatantly male chauvinist site. Why should we believe you about all these "true" studies?

I confess, I have yet to meet a "femin@zi" Most feminists I know just want men to stop beating the living sh!t out of their wives whenever they feel like it( and however many times you try to argue to the contrary, a lot of men do abuse their wives.) and purge the world of such bullsh!t as " Women are inferior because God says so" etc.

I respect your opinion, but like many other people on this thread, I think the thread is just slightly slanted. :D

I'm not going to be forced into taking up his exact arguments, so I'll only respond to this one paragraph.

Generally, when people ask for sources they are asking for non-editorial sources. In other words, a reporting of the facts in either national newspapers, studies, statistics, etc. No one is saying, prove that other people think the same thing you think.

Generally, I've found that when people ask for sources it's to initiate a discussion on the validity of those sources, immediately digressing the argument from mere contention to whose sources have the bigger proverbial penis. Maybe that's not how it should be, but that generally is how it seems to go. It winds up becoming a battle of, I dunno, Fox versus BBC, and at the very least risks going into an infinite regression of sources contradicting sources contradicting sources.

Yes, that's right, I said arguing and not debating. Why pussyfoot around?
That's all I wanted...an admission of guilt:)

Wow.. still going strong I see. I just love people with strong opinions on both sides.

Wow.. still going strong I see. I just love people with strong opinions on both sides.
Actually, I think we're just kind of bumping the thread (in effect), hoping that the opposing opinions will actually come back, state themselves, and defend themselves. It's kind of boring right now.

Actually, I think we're just kind of bumping the thread (in effect), hoping that the opposing opinions will actually come back, state themselves, and defend themselves. It's kind of boring right now.


hmmm well I could always flip flop on my position. :D

hmmm well I could always flip flop on my position. :D
Few people can play the Devil's Advocate convincingly enough to make it worth it:(. I'm waiting for Bozzy. Sorry.

Few people can play the Devil's Advocate convincingly enough to make it worth it:(. I'm waiting for Bozzy. Sorry.

Yeah I know. Most likely they will wait until everyone is gone before replying.

Q: how many men does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: none... let the bitch cook in the dark.


HAHAHAHAHAhahaha... oh, that's one of my favorites.

Q: how many men does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: none... let the bitch cook in the dark.


HAHAHAHAHAhahaha... oh, that's one of my favorites.


:rolleyes:

oh come on, now... you know that's funny (in a tasteless sort of way).

oh come on, now... you know that's funny (in a tasteless sort of way).


Actually I didn't think it was funny one bit.

why did you not think that it was funny?

why did you not think that it was funny?
*witnesses the slow death of this thread*

why did you not think that it was funny?

I view it as a pathetic attempt to garner attention by posting such a tasteless joke in a thread like this.

*witnesses the slow death of this thread*


I know what you mean. I guess that means I should finally make that call to Toronto. :cool:

I view it as a pathetic attempt to garner attention by posting such a tasteless joke in a thread like this.

wow... what a contemptuous response. congratulations on that. i love self-righteousness.

I view it as an attempt to garner attention by posting such a tasteless joke in a thread like this.
Okay Poison and Rice...take out 'pathetic' and does this quote not accurately define your posting of that joke? What else did you want out of it but attention?

Definition of Feminism (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=feminism) as provided by dictionary.com

Feminism is based on ideals of gender equality, not female superiority. A feminist is one who supports such ideals. One who believes in female superiorty is generally referred to as a "feminazi". :)

Definition of Feminism (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=feminism) as provided by dictionary.com

Feminism is based on ideals of gender equality, not female superiority. A feminist is one who supports such ideals. One who believes in female superiorty is generally referred to as a "feminazi". :)

Woohoo for dictionaries!

*passes out cookies to all... except for B0zzy*

Okay Poison and Rice...take out 'pathetic' and does this quote not accurately define your posting of that joke? What else did you want out of it but attention?

hell, i just wanted to lighten the mood a little bit. while tasteless jokes aren't my favorite, i do find that they make people laugh (especially strangers). people think to themselves: "wow, did he really just say that?" and then chuckle a little as they revel in the idiocy of the joke's assumptions.

i was a little taken aback at poet's response, as i wouldnt have thought that s/he would get so offended by a harmless one-liner. everyone is so serious on this forum. ah well.

I'm not going to be forced into taking up his exact arguments, so I'll only respond to this one paragraph.



Generally, I've found that when people ask for sources it's to initiate a discussion on the validity of those sources, immediately digressing the argument from mere contention to whose sources have the bigger proverbial penis. Maybe that's not how it should be, but that generally is how it seems to go. It winds up becoming a battle of, I dunno, Fox versus BBC, and at the very least risks going into an infinite regression of sources contradicting sources contradicting sources.

Well, in this case I'd love for him to come up with any non-editorial sources that support his case and haven't been thoroughly debunked. Perhaps he could come up with a better source than iFeminist. More importantly what does violence against men that occurs by strangers have to do with domestic violence? What does the lower incidence of men going to doctors, while a big problem, have to do with "the feminist lie" or domestic violence? Seperately, many feminists including Dem and Sinuhue have argued that the general tendency of men to avoid doctors is a problem and that it is a part of the gender roles that should be corrected. I don't see anything in those sources that says anything other than "I don't like feminism" a whole bunch of different ways. They make an unfocused and mostly unreasonable argument that a bunch of unrelated issues show that feminists are wrong to focus any energy on the domestic violence of men on women.

hell, i just wanted to lighten the mood a little bit. while tasteless jokes aren't my favorite, i do find that they make people laugh (especially strangers). people think to themselves: "wow, did he really just say that?" and then chuckle a little as they revel in the idiocy of the joke's assumptions.

i was a little taken aback at poet's response, as i wouldnt have thought that s/he would get so offended by a harmless one-liner. everyone is so serious on this forum. ah well.
Don't worry about it to much. You'll often be misunderstood, taken out of context, attacked, defended, cut up, cut down, fluffled, gunged and generally run through the gamit. Welcome to NS!!!

in responce to all of the active feminists groups, we out here on this little island prison called mv have started a sister gourp (no pun intended) of the popular feminist group, winfo, called MANFO. this is a small, rather young group of guys (and girls) devoted to the fact that men infact do have rights of their own. and before people start their bitching, we acctually have the support of winfo. just alittle fun fact about the island of mv that few ppl know. its a rather interesting group, we have a small web site and are hoping to get more members when next school year starts, its guna be kinda dormant for the summer

hell, i just wanted to lighten the mood a little bit. while tasteless jokes aren't my favorite, i do find that they make people laugh (especially strangers). people think to themselves: "wow, did he really just say that?" and then chuckle a little as they revel in the idiocy of the joke's assumptions.

i was a little taken aback at poet's response, as i wouldnt have thought that s/he would get so offended by a harmless one-liner. everyone is so serious on this forum. ah well.


Sorry for the grump attitude. I wasn't really offended I was just in the midst of a low sugar crash. I even bitched at my girlfriend. :( I said sorry to her so I'm saying sorry to you as well.

I am not sure of the point you are trying to make here, could you please clarify it? Historically, condoms were the ONLY method of birth control (that worked, dancing naked around stone pillars or using Coke in a way it was never intended for doesn't count. ;) ). However, this assumed that a woman was able to get a guy to wear one. Birth control was fully in control of the guy, and the woman had very little say in this. Male birth control pills have had a slow development due to more guys being unwilling to do ANYTHING that might possibly rob or reduce their manly virtality (which I think is unfair, I'd be more than happy to take one).

*heh* It's really shown in how birth control pills are not covered by medical insurance in some places, but viagra is.

