Modern Feminism - What's the deal?

[Doctor Amadeus]

Crime statistics aren't useful, as they require an equality of reporting, and that's precisely the issue here; men simply do not report domestic violence against them, and are more likely to be dismissed by the authorities if they do.

All you're doing right now is sticking your fingers in your ears and insisting that your guesses and assumptions are more right than statistical research. You were very clear that you have absolutely no basis whatsoever for your claims. If you have no evidence to support you, then you're just making stuff up. That's not an argument, it's a refusal to study the evidence.

You are right men dont report it as much, and you are also right it isnt taken as seriously, I didnt need the study for that, that said it doesn't prove your point either, because you can't infer one conclusion from evidence to support another without follow up, but seeing as how you are trying to suggest that IF men called the cops more, IF men were taken more seriously, than, it would be about even with the violence inflicted on women. I do NOT agree, there is no studies anywhere that would suggest that.



Bottom line Violence is prepetuated by MEN, On MEN and after that that unto to Woman and Children, as i said crime satistic, who does the prison population comprised mostly of?

Men

Who are most wars waged and for and by?


Men


Hell even In prison men vs women, per person, Men are far more likely to be raped by other MEN!

[Endus]

you are ignoring the basis of that idea, which was that men shouldnt hurt women because they are physically weak and incapable of defending themselves.

That wasn't the basis of chivalrous attitudes towards women. It was rooted in concepts of courtly love worship of the Virgin Mary. It was an adoration of women, that increased their role in society, not a way to repress them. Nor were they seen as "incapable"; characters like Morgan le Fay in the Arthurian romances of the medieval era, or even Joan of Arc, if you want a real-life example, completely flout that. They were seen as something to be protected, not something that was incapable.

---------- Post added 2013-03-12 at 12:46 PM ----------

You are right men dont report it as much, and you are also right it isnt taken as seriously, I didnt need the study for that, that said it doesn't prove your point either, because you can't infer one conclusion from evidence to support another without follow up

Except that I (and others) have linked multiple studies which support that argument with factual statistical data. You're acting like we haven't linked evidence to support that case, but we have, extensively. You're just not bothering to read it, by your own admission.

but seeing as how you are trying to suggest that IF men called the cops more, IF men were taken more seriously, than, it would be about even with the violence inflicted on women. I do NOT agree, there is no studies anywhere that would suggest that.

And this is where you make it clear, since there's been at least a few dozen studies that have been brought up in this thread which not only suggest but provide reams of solid evidence that this is exactly the case.

You're just not reading them.

[Doctor Amadeus]

That wasn't the basis of chivalrous attitudes towards women. It was rooted in concepts of courtly love worship of the Virgin Mary. It was an adoration of women, that increased their role in society, not a way to repress them. Nor were they seen as "incapable"; characters like Morgan le Fay in the Arthurian romances of the medieval era, or even Joan of Arc, if you want a real-life example, completely flout that. They were seen as something to be protected, not something that was incapable.

And that is very much what is at the heart of of all of this, is the adoration of women, justified or otherwise, which doesn't automatically conclude what you are concluding, You are taking facts and figured, as evidence and then twisting them to make a your own conclusion based on another kind of biased, for a moment there, I thought you were serious about this being about humanity.

---------- Post added 2013-03-12 at 04:50 PM ----------

That wasn't the basis of chivalrous attitudes towards women. It was rooted in concepts of courtly love worship of the Virgin Mary. It was an adoration of women, that increased their role in society, not a way to repress them. Nor were they seen as "incapable"; characters like Morgan le Fay in the Arthurian romances of the medieval era, or even Joan of Arc, if you want a real-life example, completely flout that. They were seen as something to be protected, not something that was incapable.

---------- Post added 2013-03-12 at 12:46 PM ----------



Except that I (and others) have linked multiple studies which support that argument with factual statistical data. You're acting like we haven't linked evidence to support that case, but we have, extensively. You're just not bothering to read it, by your own admission.



And this is where you make it clear, since there's been at least a few dozen studies that have been brought up in this thread which not only suggest but provide reams of solid evidence that this is exactly the case.

You're just not reading them.

