# Misogyny and Men's Rights Activism



## Kellie Gator (Feb 4, 2012)

Not necessarily suggesting they're the same thing BTW, but it certainly seems like it.

Anyway, I was gonna write some text that I was gonna send to a few colleges I wanna apply to and for some reason I decided to start writing on the subject of misogyny and a certain web site that came to my attention. It doesn't have to be factually correct because it's just meant as a way to express my writing but I feel like I'm a bit stuck because I don't wanna sound like a crazy conspiracy theorist so I figured I might ask for help on some small things.

The web site that inspired me to start in the first place was some looney bin called A Voice for Men which claims to not hate women but finds no shame in writing articles that suggest that women are like spoiled brats who need to be bashed and "de-pedestalized" so they don't go crazy with EBIL FEMINISM.

It also frequently brings up issues like how the modern rape culture is false and how men keep being victims of false accusations, among other things. To put it shortly and simply, they think they don't have any kind of male privilege and suffer from feminist oppression.

What I'm asking for here is basically, is this completely out of the blue and can be disproven or are there indeed some indisputable facts here? Either way, I'd love to hear any kind of useful input for this that might inspire me to write more. Right now I'm only on the first paragraph. D:


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Feb 4, 2012)

Men often do get the shit end of the stick when it comes to rape :/


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Feb 4, 2012)

dinosaurdammit said:


> Men often do get the shit end of the stick when it comes to rape :/



Just shout "Rape!" and a man is pretty fucked for life.

But I think feminists and maleists (???) are both equally bad in some places. You have people who want equality, yay, but then you have those who fight for a pedestal and give themselves the same label and that just looks shit.


----------



## Fay V (Feb 4, 2012)

I actually had this conversation with my dad the other day. I think to be honest it's yes and no. 
I think there is still male privilege and there sure as hell is a lot of unchecked misogyny. Usually in things like the video game communities and internet. Now some of it is jokes yes, but those jokes do go too far. Like female commentators on tournaments or female players in streams are over criticized. 
At the same time I think feminism has made a lot of progress and men are much quicker to be questioned if they are suspected of being sexist. 

I think the issues of gender roles, male privilege and gender assumptions do exist, though you're going to have a harder time finding overt stuff.

The reason I got into the issue of modern feminism with my dad was he wanted to show me this movie he got. It's something called "gidget" and it was a movie he enjoyed when he was younger. 
Gidget apparently stood for "girl midget" and it was so blatantly sexist that we both became to uncomfortable to watch the movie.


----------



## Ibuuyk (Feb 4, 2012)

It's true that women have too much power because of feminism, men have no right to do anything without being called a sexist and shoo'd by society.  Since women started having power, they just kept on abusing 'em.

Girls, you wanted equal rights, now you have more rights than men.  Stop being greedy and fucking learn how to handle responsibilities already, geez.


----------



## Onnes (Feb 4, 2012)

I know it's real, but am I the only one that can't help but look at that A Voice for Men site as the ultimate troll?


----------



## Bliss (Feb 4, 2012)

Men's activism tends to become a joke very quickly.



Ibuuyk said:


> It's true that women have too much power because  of feminism, men have no right to do anything without being called a  sexist and shoo'd by society.  Since women started having power, they  just kept on abusing 'em.
> 
> Girls, you wanted equal rights, now you have more rights than men.  Stop  being greedy and fucking learn how to handle responsibilities already,  geez.


Cool story, bro.


----------



## The_Mask (Feb 4, 2012)

I knew a guy who got accused of rape by a girl who was an attention whoring [numerous other explitives here]. Anyway, after a few days in prison, and finally proving his innocence in court (the girl had so many contradictory bits of "evidence") he had to move across the state to get away from it all. One fucking word screwed him over. If a man claims rape though, nobody believes him.

Oh right, that website is shit.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Feb 4, 2012)

Men have some social equality issues. If a man is abused or raped, he's really going to have a hard time getting any kind of support, and may even be further harassed or persecuted if he seeks help. That's obviously terrible. 

However, it doesn't come from feminism, and in fact if anything it comes from old patriarchal ideals. Anyone who thinks that women or feminists caused that problem is, quite  plainly, a fool. They've just, for the most part, chosen a different  battle to fight--which is fine. We don't get angry with people looking  for a cure for leukemia because they aren't looking for a cure for AIDs  instead. Good feminists fight do it too, though, even if it's not their main focus. In America, the recent expansion of the federal definition of rape (used to only cover male-on-female rape, now it covers perpetrators/victims of any gender) mostly because of lobbying from feminist groups. Why would those feminist groups have fought to expand the definition of rape to cover male victims if they weren't seeking equal protection for all?


----------



## Aleu (Feb 4, 2012)

Smells like a troll but it still has a point that men indeed DO get discriminated against for whatever reason in whatever situation.


----------



## Lobar (Feb 4, 2012)

The ease with which MRA's have gotten to be accepted as the REAL VICTIMS HERE is clearest evidence that they are not.



Gibby said:


> Just shout "Rape!" and a man is pretty fucked for life.



You can fuck up just about ANYONE'S life with a false accusation of a felony crime.  A friend of mine had his life fucked up with a false accusation of terroristic threats.  Why do rape victims deserve harsher examination than others?


----------



## Takun (Feb 4, 2012)

Lobar said:


> The ease with which MRA's have gotten to be accepted as the REAL VICTIMS HERE is clearest evidence that they are not.
> 
> 
> 
> You can fuck up just about ANYONE'S life with a false accusation of a felony crime.  A friend of mine had his life fucked up with a false accusation of terroristic threats.  Why do rape victims deserve harsher examination than others?