AFIK condoms also are not covered by medical insurance. -Keep it aples to apples. The birth control pill for women has ben out nearly fifty years now. Making the point that for a long time the women had no option does not invalidate the case that today they have far more otions than men and not enough is being do to balance that. Your assumption on the reason why the male birth control pill is slow in development is steeped in stereotype - unless you can demostrate to me how that presumption was determined. AFIK the vast majority of men would welcome a male birth control pill. Here is just one example;
http://www.menweb.org/wchtop10.htm item #2
and
http://www.menweb.org/menmag/svofarre.htm
"Why is it that we have a women's birth control pill and not a men's birth control pill? Can you imagine what the feminists would be doing if we had a men's birth control pill and not a women's birth control pill? And if men said, "It doesn't make any difference. If I tell you I'm on the pill, I'm on the pill, and you can trust me." They would be saying, "You must be kidding." Yet we as men are expected when a woman says, "Trust me" to trust her even though she can be saying she is on the pill and not be, and when she discovers herself pregnant, she can either tell us or not tell us, she can get an abortion or not get an abortion, she can raise the child alone for 18 years oftentimes in many states and tell us retroactively and we are retroactively responsible for child support."

(@#%^@ jolt already ate this response once)

That MUST have sucked! On long posts I often will highlight the test and copy it(right mouse click) to avoid potential frustration. You may want to try that out.

Your two posts are quite lengthy and include several links, which I will actually follow and read (unlike many on NS who just assume) You do know my conn is limited to dial-up for the time being so it may take a while.

At first blush I expect that the studies are all on reported crime - which is not an accurate measure. Just as men don't like going to the doctor they also don't call the police when their SO is abusing them. Police are also considerably more likely to dismiss it as inconcenquential in the rare event they are called. This is only a guess at this point. I have little doubt that there are enough anomolies to call these sources into question.

Meanwhile, when there are multiple studies that demonstrate men are abused with relatively equal frequency, why is that the feminists here run to the front and shout NO! NO! IT ISN'T SO! and claim the suggestion is somehow anti-feminist? What is so threatening to them about the idea that this is a problem that affects men and wome equally? Note my every thread has been about the equal treatment of men yet most of the radical feminists have responded with anger, sarcasm, ridicule and other negative affect to the idea. (Or trained others to do it for them)

Where is the equality?

*snipage*
Women do not have "many" more options in birth control.
Known (and effective methods) are:
Condoms
Medication
Sterilization

Of those three catagories, only medication is not avalible for both sexes, currently. That's hardly a rage of choices for the ladies above men.

And by the way, birth control pills, nasty side effects included, retail for a great deal more than a pack of condoms. You don't find them in a vending machine for 50 cents either so your counter point makes no sence.

I would state though that yes, many men do NOT want to be invloved in birth control process. You're positing about how a guys just has to take it on trust that a woman is on birth control proved that in and of itself. Why not simply wear a condom if you do not know for sure? Also, women have had to listen to men swearing they'll pull out in time for years. For the most part, men tend to put the onus of birth control on women, and I would state that yes, this is due to irrational fears of being less manly. Many cultures around the globe run into this same situation, which is why there is such a population explosion because men will NOT use any form of birth control on their own.

By the way, I also posted some links for you that shot down your orginal posting, did you not read them?

That MUST have sucked! On long posts I often will highlight the test and copy it(right mouse click) to avoid potential frustration. You may want to try that out.

Your two posts are quite lengthy and include several links, which I will actually follow and read (unlike many on NS who just assume) You do know my conn is limited to dial-up for the time being so it may take a while.

At first blush I expect that the studies are all on reported crime - which is not an accurate measure. Just as men don't like going to the doctor they also don't call the police when their SO is abusing them. Police are also considerably more likely to dismiss it as inconcenquential in the rare event they are called. This is only a guess at this point. I have little doubt that there are enough anomolies to call these sources into question.

Meanwhile, when there are multiple studies that demonstrate men are abused with relatively equal frequency, why is that the feminists here run to the front and shout NO! NO! IT ISN'T SO! and claim the suggestion is somehow anti-feminist? What is so threatening to them about the idea that this is a problem that affects men and wome equally? Note my every thread has been about the equal treatment of men yet most of the radical feminists have responded with anger, sarcasm, ridicule and other negative affect to the idea. (Or trained others to do it for them)

Where is the equality?

Show me one source (you say their are multiple studies) that shows that men are abused by their mates with equal frequency that hasn't been disputed by the scientists behind the studies it's based on (your iFeminist source has this particular difficulty). The numbers given by Cat show the number of women hospitalized and killed by their significant others is dramatically higher than men. How are men hiding their deaths? How are men hiding their hospitalization any better than women (remember most women that are in this type of relationship aren't owning up either)? Even logically you can't support your premise even if you did have any studies that supported your claim. Now if you really have studies, why don't you link to the actual studies and not editorialized sources? Most of your sources don't even focus on domestic violence and instead focus on the lower life expectancy and the violence that occurs outside the home.

AFIK condoms also are not covered by medical insurance. -Keep it aples to apples. The birth control pill for women has ben out nearly fifty years now. Making the point that for a long time the women had no option does not invalidate the case that today they have far more otions than men and not enough is being do to balance that. Your assumption on the reason why the male birth control pill is slow in development is steeped in stereotype - unless you can demostrate to me how that presumption was determined. AFIK the vast majority of men would welcome a male birth control pill. Here is just one example;
http://www.menweb.org/wchtop10.htm item #2
and
http://www.menweb.org/menmag/svofarre.htm
"Why is it that we have a women's birth control pill and not a men's birth control pill? Can you imagine what the feminists would be doing if we had a men's birth control pill and not a women's birth control pill? And if men said, "It doesn't make any difference. If I tell you I'm on the pill, I'm on the pill, and you can trust me." They would be saying, "You must be kidding." Yet we as men are expected when a woman says, "Trust me" to trust her even though she can be saying she is on the pill and not be, and when she discovers herself pregnant, she can either tell us or not tell us, she can get an abortion or not get an abortion, she can raise the child alone for 18 years oftentimes in many states and tell us retroactively and we are retroactively responsible for child support."

Last I checked I could get condoms for free at almost any clinic I walk into and on most college campuses. Show me where they're giving away birth control pills. Men currently a very viable option to prevent the woman getting pregnant. Women have a viable, very effective, but less effective than condoms, way to prevent pregnancy which almost always causes side-effects of one kind or another (weight gain, acne, chemical imbalance, etc.). To suggest that this somehow amounts to inequity really requires one to ignore the facts surrounding birth control. Your complaints about the level of control that women have once pregnancy occurs is shaking your fist at nature. No one gave that control to women. They have it because they are born with it. Shake your fist at the wind if you like.

Interesting side note on this whole birth control discussion:

There is currently a type of male birth control that has been tested on mammals (but not humans, that I know of), which consists of a single injection that can be calibrated to prevent a male from impregnating anybody for between 6 months and three years. It works by mucking with the pH of the urethra (the tube in the penis that semen and urine come out of), and upsetting the pH will neutralize any sperm that pass through it. There is also a method of male birth control that has been used for centuries in parts of Asia, in which the man immerses his testicles in very warm water for about 45 minutes each day for three weeks. The whole reason men have external testes is because sperm need to be kept at a lower temperature than our internal body temperature, so exposure to the warm water will kill the sperm. One could theoretically acheive this effect by simply soaking in a hottub regularly.

However, research into male birth control has been stalled for a very practical reason: it's simply not as profitable. If a couple can use hot tubbing for birth control, how can the pharmaceutical companies make money off of contraceptives? If a man can just get one shot once every three years, why should his wife/girlfriend waste money for birth control pills every month, especially since he would not experience the hormone-related side effects that her birth control might cause? Why should anybody spring for condoms, if birth control could be this simple? Since there isn't much potential for profit, nobody is funding this research, and some people even speculate that there is a concerted effort to BLOCK such research.

It's kind of interesting to speculate about a world in which men would be primarily responsible for birth control. Imagine if men could no longer blame a woman for missing a pill, or could no longer claim they were "tricked" into being the father of somebody's baby. Imagine if women weren't the ones expected to bear the weight of pregnancy-prevention, and if men lost their ability to whine that women get all the choices. (Which is funny, in and of itself...we "get" to face the choice between 9 months of pregnancy followed by agonizing labor, or getting an abortion.) I think the sexual politics of our society would change quite a bit.