I haven't read them, doesn't mean that i am not going to, this thread if freaking 162 pages, gonna take some time to read through, I read what you linked, ill check the other ones.

[starlord]

That wasn't the basis of chivalrous attitudes towards women. It was rooted in concepts of courtly love worship of the Virgin Mary. It was an adoration of women, that increased their role in society, not a way to repress them. Nor were they seen as "incapable"; characters like Morgan le Fay in the Arthurian romances of the medieval era, or even Joan of Arc, if you want a real-life example, completely flout that. They were seen as something to be protected, not something that was incapable.

those are some thick rose colored lenses you have... they are considered anomalies for a reason.. joan of arc was also reviled and burned alive in her time for "acting like a man" and morgan le fay is an evil witch.

and really, go look through any thread in here about female soldiers and fighters and you will see very little of "chivalry."

[Cybran]

are feminists at fault for saying its unmanly and weak for a man to be beaten by a woman?

Yes. When men try to bring light to the issues there are dozens of darenyons flocking and starting to :

ahahahahahaha

There are people like you who paint ALL men in the light of "violent offender" which makes it impossible to see them as a victim.

[starlord]

Yes. When men try to bring light to the issues there are dozens of darenyons flocking and starting to :

There are people like you who paint ALL men in the light of "violent offender" which makes it impossible to see them as a victim.

people like me laughing that laize admits hes an activist?

read the article you linked, society doesnt think women are capable of harming men unless he lets it happen.

[Zhangfei]

The biggest issue at heart is labelling.

We should consider the terms "feminist" and "men's rights activist" to be roughly comparable. And both are BS, because they, by the root of their entire concept, focus on the rights of one gender, over those of the other. For both, it's an inherently biased perspective. Feminists, at least, have the excuse of ovrecoming past injustices, but the time for that fight is basically over, in the Western world.

This is clearly not true and you know it. Evidence points to disparities benefitting men in too many ways, from pay to positions of power. If the situation ever exists that men are more sexually assaulted, men never get to be the leader of the nation, men don't get paid as much as women, men have their reproductive rights challenged and that elected officials are overwhelmingly women who make idiotic statements about male biology, then I'll assume society has become "equal" as you like to call it.

Feminism is about equality because women aren't considered or treated equally, their inherent biological and neurological abilities disrespected and society historically, economically and legally built to predominantly support men. We certainly HAVE made huge steps to correcting centuries of abuse, but to say "it's all done" is condescending and arrogant. The evidence shows that's simply not true.

Hiding behind "gender equality" as a label is some wishy-washy trash designed to harm the deliberately trodden upon gender to attempt to trivialise their issues and compare them to the overwhelmingly advantaged gender. Feminism seeks for the equality of gender and has focused upon, written about and studied male repression too. bell hooks, as I keep repeating, has been doing it for decades. I'd say the "MRAs" are just stealing feminist analysis, frankly, but throwing in rampant sexism to fuel their anger.

Why should feminists respect this fictional "third way" when they are the "third way" you're discussing?

[Endus]

And that is very much what is at the heart of of all of this, is the adoration of women, justified or otherwise, which doesn't automatically conclude what you are concluding, You are taking facts and figured, as evidence and then twisting them to make a your own conclusion based on another kind of biased, for a moment there, I thought you were serious about this being about humanity.

I was talking about facts and figures with regards to domestic violence against men.

I made a completely unconnected argument about the origins of chivalric attitudes towards women.

You're trying to connect them for some reason, and I can't see why. The only thing that makes sense is that it's a deliberate attempt to straw man the argument.

I haven't read them, doesn't mean that i am not going to, this thread if freaking 162 pages, gonna take some time to read through, I read what you linked, ill check the other ones.

If you're going to claim I haven't posted statistical proof that domestic violence is roughly equal, then you haven't read the studies I've linked.

those are some thick rose colored lenses you have... they are considered anomalies for a reason.. joan of arc was also reviled and burned alive in her time for "acting like a man" and morgan le fay is an evil witch.