Because it's more common and one way.


----------



## Lobar (Feb 4, 2012)

Takun said:


> Because it's more common and one way.



As cited in the last thread, it's actually not more common than any other false felony accusation.



edit: vvvv Holy fucking shit.


----------



## Mayfurr (Feb 4, 2012)

Onnes said:


> I know it's real, but am I the only one that can't help but look at that A Voice for Men site as the ultimate troll?



Dunno about it being a troll site or not, but I definitely feel I have to wash my hands after reading such stuff as _Study Reveals Female Rape Victims Enjoyed the Experience_...

... words fail me.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Feb 4, 2012)

I treat women like a treat men, if they don't like it - I shrug it off and find someone new to talk to. I don't think "male-ists" really exist.


----------



## Unsilenced (Feb 4, 2012)

Mayfurr said:


> _Study Reveals Female Rape Victims Enjoyed the Experience_...



This reminds me of the "statistics" that get posted on sites like Stormfront proving this or that point about race. 

There's only one thing a rational man can do when faced with such statements.


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 4, 2012)

"something i would really, really love to be, would be a male victims advocate.

to be depressingly honest, male victims advocates who are male are so often dismissed as misogynist, â€œpatriarchal,â€ or other such stupid terms. there is nothing misogynist or patriarchal about looking after the victims so rarely looked after by everyone. they are framed as people who want to ignore female victims. this is not the case. 

so perhaps a step in the direction of being taken seriously would be for a woman (someone whose gender is chronically victimized by their own ranks) to make a stand for those who are so gut-wrenchingly fucking forgotten. 

my friend was physically thrown out of a hospital after he was raped (by a woman, he is a cismale who was made to penetrate). he wanted to get some sort of kit done. they called security when he persisted amidst them laughing between themselves, and security threw him out, saying, â€œdo you think weâ€™re stupid?â€ and â€œyou are just trying to turn the tables.â€

male victims of abuse are forgotten and re-victimized perpetually, even by female victims. they are brushed off. they are seen as unimportant.

i really wish to correct that. i am not stupid. i can see the toxic indifference in society. i am not inexperienced. i am not uninformed. 

so, i want to make a difference. i want to stand up for ALL victims, but first and foremost, those who have essentially have their voices taken from them. i donâ€™t want anything from it - there is nothing in this that could personally benefit me. i wouldnâ€™t get paid. i wouldnâ€™t have a steady or EASY job. but one thing i will have is the ability to rest more easily knowing that people are less forgotten."

http://princessnecrophilia.tumblr.c...ething-i-would-really-really-love-to-be-would


----------



## Ikrit (Feb 4, 2012)

remind me of the story where a man drove away from a girl drowning just becuse he was afraid of being posted as a pedo


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 4, 2012)

women cant rape men - men like women
women can't rape other women - women dont have cocks
men always rape women - women are weak and men take advantage of this
men rape other men - theyre savages and gay men are rapists
men rape children - theyre easy to abuse
children are forced to have sex with men - men are gay and rapists
children are never forced to have sex with women - young boys like women and women never rape other females

this is what society believes.


----------



## Lobar (Feb 4, 2012)

Clayton said:


> women cant rape men - men like women
> women can't rape other women - women dont have cocks
> men always rape women - women are weak and men take advantage of this
> men rape other men - theyre savages and gay men are rapists
> ...




See, guys, you don't wanna reduce yourself to _Clayton's_ level, do you?


----------



## Bliss (Feb 4, 2012)

Mayfurr said:


> Dunno about it being a troll site or not, but I definitely feel I have to wash my hands after reading such stuff as _Study Reveals Female Rape Victims Enjoyed the Experience_...
> 
> ... words fail me.


Rape?

It's surprise sex, essentially.


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 4, 2012)

Lobar said:


> See, guys, you don't wanna reduce yourself to _Clayton's_ level, do you?


excusez-moi?
I dont believe that, thats whatsociety believes :/


----------



## Gr8fulFox (Feb 4, 2012)

This is off-topic, but I think it has to be said.

Clayton. Yer avatar has to be the most fucked-up thing I've ever seen posted on these forums. Good _god_, man...


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (Feb 4, 2012)

Lobar said:


> See, guys, you don't wanna reduce yourself to _Clayton's_ level, do you?



Do you think that maybe there was a nicer way of saying "I disagree with you, Clayton"

Lobar, I like you a lot, but that was kind of rude and not civil at all :|


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 4, 2012)

Gr8fulFox said:


> This is off-topic, but I think it has to be said.
> 
> Clayton. Yer avatar has to be the most fucked-up thing I've ever seen posted on these forums. Good _god_, man...


im getting into valentines spirit


----------



## Ad Hoc (Feb 4, 2012)

Gr8fulFox said:


> This is off-topic, but I think it has to be said.
> 
> Clayton. Yer avatar has to be the most fucked-up thing I've ever seen posted on these forums. Good _god_, man...


It could be loosely related to the topic. Dismissal of male rape/abuse victims played a role in Dahmer's, ah, "success." There was one instance in which his victim escaped, was picked up by police, and then _taken back to Dahmer's house_. They wouldn't take his claims seriously, even though he was naked, bleeding, and obviously drugged. (Also I think underage and in handcuffs?) There was even a group of women who'd seen the kid escape trying to stop the cops from taking him back, but the cops ignored the women too and told them to go away. He died of course, horribly. 