Interesting side note on this whole birth control discussion:

There is currently a type of male birth control that has been tested on mammals (but not humans, that I know of), which consists of a single injection that can be calibrated to prevent a male from impregnating anybody for between 6 months and three years. It works by mucking with the pH of the urethra (the tube in the penis that semen and urine come out of), and upsetting the pH will neutralize any sperm that pass through it. There is also a method of male birth control that has been used for centuries in parts of Asia, in which the man immerses his testicles in very warm water for about 45 minutes each day for three weeks. The whole reason men have external testes is because sperm need to be kept at a lower temperature than our internal body temperature, so exposure to the warm water will kill the sperm. One could theoretically acheive this effect by simply soaking in a hottub regularly.

However, research into male birth control has been stalled for a very practical reason: it's simply not as profitable. If a couple can use hot tubbing for birth control, how can the pharmaceutical companies make money off of contraceptives? If a man can just get one shot once every three years, why should his wife/girlfriend waste money for birth control pills every month, especially since he would not experience the hormone-related side effects that her birth control might cause? Why should anybody spring for condoms, if birth control could be this simple? Since there isn't much potential for profit, nobody is funding this research, and some people even speculate that there is a concerted effort to BLOCK such research.

It's kind of interesting to speculate about a world in which men would be primarily responsible for birth control. Imagine if men could no longer blame a woman for missing a pill, or could no longer claim they were "tricked" into being the father of somebody's baby. Imagine if women weren't the ones expected to bear the weight of pregnancy-prevention, and if men lost their ability to whine that women get all the choices. (Which is funny, in and of itself...we "get" to face the choice between 9 months of pregnancy followed by agonizing labor, or getting an abortion.) I think the sexual politics of our society would change quite a bit.
Shhhhh... you're ruining the big feminist coverup.

Meanwhile, when there are multiple studies that demonstrate men are abused with relatively equal frequency, why is that the feminists here run to the front and shout NO! NO! IT ISN'T SO! and claim the suggestion is somehow anti-feminist? Because the studies are suspect. Equal frequency?


What is so threatening to them about the idea that this is a problem that affects men and wome equally?

We refute the assertation that domestic abuse affects men and women equally because there is very little credible evidence that it does. Abuse might happen at a 50/50 ratio (I doubt it, but lets just say it did), but that still does not mean it AFFECTS men and women equally. Women tend to end up in the hospital, or dead, much more than men (caused by violence from a spouse, not other types of violence). So how is there 'equality'? If you ignore the stats of reported abuse as not representative, because of how many likely DON'T report, that's fine. Look ONLY at the stats of crimes that MUST BE reported. Violent domestic crime ending in hospitalisation and death. That alone shows you the issue is not equally affecting women and men. Pointing this out is not a 'feminist coverup'.

I got to page 10 and then skipped a lot... I'll get back to it after I have lunch, but I just wanted to say that with the suicide stats, men succeed in commiting suicide more, but women attempt to do so more. I can't recall the exact %, but most suicide attempts are women and most successful ones are men. Both sexes commit suicide or give a good try, men are just better at killing themselves it seems.

And at any rate, I think what men need is their own movement like the feminist movement, not so much to reassert their dominance, but to define new roles for themselves. Much of the anti-feminist backlash appears to be from men who are insecure with the fact that women are capable of the bread winning role. I think perhaps men need to realize they can adopt roles that are traditionally feminine ones just as easily as women can adopt roles that are traditionally masculine.

whoa the thread has come back to life. *sits back to enjoy the new show*

I got to page 10 and then skipped a lot... I'll get back to it after I have lunch, but I just wanted to say that with the suicide stats, men succeed in commiting suicide more, but women attempt to do so more. I can't recall the exact %, but most suicide attempts are women and most successful ones are men. Both sexes commit suicide or give a good try, men are just better at killing themselves it seems.

And at any rate, I think what men need is their own movement like the feminist movement, not so much to reassert their dominance, but to define new roles for themselves. Much of the anti-feminist backlash appears to be from men who are insecure with the fact that women are capable of the bread winning role. I think perhaps men need to realize they can adopt roles that are traditionally feminine ones just as easily as women can adopt roles that are traditionally masculine.

I very much agree that there is need to help men understand that it is okay to adopt new roles and that engaging in traditionally feminine activities does not make you gay or effeminate.

And at any rate, I think what men need is their own movement like the feminist movement, not so much to reassert their dominance, but to define new roles for themselves. Much of the anti-feminist backlash appears to be from men who are insecure with the fact that women are capable of the bread winning role. I think perhaps men need to realize they can adopt roles that are traditionally feminine ones just as easily as women can adopt roles that are traditionally masculine.
I agree...much of the male opposition to feminism that I have encountered seems to be centered on men being affronted at the notion that women don't need them. If women can bring home the bacon, run the household, and rear the children, then men become "expendable" in some people's eyes. Personally, I think it would be great if men realized that they don't "need" women, either, and that men can earn a living, run the house, and rear the kids if they want. I don't think male-female interaction should be based on some perceived need, since we actually only need each other for the biological process of beginning a baby (and perhaps not that much, soon). Men don't NEED women, and women don't NEED men, but that doesn't make our relationships less valuable or important. If anything, it makes them more wonderful, because we work together out of joy, out of pleasure at the companionship, out of a desire to work together and build a more complex life, and (most importantly) out of conscious choice rather than blind need. We're not just shackled to one another due to mutual incompetance, we willing companions.

People who try to perpetuate stereotypes of weak feminity or domestically-incompetant masculinity are probably just trying to hide their own failings. I don't see why we all should have to sink to that level.

I agree...much of the male opposition to feminism that I have encountered seems to be centered on men being affronted at the notion that women don't need them. If women can bring home the bacon, run the household, and rear the children, then men become "expendable" in some people's eyes. Personally, I think it would be great if men realized that they don't "need" women, either, and that men can earn a living, run the house, and rear the kids if they want. I don't think male-female interaction should be based on some perceived need, since we actually only need each other for the biological process of beginning a baby (and perhaps not that much, soon). Men don't NEED women, and women don't NEED men, but that doesn't make our relationships less valuable or important. If anything, it makes them more wonderful, because we work together out of joy, out of pleasure at the companionship, out of a desire to work together and build a more complex life, and (most importantly) out of conscious choice rather than blind need. We're not just shackled to one another due to mutual incompetance, we willing companions.

People who try to perpetuate stereotypes of weak feminity or domestically-incompetant masculinity are probably just trying to hide their own failings. I don't see why we all should have to sink to that level.

*claps* Well said.

*snip*
As much as I hate to do this, I'm going to have to agree with you. *looks up to see if pigs are in fact flying*:)

As much as I hate to do this, I'm going to have to agree with you. *looks up to see if pigs are in fact flying*:)

Even when you're being nice, you're kind of bitchy ;-)

Even when you're being nice, you're kind of bitchy ;-)
Wouldn't you suspect I was ill, if this weren't true?

Bottle is one of the few posters on NS that I can not stand to get into a debate with, because we are so far from each other in terms of beliefs systems, we might as well treat each other as alien lifeforms:). Usually we can only agree to disagree, so when I ACTUALLY agree with her, it shocks me to my very core!

Wouldn't you suspect I was ill, if this weren't true?

Bottle is one of the few posters on NS that I can not stand to get into a debate with, because we are so far from each other in terms of beliefs systems, we might as well treat each other as alien lifeforms:). Usually we can only agree to disagree, so when I ACTUALLY agree with her, it shocks me to my very core!

That's odd, cuz when you guys agree I turns me on a little. Dem and I have been agreeing a lot lately. If we can agree who can't?

That's odd, cuz when you guys agree I turns me on a little. Dem and I have been agreeing a lot lately. If we can agree who can't?
Ah...but you two are basically working from the same framework. The difference in belief systems between Bottle and I are much more core, and make it nearly impossible to agree on most issues.

That being said, I can find some commonality will almost anyone, but sometimes, there isn't much of a reason to.

Ah...but you two are basically working from the same framework. The difference in belief systems between Bottle and I are much more core, and make it nearly impossible to agree on most issues.

That being said, I can find some commonality will almost anyone, but sometimes, there isn't much of a reason to.

Ah, and again we see the sharp edges. I agree with Bottle on occasion and you on occasion. I guess that makes me the reasonable one of the three of us.

By the way what happened to Bozzy? Too hard to make up evidence to support his claim?

Hey, Bozzy, counterearth is on the other side of the sun.