Joan of Arc was burned for heresy, not "acting like a man". When she was ordered to stop wearing men's clothing, she made clear that the ONLY reason she insisted on it in prison was to make it difficult for her guards to rape her, because she tied it so tightly. She was perfectly willing to dress as a woman for her execution. She was then forced by her guards to dress as a man despite that agreement, causing her to be judged as having relapsed, and thus was executed.

All that's in the trial records of the time.

The major issue was that she claimed to hear God. And they were examples. They aren't the only ones.

and really, go look through any thread in here about female soldiers and fighters and you will see very little of "chivalry."

And now you just move from a discussion of 12th through 15th century concepts and start talking about the modern era. You're deliberately attacking a straw man. I was talking about a medieval concept, not the modern era.

[starlord]

Joan of Arc was burned for heresy, not "acting like a man". When she was ordered to stop wearing men's clothing, she made clear that the ONLY reason she insisted on it in prison was to make it difficult for her guards to rape her, because she tied it so tightly. She was perfectly willing to dress as a woman for her execution. She was then forced by her guards to dress as a man despite that agreement, causing her to be judged as having relapsed, and thus was executed.

All that's in the trial records of the time.

The major issue was that she claimed to hear God. And they were examples. They aren't the only ones.

yeah... that was part of her heresy.

And now you just move from a discussion of 12th through 15th century concepts and start talking about the modern era. You're deliberately attacking a straw man. I was talking about a medieval concept, not the modern era.

you said that modern attitudes about men & women fighting stem from the mideval concept that women must be protected (but are of course as physically capable as men).

[Deleted]

Actually personal experience, and observation is evidence for MY opinion, as for FACTS well, you clearly haven't established any, and in any arguement about men's rights it is almost always absent. Useally I kind of dismiss the notions of most mens rights advocates, pretty much the same way i dismiss those who suggest we didn't land on the moon. At the end of the day, some people are married to ideas of what they want to believe, rather than logic and reasoning.

your observed reality is grounds for your opinion, hundreds and thousands of observed realities form the basis of what i like to call statistical facts. i don´t need to establish facts to contradict your lack of facts. you might find this hard to believe but there is no factual truth behind the statement "women are (/should be) equal to men" there is actually precious few facts to support the feminist ideology, primarily because its ideology not facts, that is not to say i don't agree but i don't have any factual basis for that belief (nor its antagonist men is superior to females). i pride myself of having an open mind because while most of the time they are idiots or wrong sometimes they are right, first time i heard about female domestic abuse i thought that was silly, then i opened my mind to new ideas, and lo and behold i changed my mind. you should try it sometime.
fixing the last sentence: "I am married to what i believe and i wont subject it to external logic or reason or facts that contradict my worldview"

[Cybran]

Feminism seeks for the equality of gender and has focused upon, written about and studied male repression too. bell hooks, as I keep repeating, has been doing it for decades.

Why should feminists respect this fictional "third way" when they are the "third way" you're discussing?

Feminism was never based around equality. It's goal was never equality. You continue to cling to the false version of history in which men deliberately focused all the power in their own hands and deliberately kept women out of possition of power. It has been explained numerous times that the nature of the societies at the time dictated that the worth of the person was based on his physical strength. Males got to own land, because they had to pick up a sword and die when their lord calls.

Derenyon talks about women being excluded from front line combat as some privilege that has been reserved for men. The main reason for that is the fact that women's live were always too valuabe to be thrown away at a senseless war. Also lowering physical requirements to allow women to fight in the front line is stupid and reckless.

[Endus]

Feminism is about equality because women aren't considered or treated equally, their inherent biological and neurological abilities disrespected and society historically, economically and legally built to predominantly support men.

If you set yourself up to focus exclusively on the needs of the currently disadvantaged, then you cannot see when they are no longer disadvantaged, because your focus is still on improving their lot. That's the root issue with feminism. It's NOT about equality, and the word itself shows that. It's like the NAACP; they're not likely to jump in to help Native Americans, because that's not their focus, even if they claim to be concerned with racial equality. They're concerned with racial equality when it comes to a specific racial subgroup. As with feminism, which is concerned with gender equality as it affects women.

There's nothing wrong with taking a broader view.

We certainly HAVE made huge steps to correcting centuries of abuse, but to say "it's all done" is condescending and arrogant. The evidence shows that's simply not true.