Part of that was also related to homophobia and racism (the victim was Asian and had poor English), but it's rather chilling to think of.


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 4, 2012)

Ad Hoc said:


> It could be loosely related to the topic. Dismissal of male rape/abuse victims played a role in Dahmer's, ah, "success." There was one instance in which his victim escaped, was picked up by police, and then _taken back to Dahmer's house_. They wouldn't take his claims seriously, even though he was naked, bleeding, and obviously drugged. (Also I think underage and in handcuffs?) There was even a group of women who'd seen the kid escape trying to stop the cops from taking him back, but the cops ignored the women too and told them to go away. He died of course, horribly.
> 
> Part of that was also related to homophobia and racism (the victim was Asian and had poor English), but it's rather chilling to think of.


yeah it was a 14 y.o boy, drugged, tied up, bleeding from the ass, naked

then jeffery found him and two women tried to stop him from grabbing the kid and called 9/11 and the cops let him go back home cause jeffery said that he was his 19 y.o bf

nobody cares about male victims of sexual abuse because to society they dont exist
only women and littlegirls can be sex abused


----------



## jcfynx (Feb 4, 2012)

Anyone who believes that women don't take advantage of their status as _the weaker sex_ is a great fool.

Women are allowed to physically, verbally, and emotionally abuse men. There was a show that did an experiment in public, where a woman actor pretends to abuse a male actor; no one intervened. Some people cheered her on while she hit and insulted him.

It took about ten seconds of the man yelling at the woman for someone to call the police.


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 4, 2012)

jcfynx said:


> Anyone who believes that women don't take advantage of their status as _the weaker sex_ is a great fool.
> 
> Women are allowed to physically, verbally, and emotionally abuse men. There was a show that did an experiment in public, where a woman actor pretends to abuse a male actor; no one intervened. Some people cheered her on while she hit and insulted him.
> 
> It took about ten seconds of the man yelling at the woman for someone to call the police.



Oh I believe it. It's ridiculous. 
I remember as a kid, hearing kids say shit about women being able to hit men a certain # of times before a man can hit a woman once and I never understood why. It's fucking ridiculous, these double standards.
Women want equal rights but they are totally against throwing down with a man lmfao

If you've got the lady-balls to punch a dude you had better be ballsy enough to take a punch back. Normally men don't smack women aruond cause women are weaklings, but the double standard is bullshit
if a chick hits me, you can bet Im gonna hit her back. I'm not gonan wait for her to punch me 3 times or whatever the fuck it is. one punch and Im hitting her back

in b4 clay is a wifebeater
kmfa manbeaters


----------



## Fay V (Feb 4, 2012)

Clayton said:


> yeah it was a 14 y.o boy, drugged, tied up, bleeding from the ass, naked
> 
> then jeffery found him and two women tried to stop him from grabbing the kid and called 9/11 and the cops let him go back home cause jeffery said that he was his 19 y.o bf
> 
> ...



This is one of the first things I learned about serial killers and it really is one of the most horrific things I ever heard. It's just too much to think that poor kid was sent back to such an awful death. 
Eugh.


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 4, 2012)

Fay V said:


> This is one of the first things I learned about serial killers and it really is one of the most horrific things I ever heard. It's just too much to think that poor kid was sent back to such an awful death.
> Eugh.



this is something that made me go "wait wat. wtf" about the Robert Pickton trial

"A 22.caliber gun was found at Mr. Pickton's home, with a dildo pulled over the barrel."


men get the short end of the stick when it comes to this kinda stuff
male gets raped by another male? he doesnt talk about it because men are manly, they're not supposed to get raped. Nobody would believe him anyways
male gets raped by female? how does that even happen? women are so weak! He obviously wanted it
boy gets bullied in school? that will toughen him up, maybe he should learn to stick up for himself

people only care when someone kills themselves and then it';s "oops lol we shoulda listened"


----------



## jcfynx (Feb 4, 2012)

Clayton said:


> words



Don't agree you will discredit me.


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 4, 2012)

jcfynx said:


> Don't agree you will discredit me.


if you were a woman i'd have you on the ground with a black eye
keep that in your pike and smoke it


----------



## jcfynx (Feb 4, 2012)

"My wife used to be in accounting, until I raped her.
Now she's in counseling."


----------



## Inciatus (Feb 4, 2012)

jcfynx said:


> Anyone who believes that women don't take advantage of their status as _the weaker sex_ is a great fool.
> 
> Women are allowed to physically, verbally, and emotionally abuse men. There was a show that did an experiment in public, where a woman actor pretends to abuse a male actor; no one intervened. Some people cheered her on while she hit and insulted him.
> 
> It took about ten seconds of the man yelling at the woman for someone to call the police.



[video=youtube;LlFAd4YdQks]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=LlFAd4YdQks[/video]

I think this is it.


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 4, 2012)

Inciatus said:


> [video=youtube;LlFAd4YdQks]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=LlFAd4YdQks[/video]
> 
> I think this is it.



[yt]SCkp8CWboNE[/yt]

ahha i love how he puts on his shades beforehand. such a damn bro


----------



## Fay V (Feb 4, 2012)

Clayton said:


> this is something that made me go "wait wat. wtf" about the Robert Pickton trial
> 
> "A 22.caliber gun was found at Mr. Pickton's home, with a dildo pulled over the barrel."
> 
> ...