Feminist coverup? Now that is just nonsense. What are they covering up? That women secretly like being told what to do?

Everyknowledge:

I'm not trying to burn anyone, but I must admit using a dictionary entry for one of your arguments seems strange to me. An entry in a dictionary is ONE person's ( or group of people's) interpretation of what a word means.

Also to B0zzy:

Let me just say: I don't agree with you about feminists. True, every barrel has it's bad apples, but the argument that right-wing pundits jump to when denouncing all sorts of egalitarian movements ( after, of course, "It's anti-family!") is that the group in question is trying to ascertain dominance over all other groups, rather than equality. And I think that that argument SUCKS.

Originally posted by: Jocabia
Wheres B0zzy? Too hard to make up evidence to support his claim?

He does seem to have cut and run, doesn't he? But as I just posted:
His argument SUCKS. :D

Everyknowledge:

I'm not trying to burn anyone, but I must admit using a dictionary entry for one of your arguments seems strange to me. An entry in a dictionary is ONE person's ( or group of people's) interpretation of what a word means.

Also to B0zzy:

Let me just say: I don't agree with you about feminists. True, every barrel has it's bad apples, but the argument that right-wing pundits jump to when denouncing all sorts of egalitarian movements ( after, of course, "It's anti-family!") is that the group in question is trying to ascertain dominance over all other groups, rather than equality. And I think that that argument SUCKS.

Yeah, it's crazy for there to be places that help give a universal meaning to a word. What silliness it is to do that. It's much better for everyone to just have their own personal meaning so no one can understand each other.

By the way what happened to Bozzy? Too hard to make up evidence to support his claim?


I do not know. Maybe just taking a break and waiting for those who can refute his claims to leave again.

Sheesh. No need to be all sarcastic. I wasn't trying to burn anyone! I'm just saying, however much you wish it were otherwise, Jocabia, that terms like feminism are subjective. To liberals and progressives, it means equality for women. For people like B0zzy, it means this:

" The modern feminist movement isn't about equality for women. Its a socialist anti-family ( Aha!) movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their babies, become lesbians, and practice witchcraft."
Pat Robertson

So, please Jocabia, take a hint and stop burning people.

Sheesh. No need to be all sarcastic. I wasn't trying to burn anyone! I'm just saying, however much you wish it were otherwise, Jocabia, that terms like feminism are subjective. To liberals and progressives, it means equality for women. For people like B0zzy, it means this:

" The modern feminist movement isn't about equality for women. Its a socialist anti-family ( Aha!) movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their babies, become lesbians, and practice witchcraft."
Pat Robertson

So, please Jocabia, take a hint and stop burning people.

The problem is that while people bend words to make them mean something that fits their agenda, modern feminism has a specific definition and Pat Robertson didn't write it. It encourages none of those things. It just says that it's not up to Pat Robertson to decide. That's not an interpretation. It's a fact. Find me one feminist that ever said, kill your babies or go 'become' a lesbian', etc. Because propaganda exists does not change the meanings of words. However, I'll agree with you that a word like feminism is better defined by an encyclopedia.

EDIT: It was my intention to point out the need for dictionaries and strict definitions of words. I wasn't trying to burn anyone. If you were not talking about dictionary use in general, but for the definition of feminism, it would have helped to say so. I would have agreed with you.

Actually I met a feminist on another thread who said it was a good idea to "encourage" young women to become lesbians. I'm not homophobic, but it seems to me that, even if it were possible to force someone to change their sexual orientation, forcing straight girls to become lesbians would be just as wrong as forcing lesbians to become straight. Which doesn't really matter because you can't do either.

The problem is that while people bend words to make them mean something that fits their agenda, modern feminism has a specific definition and Pat Robertson didn't write it. It encourages none of those things. It just says that it's not up to Pat Robertson to decide. That's not an interpretation. It's a fact. Find me one feminist that ever said, kill your babies or go 'become' a lesbian', etc. Because propaganda exists does not change the meanings of words. However, I'll agree with you that a word like feminism is better defined by an encyclopedia.

(snip)



I cannot stand Pat Robertson. He is a goofy looking man if I ever saw one and while he tries to make sense of alot of issues more often than not he fails.

Well he would make a lot more sense if he thought the truth was a good platform to start from.

The problem is that while people bend words to make them mean something that fits their agenda, modern feminism has a specific definition and Pat Robertson didn't write it. It encourages none of those things. It just says that it's not up to Pat Robertson to decide. That's not an interpretation. It's a fact. Find me one feminist that ever said, kill your babies or go 'become' a lesbian', etc. Because propaganda exists does not change the meanings of words. However, I'll agree with you that a word like feminism is better defined by an encyclopedia.

(snip)


I cannot stand Pat Robertson. He is a goofy looking man if I ever saw one and while he tries to make sense of alot of issues more often than not he fails. It is almost like he wants to be a Pat Buchanan.. spelling there.

Actually I met a feminist who said it was a good idea to "encourage" young women to become lesbians. I'm not homophobic, but it seems to me that, even if it were possible to force someone to change their sexual orientation, forcing straight girls to become lesbians would be just as wrong as forcing lesbians to become straight. Which doesn't really matter because you can't do either.

Yes and I met a christian who said God was an alien, but if I defined Christianity as having a believe that God is an alien I would be wrong. I agree with your point that you can't force women to become either.

Sometimes I think Pat Robertson can be cool. For example I saw him on a commercial for a non-profit organization that is advocating helping the victims of the tsunami that happened last December. But seven or eight times out of ten, I think his positions on issues are screwed up.

The problem is that while people bend words to make them mean something that fits their agenda, modern feminism has a specific definition and Pat Robertson didn't write it. It encourages none of those things. It just says that it's not up to Pat Robertson to decide. That's not an interpretation. It's a fact. Find me one feminist that ever said, kill your babies or go 'become' a lesbian', etc. Because propaganda exists does not change the meanings of words. However, I'll agree with you that a word like feminism is better defined by an encyclopedia.

/applauds

Well he would make a lot more sense if he thought the truth was a good platform to start from.


So very true but he will never change as long as people support him.

Sometimes I think Pat Robertson can be cool. For example I saw him on a commercial for a non-profit organization that is advocating helping the victims of the tsunami that happened last December. But seven or eight times out of ten, I think his positions on issues are screwed up.

Screwed up, scary and out of touch with reality.

Sometimes I think Pat Robertson can be cool. For example I saw him on a commercial for a non-profit organization that is advocating helping the victims of the tsunami that happened last December. But seven or eight times out of ten, I think his positions on issues are screwed up.

Yes and Hitler did some good things for the economy. I have nothing good to say about either of them. He damages our country by spreading lies, often malicious lies that keep people from supporting important and necessary causes like gay rights (which are protected by the constitution).

Yes and Hitler did some good things for the economy. I have nothing good to say about either of them. He damages our country by spreading lies, often malicious lies that keep people from supporting important and necessary causes like gay rights (which are protected by the constitution).


applauds. :)

applauds. :)

Stop applauding everybody. I have to get out of my office.

Oh, screw it!

*gets up on a soapbox*

Four score and seven years ago.. I had a dream...that you would ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country... I'm Samual Jackson, bitch!

EDIT: I think I just condemn Dave Chappelle to assassination. Everyone else I quoted has already been assassinated. Whoops!

I have this link to this bibliography that says that women are as likely to abuse as men.


"SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 170 scholarly investigations: 134 empirical studies and 36 reviews and/or analyses, which 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 152,500. "
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

I haven't been able to dispute the claim of this since these kind of surveys aren't made in my country, it is not spoken of or noticed, most people just laugh about women being able to hurt their spouse.

Stop applauding everybody. I have to get out of my office.

Oh, screw it!

*gets up on a soapbox*

Four score and seven years ago.. I had a dream...that you would ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country... I'm Samual Jackson, bitch!

EDIT: I think I just condemn Dave Chappelle to assassination. Everyone else I quoted has already been assassinated. Whoops!


LOL no you have to stay at work.

I have this link to this bibliography that says that women are as likely to abuse as men.


"SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 170 scholarly investigations: 134 empirical studies and 36 reviews and/or analyses, which 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 152,500. "
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

I haven't been able to dispute the claim of this since this kind of surveys aren't made in my country, it is not spoken of or noticed, most people just laugh about women being able to hurt their spouse.

Can you link to any of these studies? I read through them at least one of them suggested the number of reported cases of spousal abuse is similar among the sexes which seems to disagree with the department of Justice as posted earlier. I would like to see how these figures were acquired. Nearly all nationally collected statistics on medical and legal cases involving spousal abuse suggest that male on female abuse is far more common. I also noticed that some of the studies focused on violence and not on spousal abuse, meaning that a barfight would be included. Also important is what did they classify as abuse. How were the questions asked? For example, did they say have you ever hit a person you're dating? This is open for interpretation. I hit one of my coworkers today, but it would hardly count as abuse (we were goofing around at the batting cages). These are important questions to ask of these types of studies because how you collect the data can greatly affect the turnout.

On the other side, the one in four number often quoted as the number of women who have been raped originally came from a survey in a magazine (I believe Young Miss) that asked "has a man every given you alcohol in order to encourage you to sleep with him?" If the answer was yes, then they were raped. If that's the case then my mother has been raping my father for years.

I have this link to this bibliography that says that women are as likely to abuse as men.


"SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 170 scholarly investigations: 134 empirical studies and 36 reviews and/or analyses, which 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 152,500. "
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

I haven't been able to dispute the claim of this since these kind of surveys aren't made in my country, it is not spoken of or noticed, most people just laugh about women being able to hurt their spouse.
Thank you for this link!

Looking into it, here are some good snippets to discuss:

Meta-analyses of sex differences in physical aggression indicate that women were more likely than men to “use one or more acts of physical aggression and to use such acts more frequently.” In terms of injuries, women were somewhat more likely to be injured, and analyses reveal that 62% of those injured were women.
So women can be physically aggressive too (hard to define...are they punching in anger, or shoving in fun? Also hard to define with men, so let's just take this at face value.) However, it would seem that men cause more HARM to the women.

Sex differences in physically aggressive acts between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7, 213-351. (Analyzing responses to the Conflict Tactic Scale and using a data set somewhat different from the previous 2000 publication, the author reports that women are more likely than men to throw something at their partners, as well as slap, kick, bite, punch and hit with an object. Men were more likely than women to strangle, choke, or beat up their partners.
See how taking this out of context could be bad? This is about behaviour during AGRESSIVE hetero sex. Re, violent sex. And guess what? It's violent!:)

Both men and women had similar experience with dating violence, 19% of women and 18% of men admitted being physically aggressive. A significantly greater percentage of women thought self-defense was a legitimate reason for men to be aggressive, while a greater percentage of men thought slapping was a legitimate response for a man or woman if their partner was sexually unfaithful.
So women may become violent in self defense, while men may become violent for other reasons. Clearly, our ideas about what is 'justified' violence are gender biased, and need to be examined on both sides. However, we can't tell who is causing more damage...

Who kills whom in spouse killings? On the exceptional sex ratio of spousal homicides in the United States. Criminology, 30, 189-215. (Authors summarize research which indicates that between 1976 and 1985, for every 100 men who killed their wives, about 75 women killed their husbands. Authors report original data from a number of cities, e.g., Chicago, Detroit, Houston, where the ratio of wives as perpetrators exceeds that of husbands
So, it would seem that women kill their husbands at a rate 3/4 that of men...yet it is pointed out this study used stats from cities where the ratio of wives as perpetrators is higher (than average).

In any case, this is an excellent link, with many sources that could be further examined. However, while it seems to be saying that women are as likely to abuse as men, the evidence doesn't support that this level of abuse is EQUAL. Meaning, the men still do more serious violent damage. It is simply looking at the stats from a different viewpoint, to be more inclusive, and to focus on men. Do you have the actual paper presented? I'd like to see how this information was all put together.

Can you link to any of these studies? I read through them at least one of them suggested the number of reported cases of spousal abuse is similar among the sexes which seems to disagree with the department of Justice as posted earlier. I would like to see how these figures were acquired. Nearly all nationally collected statistics on medical and legal cases involving spousal abuse suggest that male on female abuse is far more common. I also noticed that some of the studies focused on violence and not on spousal abuse, meaning that a barfight would be included. Also important is what did they classify as abuse. How were the questions asked? For example, did they say have you ever hit a person you're dating? This is open for interpretation.
True, also questions I'd like to explore. I like to look at the stats myself, and see what the definitions were and what populations were surveyed. I'm still not buying that the abuse issue is split 50/50 in terms of female and male perpetration.

If the answer was yes, then they were raped. If that's the case then my mother has been raping my father for years.
I guess my hubby and I have been raping each other for years too!

True, also questions I'd like to explore. I like to look at the stats myself, and see what the definitions were and what populations were surveyed. I'm still not buying that the abuse issue is split 50/50 in terms of female and male perpetration.

Yes another thing I noticed is this almost exclusively seems to have been surveys of college student. That is hardly representative of the population as a whole. However, if it's true that it's 50/50 among college students it is suggestive of a different problem.

I think the number of men who are able to beat up women as opposed to women beating up men is drastically higher - simply because men are naturally stronger. I agree with everyone who's on topic here and is sensible. :) The only reason this thread's degenerating is because few people want to be the proposition.

Yes another thing I noticed is this almost exclusively seems to have been surveys of college student. That is hardly representative of the population as a whole. However, if it's true that it's 50/50 among college students it is suggestive of a different problem.
Absolutely. The last thing I want is, "deal with men on women abuse" and then turn around to find that women now think its okay to reverse these roles.

Thank you for this link!

Looking into it, here are some good snippets to discuss:


So women can be physically aggressive too (hard to define...are they punching in anger, or shoving in fun? Also hard to define with men, so let's just take this at face value.) However, it would seem that men cause more HARM to the women.


See how taking this out of context could be bad? This is about behaviour during AGRESSIVE hetero sex. Re, violent sex. And guess what? It's violent!:)


So women may become violent in self defense, while men may become violent for other reasons. Clearly, our ideas about what is 'justified' violence are gender biased, and need to be examined on both sides. However, we can't tell who is causing more damage...


So, it would seem that women kill their husbands at a rate 3/4 that of men...yet it is pointed out this study used stats from cities where the ratio of wives as perpetrators is higher (than average).

In any case, this is an excellent link, with many sources that could be further examined. However, while it seems to be saying that women are as likely to abuse as men, the evidence doesn't support that this level of abuse is EQUAL. Meaning, the men still do more serious violent damage. It is simply looking at the stats from a different viewpoint, to be more inclusive, and to focus on men. Do you have the actual paper presented? I'd like to see how this information was all put together.

You know another point I question is do they define abuse at all. It seems from my personal experience that most women would include grabbing, slapping, poking and preventing someone from leaving as abuse while many men wouldn't consider that abusive (as evidenced in the other thread). I question any survey that doesn't specifically define abuse and include that definition in the results.

Can you link to any of these studies? I read through them at least one of them suggested the number of reported cases of spousal abuse is similar among the sexes which seems to disagree with the department of Justice as posted earlier. I would like to see how these figures were acquired. Nearly all nationally collected statistics on medical and legal cases involving spousal abuse suggest that male on female abuse is far more common. I also noticed that some of the studies focused on violence and not on spousal abuse, meaning that a barfight would be included. Also important is what did they classify as abuse. How were the questions asked? For example, did they say have you ever hit a person you're dating? This is open for interpretation. I hit one of my coworkers today, but it would hardly count as abuse (we were goofing around at the batting cages). These are important questions to ask of these types of studies because how you collect the data can greatly affect the turnout.

On the other side, the one in four number often quoted as the number of women who have been raped originally came from a survey in a magazine (I believe Young Miss) that asked "has a man every given you alcohol in order to encourage you to sleep with him?" If the answer was yes, then they were raped. If that's the case then my mother has been raping my father for years.

Since I live in Sweden that would be kind of hard, but this is what I could dig up:
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/Human%20Subjects.htm
http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Vines/3951/dvstudies.html
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/114/2/e220
http://www.reenasommerassociates.mb.ca/dv_canada.html
Found these by googling the names of the surveyors.