Most of the evidence is problematic because there's an inherent lag factor in social changes like this. It's like the graphs that get tossed around showing attitudes towards gay marriage by age, showing that for the under-30 crowd there's basically no opposition; it's an issue that's already been "won", socially speaking, it just requires time for the older generation to retire and lose control of the decision-making process. Same for upper-middle class employees and higher; these people are typically older or nearing retirement, meaning they got their start in the 60s or 70s, when there was still some clear disadvantages. Those will have hurt their careers in some ways that are still seen today, but it doesn't mean those hurts are ongoing to the same degree.

Hiding behind "gender equality" as a label is some wishy-washy trash

I do not understand how a broader view that looks for balance is "wishy washy trash". Your post comes off sounding as if you're just angry about the implication that men might have any gender-based issues and wanting to push the focus back on women 100% of the time. That's not balance; that's misandry, dismissing the problems that men face because you do not wish to acknowledge them as "real". It's the exact opposite of the problem feminism originally emerged to fight against. Nor am I even saying we should abandon focusing on women's rights and concerns; I'm not saying we need to start focusing on men's rights, I'm saying we need to start focusing on both genders.

Why should feminists respect this fictional "third way" when they are the "third way" you're discussing?

If you're focusing primarily on women's issues and denying that men have any "real" problems, then it's not "the third way". It's an explicitly gender-focused system.

Are some self-proclaimed feminists also looking at male issues? Sure. They'd be better served abandoning the label of "feminist", though. Of course feminism is focused on women. It's in the name itself.

[starlord]

Feminism was never based around equality. It's goal was never equality. You continue to cling to the false version of history in which men deliberately focused all the power in their own hands and deliberately kept women out of possition of power. It has been explained numerous times that the nature of the societies at the time dictated that the worth of the person was based on his physical strength. Males got to own land, because they had to pick up a sword and die when their lord calls.

Derenyon talks about women being excluded from front line combat as some privilege that has been reserved for men. The main reason for that is the fact that women's live was always too valuabe to be thrown away at a senseless war. Also lowering physical requirements to allow women to fight in the front line is stupid and reckless.

hm, so value was based on physical strength, which is why women were valued too highly to fight?

[Doctor Amadeus]

I was talking about facts and figures with regards to domestic violence against men.

I made a completely unconnected argument about the origins of chivalric attitudes towards women.

You're trying to connect them for some reason, and I can't see why. The only thing that makes sense is that it's a deliberate attempt to straw man the argument.



If you're going to claim I haven't posted statistical proof that domestic violence is roughly equal, then you haven't read the studies I've linked.




Joan of Arc was burned for heresy, not "acting like a man". When she was ordered to stop wearing men's clothing, she made clear that the ONLY reason she insisted on it in prison was to make it difficult for her guards to rape her, because she tied it so tightly. She was perfectly willing to dress as a woman for her execution. She was then forced by her guards to dress as a man despite that agreement, causing her to be judged as having relapsed, and thus was executed.

All that's in the trial records of the time.

The major issue was that she claimed to hear God. And they were examples. They aren't the only ones.



And now you just move from a discussion of 12th through 15th century concepts and start talking about the modern era. You're deliberately attacking a straw man. I was talking about a medieval concept, not the modern era.

Well the only time i made a mention of the 40% claim was to Cybran or whatever his name was, i didn't know YOU had made the claim, when i said he hadn't provided any satistics, in either case, No i had not ready the 160 some pages before, but if you make the claim, and say the links are there, I will check them out i am curious, but based on how far i had been reading forward i haven't seen anything to suggest that Crime Satistic Reports Domestic Violence based on who is charged and convictions, that women are 40% the ones who commit DV.



But, as i said the majority of all violence is commited by men on men, on women, on children from what i seen, the majority of those in prison right now, are there for violence, it is mostly men, even if you take our domestic violence, Men still make a a OVER WHELMING majority, and then not only after they get convicted men are far more likely to be victims of violence and rape vs WOMEN.



Right now there are about 3.5 million men in prison and right now there ar about 150.000 women in prison. I won't even get into War or Social and Civil Conflicts. But once again the large majority of the offenders of violence are commited by men.