Honestly our entire culture has fucked us up when dealing with victims, particularly those of sexual nature. 
Female rape victims are put through the ringer and asked all about their sexual past, because apparently if you slept with anyone ever you can't be raped. There's a story about a 12 year old girl being raped and going through the ordeal of being questioned about sexual history, drugs, everything. She was twleve. 
Males do have it a bit worse on that account. Men can't be raped. Either it's just some dirty homo or a liar because girls can't rape men. 
It seems like the entire thing is based on the patriarchy. Men are stigmatized for being victims because in the patriarchy men are only strong and powerful. No weak woman could ever hurt a man. 
Women that come out against their attackers are questioned because they must be dirty lying skanks that only want to hurt good men. 
You never hear the female on female victimization or whatever else. 

Yes it ruins lives when people are falsely accused of rape, but as it was said earlier, much of the problem doesn't stem from women abusing the rights they gained, but rather the problems of a broken system are still persistent and are hurting male victims who have yet to gain a voice.


----------



## jcfynx (Feb 4, 2012)

Fay V said:


> It seems like the entire thing is based on the patriarchy. Men are stigmatized for being victims because in the patriarchy men are only strong and powerful. No weak woman could ever hurt a man.



Patriarchy is only a small part of it.

People assume men are guilty, all the time, of everything. People assume women are not guilty. This has been proven by science. If a woman accuses a man of anything there is an _immediate assumption of guilt._

A man cannot so much as be seen around children without anyone thinking he is going to kidnap and then molest and murder them also.

Did you know? When men cheat on their significant others it is because they are douchebags, but when women cheat it is because they are sexually liberated. Also statistically 90% of men cheat while only 10% of women cheat.

If only women knew how hard it was for men to do so all of the lying and cheating so women don't have to.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Feb 4, 2012)

Clayton said:


> [yt]SCkp8CWboNE[/yt]
> 
> ahha i love how he puts on his shades beforehand. such a damn bro



She's an abusing teacher, goes on acting like that, gets smacked, and look how fucking surprised she is.


----------



## Dragonfurry (Feb 4, 2012)

Doesnt any one see the irony in all of this? On how women used to be oppressed and were/are sometimes considered the "weaker sex" and didnt really have any rights. But now men are being oppressed in a different way and how society makes it look like the man is always guilty just shows me irony at its best/worst.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Feb 4, 2012)

Dragonfurry said:


> Doesnt any one see the irony in all of this? On how women used to be oppressed and were/are sometimes considered the "weaker sex" and didnt really have any rights. But now men are being oppressed in a different way and how society makes it look like the man is always guilty just shows me irony at its best/worst.



Yes, we've previously established this.


----------



## Dragonfurry (Feb 4, 2012)

Gibby said:


> Yes, we've previously established this.



Ok then. Sorry for my stupidity.


----------



## Fay V (Feb 4, 2012)

jcfynx said:


> Patriarchy is only a small part of it.
> 
> People assume men are guilty, all the time, of everything. People assume women are not guilty. This has been proven by science. If a woman accuses a man of anything there is an _immediate assumption of guilt._
> 
> ...



part of that still goes to patriarchy and gender roles. 
Women can easily be around kids without looking suspicious, because people just assume they're being girly and their biological clock is ticking. Women take care of babies so it's fine
but men aren't supposed to be sensitive and emotional so obviously the only reason they would be interested in kids is if they had some nasty intent. 

As for the cheating thing. I've never heard it claimed that women cheating means they are sexually liberated. I've only ever heard that as a negative on both sides. However if a young guy sleeps around he's some stud. If a young girl does it she's a slut.

Both sides are victims. We're all just chipping away at this mountain of a problem from different sides.


----------



## Attaman (Feb 4, 2012)

I would not call what men go through "oppression", if only because oppression is a heavily weighted word. When you think "oppression", you don't think "He can't take extra time off work to help take care of his child", you think "Back of the bus with you" or "Sorry strict chromosomal requirement to have political representation". This doesn't mean that things such as female-on-whoever rape should be trivialized / ignored, but you'd do better with a word choice like "gender inequality".


----------



## Lobar (Feb 4, 2012)

Attaman said:


> I would not call what men go through "oppression", if only because oppression is a heavily weighted word. When you think "oppression", you don't think "He can't take extra time off work to help take care of his child", you think "Back of the bus with you" or "Sorry strict chromosomal requirement to have political representation". This doesn't mean that things such as female-on-whoever rape should be trivialized / ignored, but you'd do better with a word choice like "gender inequality".



This.  Men cannot be considered "oppressed" by any reasonable measure of the word.  Pretty much every instance of men getting the short end is a result of having established themselves as the more powerful of the two sexes.  For instance, it sucks that men often don't get custody and owe alimony by default in a divorce, but it follows from the established male role as the primary provider for his family, which has other effects like the wage and advancement disparity between men and women for the same career.  Is the divorce thing not a problem then?  No, but it's the only aspect most men have a problem with, and they ought to focus on the bigger picture of that led to these situations in the first place, even if it means giving up their privilege (_as they should_), rather than whining about how the evil feminists are coming to chop their balls off.


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (Feb 4, 2012)

Lobar said:


> This.  Men cannot be considered "oppressed" by any reasonable measure of the word.  Pretty much every instance of men getting the short end is a result of having established themselves as the more powerful of the two sexes.  For instance, it sucks that men often don't get custody and owe alimony by default in a divorce, but it follows from the established male role as the primary provider for his family, which has other effects like the wage and advancement disparity between men and women for the same career.  Is the divorce thing not a problem then?  No, but it's the only aspect most men have a problem with, and they ought to focus on the bigger picture of that led to these situations in the first place, even if it means giving up their privilege (_as they should_), rather than whining about how the evil feminists are coming to chop their balls off.