You know another point I question is do they define abuse at all. It seems from my personal experience that most women would include grabbing, slapping, poking and preventing someone from leaving as abuse while many men wouldn't consider that abusive (as evidenced in the other thread). I question any survey that doesn't specifically define abuse and include that definition in the results.
Exactly. Clearly women think about abuse in different terms than men, but we can't really see what definition they were using.

Since I live in Sweden that would be kind of hard, but this is what I could dig up:
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/Human%20Subjects.htm
http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Vines/3951/dvstudies.html
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/114/2/e220
http://www.reenasommerassociates.mb.ca/dv_canada.html
Found these by googling the names of the surveyors.

I have to go home, but I will examine the rest of these links tomorrow. One, I wanted to point out (the third one, bolded) has this attention grabbing headline:

Gender War, Sexuality, and Love
The Lies: Propaganda used to demonize a non-existant "enemy" Domestic Violence

While all it does is list more studies with no links to check out the facts or methodology. So that one isn't very useful.

That MUST have sucked! On long posts I often will highlight the test and copy it(right mouse click) to avoid potential frustration. You may want to try that out.

I often do that. I had fixed my browser so it cached long enough I could use "back" and "retry," but a Microsoft update helpfully changed that for me. :rolleyes:

Your two posts are quite lengthy and include several links, which I will actually follow and read (unlike many on NS who just assume) You do know my conn is limited to dial-up for the time being so it may take a while.

Understood. I appreciate your willingness to actually study the facts.

At first blush I expect that the studies are all on reported crime - which is not an accurate measure. Just as men don't like going to the doctor they also don't call the police when their SO is abusing them. Police are also considerably more likely to dismiss it as inconcenquential in the rare event they are called. This is only a guess at this point.

I find it funny you assume there are flaws all of my direct citations to multiple studies from sources that are about as authoritative, unbiased, and reliable as possible. This is doubly funny where you posted obviously biased second- and third-hand reports of dated and discredited information. Yet, you responded to questioning of the sources as heresy and character assassination. :rolleyes:

Regardless, your quess would be wrong. You will find there are variety of different study methods used and they do not focus on reported crime. Some specifically measure unreported crime.

I'll aslo have to dig them up, but there are actually reliable studies that men are as -- or even more -- to report domestic violence as men.

Also, most states have mandatory arrest statutes and police are now trained to arrest regardless of the gender of the victim.

(I note that your speculations rely on (a) male stereotypes, (b) assumptions that men are more afraid to report domestic violence than women, and (c) police are sexist against men. I thought the problem was feminists! :p )

I have little doubt that there are enough anomolies to call these sources into question.

And who was talking about unquestioned dogma? :p

Meanwhile, when there are multiple studies that demonstrate men are abused with relatively equal frequency, why is that the feminists here run to the front and shout NO! NO! IT ISN'T SO! and claim the suggestion is somehow anti-feminist?

Four points:

1. Look at your response to my sources, Mr. Pot. To paraphrase you:

Meanwhile, when there are [scories of] studies that demonstrate [women] are abused with [10 times the]frequency, why is that the [anti-feminists] here run to the front and shout NO! NO! IT ISN'T SO! and claim the suggestion is somehow anti-[male]?

2. No, there are only a handful of studies alleged to show that. (The main 2 are nearly 30 years old.) Some were deeply flawed and were long ago discredited. And some never actually showed that -- and the authors of the studies have denounced their misuse.

3. Not a single source I cited was "feminist." The people saying "NO, NO, IT ISN'T SO" are the Department of Justice, the National Institute of Justice, the FBI, the Centers for Disease Control, and other agencies with an interest in the truth. Thus, they report the real facts and dispute your false ones.

4. You didn't actually show any feminists claim men are never abused or denouncing the idea as a plot. You cited anti-feminist groups that merely accused feminists of doing that. Big difference. As I explained, everyone interested in fighting domestic violence -- including feminists -- thinks it is wrong regardless of the gender of the victim(s) or perpetrator(s).

What is so threatening to them about the idea that this is a problem that affects men and wome equally?

It isn't threatening. It is just a lie.

If it were true, so what? It just means feminists have been fighting for both men and women equally in seeking to end domestic violence. (It is feminists that have led that fight.)

Moreover, ifeminists et al don't simply claim domestic violence is a problem for all genders. They make the illogical leap of logic that, if it affects men as well, then domestic violence isn't really a problem at all. Standing in the water and looking at the pyramids is one thing -- but meanwhile people are dying and being abused. :( That is what is threatening!

Note my every thread has been about the equal treatment of men yet most of the radical feminists have responded with anger, sarcasm, ridicule and other negative affect to the idea. (Or trained others to do it for them)

C'mon, be honest.

Your everythread of this type has started out with anger, sarcasm, ridicule, name-calling, etc., directed at feminists. You did it at the start of this thread and you are doing it again now. :eek:

You reap what you sow.

Where is the equality?

Good question. When you learn to recognize equality and inequality, get back to us. ;)

I have to go home, but I will examine the rest of these links tomorrow. One, I wanted to point out (the third one, bolded) has this attention grabbing headline:

Gender War, Sexuality, and Love
The Lies: Propaganda used to demonize a non-existant "enemy" Domestic Violence

While all it does is list more studies with no links to check out the facts or methodology. So that one isn't very useful.

Yeah, quick searches on google often give some odd results.
Try searching for the surveys, I do believe there are published results,
In the meanwhile I found the apparent method used in some of the surveys.
http://www.mensrights.com.au/dvfig13i.htm
It is called the CTS ( the Conflict Tactics Scales ).

And this I seem to misunderstand some, bacause I don't think there is that much point for sarcasm in spousal abuse.
http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/factoid/factoid.html

*mutters about languages and humor*

Mostly I want to know what is truth and what can be derived in way of actions from that truth.

Yeah, quick searches on google often give some odd results.
Try searching for the surveys, I do believe there are published results,
In the meanwhile I found the apparent method used in some of the surveys.
http://www.mensrights.com.au/dvfig13i.htm
It is called the CTS ( the Conflict Tactics Scales ).

And this I seem to misunderstand some, bacause I don't think there is that much point for sarcasm in spousal abuse.
http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/factoid/factoid.html

*mutters about languages and humor*

Mostly I want to know what is truth and what can be derived in way of actions from that truth.
I like the second source. /sarcasm While the source presents as relatively unbiased as it attacks distortions on both sides but there are a few issues. It makes the comment that there is an abuse every 15 seconds is off. Then it says that 2 million is an accurate number (which comes out to one abused woman per 15 seconds). It also suggests that slapping, pushing and shoving should not be considered abuse. As I've pointed out several times, the idea that these types of abuse are acceptable is specifically the problem. Yes, we should be more concerned with the violence that leaves people hospitalized and/or dead, but ignoring abuse of any type or acting as if it's acceptable perpetuates the problem.

Yeah, quick searches on google often give some odd results.
Try searching for the surveys, I do believe there are published results,
In the meanwhile I found the apparent method used in some of the surveys.
http://www.mensrights.com.au/dvfig13i.htm
It is called the CTS ( the Conflict Tactics Scales ).

And this I seem to misunderstand some, bacause I don't think there is that much point for sarcasm in spousal abuse.
http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/factoid/factoid.html

*mutters about languages and humor*

Mostly I want to know what is truth and what can be derived in way of actions from that truth.
Oh and the problem I have with the first source is that it says that the majority of surveyers are women. While it's possible that everyone answered truthfully in a study where men and women both were talking to majoritively women, I suspect it's far more likely that women would accurately report giving and receiving abuse and men wouldn't. I just don't see men telling a woman, yes, I beat women. Generally I think anonymous surveys and statistics on reported crime are more effective.

I often do that. I had fixed my browser so it cached long enough I could use "back" and "retry," but a Microsoft update helpfully changed that for me. :rolleyes:


Have you considered alternate browsers? Firefox is cute.

Since I live in Sweden that would be kind of hard, but this is what I could dig up:
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/Human%20Subjects.htm
http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Vines/3951/dvstudies.html
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/114/2/e220
http://www.reenasommerassociates.mb.ca/dv_canada.html
Found these by googling the names of the surveyors.