[Deleted]

Well the only time i made a mention of the 40% claim was to Cybran or whatever his name was, i didn't know YOU had made the claim, when i said he hadn't provided any satistics, in either case, No i had not ready the 160 some pages before, but if you make the claim, and say the links are there, I will check them out i am curious, but based on how far i had been reading forward i haven't seen anything to suggest that Crime Satistic Reports Domestic Violence based on who is charged and convictions, that women are 40% the ones who commit DV.

Yet you continue to ignore the reason that looking at only the criminal statistics is not the way you should look at it.
For reasons such as:
Lack of reporting.
Lack of support.
Lack of criminal prosecution.
"primary aggresor".
Societal views.

But, as i said the majority of all violence is commited by men on men, on women, on children from what i seen, the majority of those in prison right now, are there for violence, it is mostly men, even if you take our domestic violence, Men still make a a OVER WHELMING majority, and then not only after they get convicted men are far more likely to be victims of violence and rape vs WOMEN.

What do you classify as an "OVER WHELMING majority"?
Where are your sources for the majority of men in prison are in for violence? From my recollection it's actually the opposite, but please supply me with something beyond "Well my experiences suggest it, but it's only my opinion" bullshit.

Right now there are about 3.5 million men in prison and right now there ar about 150.000 women in prison. I won't even get into War or Social and Civil Conflicts. But once again the large majority are commited by men.

Ever looked into sentencing bias? Who am I kidding, your experiences and opinions are more than enough data right?

[Endus]

Well the only time i made a mention of the 40% claim was to Cybran or whatever his name was, i didn't know YOU had made the claim, when i said he hadn't provided any satistics, in either case, No i had not ready the 160 some pages before, but if you make the claim, and say the links are there, I will check them out i am curious, but based on how far i had been reading forward i haven't seen anything to suggest that Crime Satistic Reports Domestic Violence based on who is charged and convictions, that women are 40% the ones who commit DV.

As has already been pointed out multiple times, crime statistics cannot accurately describe the issue since domestic violence against men is highly under-reported. As the other studies we've linked demonstrate, in detail.

But, as i said the majority of all violence is commited by men on men, on women, on children from what i seen, the majority of those in prison right now, are there for violence, it is mostly men, even if you take our domestic violence, Men still make a a OVER WHELMING majority, and then not only after they get convicted men are far more likely to be victims of violence and rape vs WOMEN.

We were talking about domestic violence in particular. You're now straw manning to bring up other forms of violence.

[Zhangfei]

If you set yourself up to focus exclusively on the needs of the currently disadvantaged, then you cannot see when they are no longer disadvantaged, because your focus is still on improving their lot. That's the root issue with feminism. It's NOT about equality, and the word itself shows that. It's like the NAACP; they're not likely to jump in to help Native Americans, because that's not their focus, even if they claim to be concerned with racial equality. They're concerned with racial equality when it comes to a specific racial subgroup. As with feminism, which is concerned with gender equality as it affects women.

There's nothing wrong with taking a broader view.

Except feminism has dealt with male issues too. Why are you ignoring this? And if the evidence exists that they are disenfranchised still, then the evidence proves it. Not some philosophical approach.

Most of the evidence is problematic because there's an inherent lag factor in social changes like this. It's like the graphs that get tossed around showing attitudes towards gay marriage by age, showing that for the under-30 crowd there's basically no opposition; it's an issue that's already been "won", socially speaking, it just requires time for the older generation to retire and lose control of the decision-making process. Same for upper-middle class employees and higher; these people are typically older or nearing retirement, meaning they got their start in the 60s or 70s, when there was still some clear disadvantages. Those will have hurt their careers in some ways that are still seen today, but it doesn't mean those hurts are ongoing to the same degree.

Except evidence shows that those young'uns today aren't getting the fair shakes. And once again, I don't respect a "leave it, it'll get better" approach. You have to keep hammering it in. In our hypothetical thirty years time, if women weren't getting paid as much, we'd be in major trouble because supposedly "leaving it" for thirty years didn't work out.

Frankly, if I see injustice and mistreatment, then I want it stopped immediately.