So then let's all agree to drop "gender roles"

all in favor?

/thread


----------



## Lobar (Feb 4, 2012)

Tybalt Maxwell said:


> So then let's all agree to drop "gender roles"
> 
> all in favor?
> 
> /thread



"Men's Rights Activists" aren't willing to compromise on the negative impacts their privilege has on women.  They just don't want to have to deal with it coming back to bite them if they decide to be shitbags.


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (Feb 4, 2012)

Lobar said:


> "Men's Rights Activists" aren't willing to compromise on the negative impacts their privilege has on women.  They just don't want to have to deal with it coming back to bite them if they decide to be shitbags.



What


----------



## Aleu (Feb 4, 2012)

Well this is certainly turning into a "women have it worse off than men" thread. This essentially proves the inequality men face in society.


----------



## Lobar (Feb 4, 2012)

Tybalt Maxwell said:


> What



They refuse to admit sexism exists except in these unusual situations where their presumed superiority works against them, and that is the only part they want to change.


----------



## Aleu (Feb 4, 2012)

Lobar said:


> They refuse to admit sexism exists except in these unusual situations where their presumed superiority works against them, and that is the only part they want to change.



I'd really appreciate it if you didn't generalize all of us like that. Women get screwed over and men get screwed over but typically (as it shows in the thread) men are rarely taken seriously when they ARE fucked over. That needs to change.


----------



## Yago (Feb 5, 2012)

Honestly, I think that women do have a tendency to use the gender card a bit. Not to say men don't, but still.

Men have a hard time getting custody of the children in divorce cases, and although rape is terrible, as mentioned, if a women cries rape and the case turns into a he-said-she-said type of thing, usually the  male will lose. Even if he didn't commit rape.


----------



## Lobar (Feb 5, 2012)

Aleu said:


> I'd really appreciate it if you didn't generalize all of us like that. Women get screwed over and men get screwed over but typically (as it shows in the thread) men are rarely taken seriously when they ARE fucked over. That needs to change.



Are you identifying as a men's rights activist?

Women are taken even less seriously, and they get fucked over far more frequently and in even more ways.

Moreover, the ways men are getting fucked over are by-products of the ways they're fucking the women over.



Yago said:


> if a women cries rape and the case turns into a he-said-she-said type of thing, usually the  male will lose. Even if he didn't commit rape.



You'd best have a damn good citation for this.


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (Feb 5, 2012)

Lobar said:


> They refuse to admit sexism exists except in these unusual situations where their presumed superiority works against them, and that is the only part they want to change.



You're generalizing men



Lobar said:


> Are you identifying as a men's rights activist?
> 
> Women are taken even less seriously, and they get fucked over far more frequently and in even more ways.
> 
> Moreover, the ways men are getting fucked over are by-products of the ways they're fucking the women over.



Okay

Now I haven't ever encountered sexism in my life, so I'm not an expert on the subject. I just want to get that out there before I make this point. Maybe it detracts, but whatever

Lobar, you're going on what seems to be a tiraid against men. Men are the root problem behind everything. Whatever ill happens to men is because of men (women being completely innocent). Men deserve what wrong happens to them because other men hundreds of years ago oppressed women.

You are seriously sounding like a femnazi. You sound like this cartoonish exaggeration of everything negative involved with the feminist movement.

I proposed we drop generalization. Drop it. Make it not a thing. As soon as YOU do that, you become in the right to ask others to.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Feb 5, 2012)

Tybalt Maxwell said:


> snip


T'was pretty clear in his first post that he was talking about masculists in particular, he probably forgot to reiterate the distinction. 

Lobar, you might have stood to clarify yourself a bit better, though, folks en't mind readers and they tend to forget.


----------



## Tao (Feb 5, 2012)

You can't generalize so much, both men and women have annoying misogynist groups of feminists/masculinists. Sexism ain't going nowhere anytime soon just cuz of how people are.


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (Feb 5, 2012)

Ad Hoc said:


> T'was pretty clear in his first post that he was talking about masculists in particular, he probably forgot to reiterate the distinction.
> 
> Lobar, you might have stood to clarify yourself a bit better, though, folks en't mind readers and they tend to forget.



My point still stands; drop generalization

don't group people up and judge, oft' times the group becomes this exaggerated thing. Do "Masculinists" even exist? I've not seen any

Edit: I recall my law teacher stating that the feminist movement goes both ways, that it stands for gender equality, and that if there were a case where a man was mistreated by a female, it would be feminists protesting in favour of the male. The "feminine" in the title is probably antiquated or somat.

so ja, there's literally no such thing as "masculinists"


----------



## Ad Hoc (Feb 5, 2012)

Tybalt Maxwell said:


> My point still stands; drop generalization
> 
> don't group people up and judge, oft' times the group becomes this exaggerated thing. Do "Masculinists" even exist? I've not seen any


Fair enough.

I used to date a self-titled masculist. He, uh. Well, I've known better people, we'll go with that.


----------



## Aleu (Feb 5, 2012)

Lobar said:


> Are you identifying as a men's rights activist?
> 
> Women are taken even less seriously, and they get fucked over far more frequently and in even more ways.
> 
> Moreover, the ways men are getting fucked over are by-products of the ways they're fucking the women over.