Several of these source cite Strauss who came up with the women are abused every 15 seconds figure. I'm not sure what you're trying to show, but many of these sources you're using disagree with your original premise that the percentage of abuse is equal. The source bolded by Sin starts with an editorial and then uses the same studies that were earlier debunked by Cat and several others. Also it uses studies that are thirty to fifty years old. It cites a so-called women's magazine as a reliable source for scientific data. More importantly the sources contradict each other and for the most part the numbers don't add up in almost every way they can be calculated.

Several of these source cite Strauss who came up with the women are abused every 15 seconds figure. I'm not sure what you're trying to show, but many of these sources you're using disagree with your original premise that the percentage of abuse is equal. The source bolded by Sin starts with an editorial and then uses the same studies that were earlier debunked by Cat and several others. Also it uses studies that are thirty to fifty years old. It cites a so-called women's magazine as a reliable source for scientific data. More importantly the sources contradict each other and for the most part the numbers don't add up in almost every way they can be calculated.

I don't know what is real and what is propaganda, therefore I try to get some idea of it. I mean domestic violence is a huge problem, and I want to do something about that. I don't care if it is a woman or a man that hits, I just want it to end.

As much as I hate to do this, I'm going to have to agree with you. *looks up to see if pigs are in fact flying*:)
Odd...I never thought we were that far polarized. I think we have a few fundamental disagreements, but I figure we agree more than disagree on social issues. I thought it was mostly just when the government/"society" gets involved that we start parting ways. I guess I have underestimated how abrasive I am :).

I don't know what is real and what is propaganda, therefore I try to get some idea of it. I mean domestic violence is a huge problem, and I want to do something about that. I don't care if it is a woman or a man that hits, I just want it to end.

I agree but as was pointed out before there is value to discovering the likelihood of it each sex's involvement. For example, should we build an equal number of battered men's and battered women's shelters? What happens when one is overfull and the other is barely used? Also, much like rape, victims often prefer to work the issues that result from the trauma out with same sex victims. It's important to note what funding you need for female victims to create support group and counseling and the same for male victims. It's not about ignoring victims of either gender, it's about funding and focus. If a cop ignores a male victim of domestic violence or a female victim of domestic violence either way the cop should be summarily beaten.

Odd...I never thought we were that far polarized. I think we have a few fundamental disagreements, but I figure we agree more than disagree on social issues. I thought it was mostly just when the government/"society" gets involved that we start parting ways. I guess I have underestimated how abrasive I am :).
I could be wrong...for some reason you stick out in my mind as a poster I just can not get through to, and visa versa, because of the way we think about human nature and government. I'm not saying you're abrasive (no more than I!), but that with most posters I can see eye to eye on more times than not, even though we may disagree on certain things. That could just be my memory playing tricks on me though. I think I gave you too much of a hard time yesterday, (I had the Maternity leave argument fresh in my mind I guess), and I apologise. When it comes right down to it, I don't imagine that we are THAT on opposite sides of things.

I could be wrong...for some reason you stick out in my mind as a poster I just can not get through to, and visa versa, because of the way we think about human nature and government. I'm not saying you're abrasive (no more than I!), but that with most posters I can see eye to eye on more times than not, even though we may disagree on certain things. That could just be my memory playing tricks on me though. I think I gave you too much of a hard time yesterday, (I had the Maternity leave argument fresh in my mind I guess), and I apologise. When it comes right down to it, I don't imagine that we are THAT on opposite sides of things.

Aaaaw. You all are too cute. Now make out.

I agree but as was pointed out before there is value to discovering the likelihood of it each sex's involvement. For example, should we build an equal number of battered men's and battered women's shelters? What happens when one is overfull and the other is barely used? Also, much like rape, victims often prefer to work the issues that result from the trauma out with same sex victims. It's important to note what funding you need for female victims to create support group and counseling and the same for male victims. It's not about ignoring victims of either gender, it's about funding and focus. If a cop ignores a male victim of domestic violence or a female victim of domestic violence either way the cop should be summarily beaten.
Yeah, I guess what bothers me most about this whole argument about 'feminist coverups' is the idea that (as is stated in some of Sal's links) that gender should not be an issue when studying domestic abuse. (The lie really, because many of these studies then go on to focus on men to the exclusion of other genders, and if that isn't gendered, I'm not sure what is!) I think that methodology ignores the reality of the situation, and to no purpose. Men and women are gendered differently. Anyone who is really for men's rights should be looking at how men are gendered, and try to 'undo the damage' of the negative gender roles that are impacting men's health. This is what the woman's movement has attempted to do with women. Some of that has been a 'lashing out' against men. Then men lash out at being lashed out against:). Both sides can be taken to extremes.

The fact is, domestic violence affects women, and men, and transgendered people differently. It affects women and men in homosexual relationships a bit differently than those in heterosexual relationships. It affects children differently than adults, and children of different genders differently. To really tailor to the needs of both abusers and victims, we have to be aware of what makes these people tick, of how their gender roles shape the abuse and the reaction to abuse. That isn't a 'woman's power' thing. That is facing the reality of the situation, and doing what you can to deal with it. Men are underrepresented as victims of domestic abuse, both statistically and socially. That needs to change. But not at the EXPENSE of all other victims. And feminists alone are not responsible for this change, nor do they have the sole responsibility for the way men are gendered.

Yeah, I guess what bothers me most about this whole argument about 'feminist coverups' is the idea that (as is stated in some of Sal's links) that gender should not be an issue when studying domestic abuse. I think that methodology ignores the reality of the situation, and to no purpose. Men and women are gendered differently. Anyone who is really for men's rights should be looking at how men are gendered, and try to 'undo the damage' of the negative gender roles that are impacting men's health. This is what the woman's movement has attempted to do with women. Some of that has been a 'lashing out' against men. Just as some anti-racist groups sometimes 'lash out' at racists. In both these cases, there is a backlash. Men lash out at being lashed out against:). Both sides can be taken to extremes.

The fact is, domestic violence affects women, and men, and transgendered people differently. It affects women and men in homosexual relationships a bit differently than those in heterosexual relationships. It affects children differently than adults, and children of different genders differently. To really tailor to the needs of both abusers and victims, we have to be aware of what makes these people tick, of how their gender roles shape the abuse and the reaction to abuse. That isn't a 'woman's power' thing. That is facing the reality of the situation, and doing what you can to deal with it. Men are underrepresented as victims of domestic abuse, both statistically and socially. That needs to change. But not at the EXPENSE of all other victims. And feminists alone are not responsible for this change, nor do they have the sole responsibility for the way men are gendered.

I agree with most of what you said but do you realize you just answered your question from the other thread. You just equated men with racists. See racism is the fault of racists, but the responsibility for gender roles falls on both sexes. This is specifically the problem that men sometimes have with the way the movement is framed. If tomorrow every man on the planet got together and said let's fight for equality for women, there would some women who would not want a change. This stuff is ingrained in both sexes to the detriment of both sexes. For the most part, men aren't intentionally or hatefully treating women badly or vice versa (take out the radicals on both sides). Mostly we are all victims of the ideas and mentality we were indoctrinated with since birth. Racism is similar in indoctrination but in this case all are victims and all are perpetrators which is significantly different than the case of racism.

I agree with most of what you said but do you realize you just answered your question from the other thread. You just equated men with racists.
You know, as soon as I wrote that, I knew it was going to be bad...I even wanted to put in "I'm not equating men with racists", but too late:)

No, I'm not equating men with racists. I was just trying to think of another case where one traditionally 'oppressed' group went overboard and attacked ALL members of the tradional 'oppressive' group, and then the group being lashed out against upped the ante in retaliation. I almost said, homosexuals who go after all heterosexuals, but then I though Bozzy might think I was insinuating something. Then I was going to use two different religious groups, but that's so tricky, since it's hard to say who really oppresses who at any given moment. I apologise. I was trying to make a point about radicals, radical man-hating feminists, and radical racist-against-white minorities, and how groups become characterised by these radicals, causing a 'backlash' from the groups these fanatics target. I was not trying to imply that men are like racists.