I do not understand how a broader view that looks for balance is "wishy washy trash". Your post comes off sounding as if you're just angry about the implication that men might have any gender-based issues and wanting to push the focus back on women 100% of the time. That's not balance; that's misandry, dismissing the problems that men face because you do not wish to acknowledge them as "real". It's the exact opposite of the problem feminism originally emerged to fight against.

Just like your post comes across as sexist and misogynistic; your view to me makes a mockery of what women go through and how poorly they're treated in every way of life and compares it to some small but legitimate problems men face legally (one issue, as far as I've seen in this thread.) If I come across angry, it's because from what I can tell, those who disrespect feminism clearly don't believe in gender equality. They want male hegemony maintained.

I absolutely believe men are mistreated in society. Our rates of violent crime on one another is insane. The fact we're still considered to be the "breadwinner" and cannot be a good parent; the fact some individuals still believe we should support/dominate a woman. Little things as people have said where we're expected to hold doors open. The fact we can't do what many women do due to being "manly" etc. Society is obsessed with gender roles and they're extremely harmful to men.

But I've been annoyed about this since I was about eleven in the early nineties, long before MRA or talks of "equality" because I recognised it as a gender issue. Later on I found out feminists had spoken out about this kind of treatment of men and analysed these problems since before I was born.

If you're focusing primarily on women's issues and denying that men have any "real" problems, then it's not "the third way". It's an explicitly gender-focused system.

Are some self-proclaimed feminists also looking at male issues? Sure. They'd be better served abandoning the label of "feminist", though. Of course feminism is focused on women. It's in the name itself.

Eh, I disagree. Feminism started as a fight for equal rights and treatment and continues that fight without just focusing on women. I don't see why they should abandon a label that has always meant gender equality because you feel uncomfortable that it makes it sound like you have to be a woman to support gender equality. I don't like your label because I find it cold, condescending and sounds like you're ripping off decades of their work and portraying it as some other groups.

[Cybran]

hm, so value was based on physical strength, which is why women were valued too highly to fight?

They were the only ones able to give birth to the next generation of pawns that would replace those that died. Letting them die by the thousands, just because they can hold a sword, was really not a good idea.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...d/df/Krum1.jpg

This is Krum. In 811 the Romans burned his capitol and decimated his army. He called mercenaries and mobilized women, because he had no other choice. In the end he won and beheaded the roman emperor. It was uncommon, but if needed women were given the "privilege" to fight in wars.

Look up female gladiators as well.

[DisposableHero]

Just like your post comes across as sexist and misogynistic

If you believe this is an accurate description of Endus' position in this thread, you clearly do not know what either of these words really mean.

[Ebildays]

No. There is not. This is a bullshit misandrist claim made up by feminists to demonize men, by trying to portray us all as rape-supporters and rape-apologists, by dint of having a penis.

Why would it demonize men when rape can be done to a man or woman? Most women do not believe that all men wish to rape women or are rape-apologists.

There's a reason for that, and it has nothing to do with "rape".

If you place yourself in a position where your affections have to be bought, then when the man has paid for them, he assumes he will get something in return. YOU are the one who helped frame this dynamic. If you didn't want this kind of arrangement, you should have gone dutch and paid for some dates yourself. That would be the egalitarian way to handle the development of a relationship of equal partners. If you're letting him pay all the time, it is NOT a relationship between equal partners. The person not paying is in a subservient position. They are allowing themselves to be "bought", voluntarily. If you find that offensive, stop playing into it in the first place and make the relationship an exchange between equals, and start springing for the check.

You can't have it both ways. If you set yourself up as a product to be bought/won, when the man has bought you/won you, he's going to expect his prize. And nobody's putting you in that position but you, these days.

I pay for my own meals when I go out to eat, I don't like feeling that I owe someone. That being said when I know someone and they offer to pay for my meal I take it because I love free things. That does not mean I am above paying for someone else's meal or drinks, I see paying for someone's meal like a little surprise for them. I have never thought of it as "buying a product" or being in a subservient position, I have also seen it as something that you do for someone you care about be it as friends or lovers. I don't know why anyone would have such a warped view of something like that.
[/QUOTE]