And there are babies in Africa starving and dying of AIDS. Does that mean we ignore homeless people in our own community?

"It happens more" doesn't matter. The fact of the matter is that it needs to stop.


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (Feb 5, 2012)

Ad Hoc said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> I used to date a self-titled masculist. He, uh. Well, I've known better people, we'll go with that.



This guy sounds like an idiot.

(Your ex, not you)


----------



## Lobar (Feb 5, 2012)

Tybalt Maxwell said:


> Lobar, you're going on what seems to be a tiraid against men. Men are the root problem behind everything. Whatever ill happens to men is because of men (women being completely innocent). Men deserve what wrong happens to them because other men hundreds of years ago oppressed women.



Never have I implied anyone deserves any sort of injustice.  But there is no systemic oppression or violation of the rights of men at the hands of privileged women, while the converse does exist in abundance.  Women's organizations don't even have the political pressure to obtain special privilege over men if they wanted to.  Men's rights organizations also have tended only to attack gender inequality only at the level where it begins to impact them negatively and never anywhere else, e.g. there needs to be more sensitivity for male rape victims, but women should continue to be regarded as lying sluts that wanted it.  MRAs ought to be regarded as a sick joke.

Aleu, you ought to read some of the wretched articles on the website OP posted (particularly the horrid article Mayfurr linked), and even worse, the comments, before you decide this is the sort of company you want to identify yourself with.


----------



## Aleu (Feb 5, 2012)

Lobar said:


> Never have I implied anyone deserves any sort of injustice.  But there is no systemic oppression or violation of the rights of men at the hands of privileged women, while the converse does exist in abundance.  Women's organizations don't even have the political pressure to obtain special privilege over men if they wanted to.  Men's rights organizations also have tended only to attack gender inequality only at the level where it begins to impact them negatively and never anywhere else, e.g. there needs to be more sensitivity for male rape victims, but women should continue to be regarded as lying sluts that wanted it.  MRAs ought to be regarded as a sick joke.
> 
> Aleu, you ought to read some of the wretched articles on the website OP posted (particularly the horrid article Mayfurr linked), and even worse, the comments, before you decide this is the sort of company you want to identify yourself with.



You mean from the troll site? :/


----------



## Lobar (Feb 5, 2012)

Aleu said:


> You mean from the troll site? :/



No, they're not trolls.  People actually think this way:



			
				Mark said:
			
		

> This would probably explain why rape is â€œthe most underreported crime.â€ Iâ€™m sure there are many women who have enjoyed the experience, but would never admit for fear of being ostracized. Obviously, not all women enjoy being raped, or you wouldnâ€™t have any women going to the police.
> 
> Iâ€™m sure there are many variables that affect a womanâ€™s enjoyment of rape or lack of. Did the rapist use a weapon on her or threaten to kill her? Was there a beating in addition to the rape? Did he use a foreign object to rape her? Was he a George Clooney lookalike, or was he just some smelly drunken bum off of the street?
> 
> ...


----------



## Unsilenced (Feb 5, 2012)

Lobar said:


> Never have I implied anyone deserves any sort of injustice.  But there is no systemic oppression or violation of the rights of men at the hands of privileged women, while the converse does exist in abundance.  Women's organizations don't even have the political pressure to obtain special privilege over men if they wanted to.  Men's rights organizations also have tended only to attack gender inequality only at the level where it begins to impact them negatively and never anywhere else, e.g. there needs to be more sensitivity for male rape victims, but women should continue to be regarded as lying sluts that wanted it.  MRAs ought to be regarded as a sick joke.
> 
> Aleu, you ought to read some of the wretched articles on the website OP posted (particularly the horrid article Mayfurr linked), and even worse, the comments, before you decide this is the sort of company you want to identify yourself with.



So if a group dedicated to men's issues doesn't address women's issues, they by extension believe in furthering those issues? 

I think the idea of a men's rights group is kind of silly because it's basically doing the exact same thing they complain about feminists doing, but that's kind of... not really logic.


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (Feb 5, 2012)

Lobar said:


> No, they're not trolls.  People actually think this way



Look at that thing

Look at that thing you just said

You're believing that what someone says is true, with no other evidence to back it up

-on the internet-


----------



## Lobar (Feb 5, 2012)

Unsilenced said:


> So if a group dedicated to men's issues doesn't address women's issues, they by extension believe in furthering those issues?



Not by extension.  It's a separate point.



Tybalt Maxwell said:


> Look at that thing
> 
> Look at that thing you just said
> 
> ...



I didn't even go hunting for the most offensive post I could find.  The _entire site_ is like that.  Many commenters posted in agreement.  They have two years' of articles archived without a trace of irony.  They have a goddamned _radio show_.  This is not a troll site.


----------



## Unsilenced (Feb 5, 2012)

Lobar said:


> Not by extension.  It's a separate point.



You've independently verified that all members of "men's rights groups" think that female rape is trivial?

I'm impressed.


----------



## Lobar (Feb 5, 2012)

Unsilenced said:


> You've independently verified that all members of "men's rights groups" think that female rape is trivial?
> 
> I'm impressed.



I never credited every single member of that site assenting to a specific argument, but I have seen enough to reasonably conclude that groupthink is rampant throughout the site and that it is likely that the majority would agree with that argument, and all or nearly all would agree with other misogynist ideas that are similarly terrible for similar reasons.  Don't be so nitpicky.