You know, as soon as I wrote that, I knew it was going to be bad...I even wanted to put in "I'm not equating men with racists", but too late:)

No, I'm not equating men with racists. I was just trying to think of another case where one traditionally 'oppressed' group went overboard and attacked ALL members of the tradional 'oppressive' group, and then the group being lashed out against upped the ante in retaliation. I almost said, homosexuals who go after all heterosexuals, but then I though Bozzy might think I was insinuating something. Then I was going to use two different religious groups, but that's so tricky, since it's hard to say who really oppresses who at any given moment. I apologise. I was trying to make a point about radicals, radical man-hating feminists, and radical racist-against-white minorities, and how groups become characterised by these radicals, causing a 'backlash' from the groups these fanatics target. I was not trying to imply that men are like racists.

Sinuhue, I gave up arguing with other men on the subject of equality for women and on the subject of domestic abuse. There are some people you can't argue with, and some people who can't be negotiated with.

So I arm and train women. I think I'm getting better results.

See racism is the fault of racists, but the responsibility for gender roles falls on both sexes. This is specifically the problem that men sometimes have with the way the movement is framed. If tomorrow every man on the planet got together and said let's fight for equality for women, there would some women who would not want a change.
Absolutely. Some people are comfortable with traditional gender roles. This is fine, in my mind, as long as it is a CHOICE. I would no more advocate forcing women and men into 'modern' gender roles, than I would forcing them into traditional ones. While some people may think feminists ARE forcing them into 'modern' roles, that isn't quite true. We want people to have the choice to be who they want to be. If laws prohibit that (some countries do not allow women to possess land, for example), we will fight to change those laws. That is not forcing women to own land. If they choose to remain in traditional roles, that is their choice. If they choose not to, they now have the option.


This stuff is ingrained in both sexes to the detriment of both sexes. For the most part, men aren't intentionally or hatefully treating women badly or vice versa (take out the radicals on both sides). Mostly we are all victims of the ideas and mentality we were indoctrinated with since birth.
Yes. As Ashmoria pointed out though, feminists are not ALONE responsible for changing men's gender roles. And yet, it seems that if we don't focus entirely on men, and deal with their issues at the expense of everyone else's, we are called sexist. And sadly, so many men's groups are just 'backlash groups' set on proving feminists wrong instead of actually dealing with harmful male gender roles.

Sinuhue, I gave up arguing with other men on the subject of equality for women and on the subject of domestic abuse. There are some people you can't argue with, and some people who can't be negotiated with.

So I arm and train women. I think I'm getting better results.
Ah...so you are making women as violent as men, so there will be more male 'victims' and then any attempt to say that men are the agressors with be met with further hostility and cries of feminazi cover ups... :D

You know, as soon as I wrote that, I knew it was going to be bad...I even wanted to put in "I'm not equating men with racists", but too late:)

No, I'm not equating men with racists. I was just trying to think of another case where one traditionally 'oppressed' group went overboard and attacked ALL members of the tradional 'oppressive' group, and then the group being lashed out against upped the ante in retaliation. I almost said, homosexuals who go after all heterosexuals, but then I though Bozzy might think I was insinuating something. Then I was going to use two different religious groups, but that's so tricky, since it's hard to say who really oppresses who at any given moment. I apologise. I was trying to make a point about radicals, radical man-hating feminists, and radical racist-against-white minorities, and how groups become characterised by these radicals, causing a 'backlash' from the groups these fanatics target. I was not trying to imply that men are like racists.

Well, it was actually good that you worded it that way, because I think the problem men have with the issue is that men for the most part are victimized by the roles as much as women (though significantly differently). That's why the idea of hating feminism or opposing equality is so ridiculous. The idea of women as caregivers for example. Yes, women were stuck in the home for centuries in this country. And men were stuck out of the home, forced to make a living or be considered an unacceptable suitor, forced to spend time with strangers instead of with their children, forced to bear the burden of supplying food and shelter for their families. Yes, women were oppressed by gender roles, but weren't men? Aren't men oppressed by always having to be strong and brave and stalwart (I just wanted to sneak that word in)? And, yes, it's getting better for both sides. Take my brother for example, however. He's an artist and works about twelve hours a day perfecting his craft. However, he is regularly called lazy by people who think he should make more money, or told he's wasting his life, etc. He dated my former boss who makes well over a quarter of a million a year and she eventually said she couldn't continue to date him because she didn't want to support him and he couldn't afford to keep up with her lifestyle. The idea of a man as a breadwinner is still alive and well. The idea that a man can't care for his child is also alive in well, as evidenced by the vast number of custody cases that land in favor of the mother. I'm not suggesting that men are being treated unfairly by women. I'm suggesting that we all are being treated unfairly by society as a whole. That's why it's so important that we debunk the propoganda presented by both sides (men and women are abused equally or one in four college students has been raped). Comparing the position of men in the issue to the position of racists is why men are so defensive about the issue, because we feel like victims too.

Absolutely. Some people are comfortable with traditional gender roles. This is fine, in my mind, as long as it is a CHOICE. I would no more advocate forcing women and men into 'modern' gender roles, than I would forcing them into traditional ones. While some people may think feminists ARE forcing them into 'modern' roles, that isn't quite true. We want people to have the choice to be who they want to be. If laws prohibit that (some countries do not allow women to possess land, for example), we will fight to change those laws. That is not forcing women to own land. If they choose to remain in traditional roles, that is their choice. If they choose not to, they now have the option.

Yes, I was actually making the point that there are women AND men out there that don't want that choice to exist. They believe that choice degrades society be that choice regarding drugs, prostitution, equality, gender, sexuality, euthanasia or any other personal issues. And yes, they think the issue of drugs and equality should be equated as they are equally damaging (I think they are equal in they are both personal issues that affect no one but the individual).

Yes. As Ashmoria pointed out though, feminists are not ALONE responsible for changing men's gender roles. And yet, it seems that if we don't focus entirely on men, and deal with their issues at the expense of everyone else's, we are called sexist. And sadly, so many men's groups are just 'backlash groups' set on proving feminists wrong instead of actually dealing with harmful male gender roles.
See, now you are taking the position of the radicals and using it as the position of a larger group. Most men, almost all men, are like Cat and I in that we wish for their to be true equality. We wish for us all to just be people first and worry about culture, gender, sexuality, identity second. I don't think the percentage of women who wish for this to occur in most western countries is higher than the percentage of men. And I think you'll find that there are an similar number of men and women that are either radical in their hatred for the opposing gender or against the idea of equality altogether. Remember that it is the radical feminists that are man-hating. Remember that is the radical - let's call them masculists - that are responsible for the backlash. Both sides need to fight to make the people fighting for true equality heard. Both sides need to fight to debunk the lies of the radicals. Anything less is damaging to the entire movement and equality in general.

Yes, women were oppressed by gender roles, but weren't men?
Change this to the present tense, and I agree:)

And have I ever said this is not true?



Comparing the position of men in the issue to the position of racists is why men are so defensive about the issue, because we feel like victims too.
Victims of gender roles, or victims of unfair comparisons (WHICH I APOLOGISED FOR BY THE WAY!):)?

See, now you are taking the position of the radicals and using it as the position of a larger group. Most men, almost all men, are like Cat and I in that we wish for their to be true equality. We wish for us all to just be people first and worry about culture, gender, sexuality, identity second.
No, I'm not taking the position of radicals as the position of the larger group. I said most men's groups, as in organised groups, dealing with 'male' issues, tend to be more anti-feminist than they are pro men. If you can show me that there exist a higher percentage of MEN'S GROUPS that do not fit this description, I will retract that statement.

However, men's groups are not ALL MEN. I never said MEN IN GENERAL are anti-feminist.



Remember that it is the radical feminists that are man-hating. Remember that is the radical - let's call them masculists - that are responsible for the backlash. Both sides need to fight to make the people fighting for true equality heard. Both sides need to fight to debunk the lies of the radicals. Anything less is damaging to the entire movement and equality in general. I don't think we're actually disagreeing about anything here. The radicals are always the loudest of the group. However, people in the general population tend to also characterise the group as a whole by the radicals unless they have wider experience with these groups to draw from. It doesn't just have to be radicals fighting radicals. It can be moderates fighting radicals, which sometimes leads to radicals naming moderates radicals:)