I should mention I've encountered MRAs elsewhere before.  There's a hive of them on reddit. :\


----------



## The_Mask (Feb 5, 2012)

*grabs ten-foot pole*
...yeah no, nevermind.
*walks away*


----------



## Onnes (Feb 5, 2012)

Lobar, your generalizations, or at least less than careful language, in this thread seem to imply that any group concerned with male issues and rights without first and foremost being concerned with female issues and rights must be antifeminist. There's an obvious logic hole there.


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 5, 2012)

i dont believe that men having a hard time getting custody of kids "gender inequality". Some cases, sure it could be considered that
but for the most part it's because te government is relying on the man to make more money and therefore put more $$ in their wallets for child support


----------



## Lobar (Feb 5, 2012)

Onnes said:


> Lobar, your generalizations, or at least less than careful language, in this thread seem to imply that any group concerned with male issues and rights without first and foremost being concerned with female issues and rights must be antifeminist. There's an obvious logic hole there.



The way I see it, for someone to think the problems men have faced are relatively exceptional and widespread enough to require a specialized focus to combat them takes an astounding lack of perspective.  I recognize that men have problems sometimes too, but this does not equate to needing special advocacy.  I am open-minded and willing to hear arguments, but literally every encounter with MRAs I've had has only left me with an even lower opinion of them.  That's not an easy trend to sustain indefinitely.


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 5, 2012)

lobar i did a googly moogly and found that what you quoted or w/e is only traceable back to a male activist site and a Something Awful site
heh


----------



## Mayfurr (Feb 5, 2012)

Onnes said:


> Lobar, your generalizations, or at least less than careful language, in this thread seem to imply that any group concerned with male issues and rights without first and foremost being concerned with female issues and rights must be antifeminist. There's an obvious logic hole there.



On the other hand, the "_Women enjoy rape and are manipulative bitches who deserve to be knocked off their pedestals_" mens-rights groups are not exactly helping any genuine cause for any anti-male gender inequality, in much the same way as the "_All men are rapists_" feminist groups aren't helping genuine cases of anti-_female_ gender inequality. And I concur with Lobar in that the so-called "Mens' Rights" supporters I've seen about the place are more often than not misogynist twats who start whining about some overarching feminist conspiracy the moment they don't get their way over something like child custody.

Maybe in some areas the pendulum of gender equality has swung a bit too far towards a female-dominant position from where it previously was positioned with male gender dominance, and if so mens' rights and womens' rights should be aligned so there is a balance between the two - with appropriate recognition that men and women _are_ different and that in some cases physical biology has an inescapable impact on male-female relationships. But these "A Voice For Men" _pricks_ are only making matters worse.


----------



## Alastair Snowpaw (Feb 5, 2012)

Ibuuyk said:


> It's true that women have too much power because of feminism, men have no right to do anything without being called a sexist and shoo'd by society.  Since women started having power, they just kept on abusing 'em.
> 
> Girls, you wanted equal rights, now you have more rights than men.  Stop being greedy and fucking learn how to handle responsibilities already, geez.


except men do the same, and in general poeple do the same. we always abuse power when we get the chance.
also i loathe male sterotypes and "responsibilities".


----------



## Lobar (Feb 5, 2012)

Clayton said:


> lobar i did a googly moogly and found that what you quoted or w/e is only traceable back to a male activist site and a Something Awful site
> heh



specifically, it's traceable back to the specific male activist site that this thread was CREATED TO DISCUSS wowowowwowow

and the SA thread was "repost dumb/terrible things you see people say on reddit etc."

i'm going to bed


----------



## Kellie Gator (Feb 5, 2012)

Um, holy shit. You guys posted a lot while I was sleeping. I'm pretty overwhelmed but thankful because I might get inspired to keep writing soon if we keep going with this.



dinosaurdammit said:


> Men often do get the shit end of the stick when it comes to rape :/


Indeed, and I find that to be really bad. I think the problem here is that these MRAs specifically blame feminists and women for this which is quite juvenile and I haven't seen a lot of hard evidence that it's actually true. It's just as looney as the Eurabia theory.



Clayton said:


> "something i would really, really love to be, would be a male victims advocate.
> 
> to be depressingly honest, male victims advocates who are male are so often dismissed as misogynist, â€œpatriarchal,â€ or other such stupid terms. there is nothing misogynist or patriarchal about looking after the victims so rarely looked after by everyone. they are framed as people who want to ignore female victims. this is not the case.
> 
> ...


Jesus, that sounds fucking awful. Just reading it made me kinda depressed.

I've been thinking about the whole "it's the fault of radical feminism!" thing, though. It's been hinted at before but I often wonder if violence against men and how male rape victims often are ignored are indeed a result of patriarchy. Men can't be raped or abused because men are strong. Men can't be submissive to a woman OR another man because it's wrong to be feminine. With the whole Jeffrey Dahmer thing, it was two MALE cops who sent that boy back to the apartment, after all. THOSE FUCKING FEMINAZIS, GRRRR.

I hope I don't sound completely stupid here. I haven't read that article about women who enjoy getting raped yet, I'll get right to that and read some other things along the way.


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 5, 2012)

Kellie Gator said:


> Jesus, that sounds fucking awful. Just reading it made me kinda depressed.
> 
> I've been thinking about the whole "it's the fault of radical feminism!" thing, though. It's been hinted at before but I often wonder if violence against men and how male rape victims often are ignored are indeed a result of patriarchy. Men can't be raped or abused because men are strong. Men can't be submissive to a woman OR another man because it's wrong to be feminine. With the whole Jeffrey Dahmer thing, it was two MALE cops who sent that boy back to the apartment, after all. THOSE FUCKING FEMINAZIS, GRRRR.
> 
> I hope I don't sound completely stupid here. I haven't read that article about women who enjoy getting raped yet, I'll get right to that and read some other things along the way.



Not to mention if you talk about a male being forced to penetrate another male or a female, people won't believe you. After all, how the fuck could it be rape if the guy was hard and stuck his cock in?

[yt]-ZCektn32w8[/yt]


----------



## Bornes (Feb 5, 2012)

I know it's already been discussed, but I felt like interjecting a personal account (not my own).


----------



## Zoetrope (Feb 5, 2012)

There definitely needs to be more compassion and understanding for male issues. Especially with rape and abuse. Upon reading this through though some of you see things in black and white, saying things like "Men have no rights because women have too many rights" is stupid. Turn the clock back 150 years, man gets raped by man or woman, how do you predict that will go if he complains to the authorities or goes to the hospital for bruising, or to a counselor about it? They would probably get laughed at, or told not to talk about it, or to suck it up. Admittedly, I could be wrong, I wasn't around 150 years ago but I'm pretty sure there wasn't any support or empathy for male rape victims. And I'm talking about a time before women had a right to vote and the feminist movement. So if men are still getting the same or worse treatment in regards to the issue pre-feminism then it can't possibly be because women have 'too many rights'. Blame is easy, it completely absolves you of fault to point your finger at women's rights and say "THAT. THAT IS THE CAUSE OF MY MALCONTENT".

Quite simply, I don't think this portion of men's rights has really been addressed until now. Now that people are willing to talk about it, progress can be made. There are people willing to help, it will just take time. The feminist movement is still happening around the world, it was not instantaneous. Unfortunately politics move at a snails pace when it comes to pretty much everything, but especially with the issues that really matter.

Also I kind of like my rights. And I'm not sorry.


----------



## Fay V (Feb 5, 2012)

Fruxie said:


> lots of great words



Honestly I do think it is the fault of the patriarchy. I don't think it is the fault of men, females did their part to build up the patriarchy as well, it's just that for so damn long we've had this male=powerful, women=submissive culture and it has fucked us up. 

As women have been chipping away at the problem to get rights back people have been noticing "well hey, I have this problem too." Perhaps the feminist movement shed light on the problems males face, but that doesn't mean it was the cause. As mentioned above, it's silly to think the problem is these rights women have when the problems would have persisted in the past. 

In the end we still have problems on both sides, we still have a towering issue, and it's okay to focus on certain problems like the issues men face, or the issues women face so long as you're willing to accept that it's not the only problem being dealt with.


----------



## Aleu (Feb 5, 2012)

Lobar said:


> The way I see it, for someone to think the problems men have faced are relatively exceptional and widespread enough to require a specialized focus to combat them takes an astounding lack of perspective.  I recognize that men have problems sometimes too, but this does not equate to needing special advocacy.  I am open-minded and willing to hear arguments, but literally every encounter with MRAs I've had has only left me with an even lower opinion of them.  That's not an easy trend to sustain indefinitely.



So because it's not heard of means that nothing should be done about it?

Uh, wow man.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Feb 5, 2012)

Kellie Gator said:


> I've been thinking about the whole "it's the fault of radical feminism!" thing, though. It's been hinted at before but I often wonder if violence against men and how male rape victims often are ignored are indeed a result of patriarchy. Men can't be raped or abused because men are strong. Men can't be submissive to a woman OR another man because it's wrong to be feminine. With the whole Jeffrey Dahmer thing, it was two MALE cops who sent that boy back to the apartment, after all. THOSE FUCKING FEMINAZIS, GRRRR.


Well, they also overlook completely obvious stuff, like how it was a feminist group that lobbied to get the American federal definition of rape to cover male victims and female perpetrators. You've also go the fact that most arguably sexist laws (like alimony laws) were written and passed by men, not women, with the assumption that men are strong and women are weak and it's the job of the former to protect the latter. It is really, absolutely numbskulled to blame feminism for these problems. At most they've diverted attention away from male issues, but then you get the groups that are actively fighting it like with the rape definition and then that doesn't hold water either. 



I'm going to pony up a bit of sensible men's rights stuff, though. It's an old documentary called Tough Guise. It's about male gender roles and how they hurt men the same way that female gender roles hurt women. It's old, the stats in it are dated, and unfortunately it doesn't really examine the issue of male-victim rape/abuse, but other than that it's a nice little documentary that looks at male social issues without demonizing feminism/women, in fact it presents the issues as intertwined and seems to be looking for cooperation rather than conflict.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Feb 5, 2012)

Discrimination against men isn't really tracked by statisticians. 
It happens all the time.

Men are just asked to keep their chin held up, and deal with it, since that's how members of our gender are supposed to deal with such things.

Women have support groups, 9,000+ persons who are available to console them, and the law on their sides.

Men have "DEAL WITH IT, FAGGOT" or "PIG", regardless of the virtues that man might possess, all thanks to a biased legal system, social conservatives (attempting to further define the role of men within society), and second/third wave feminists.


----------



## Wreth (Feb 5, 2012)

JesusFish said:


> Discrimination against men isn't really tracked by statisticians.
> It happens all the time.
> 
> Men are just asked to keep their chin held up, and deal with it, since that's how members of our gender are supposed to deal with such things.
> ...



The sad part is the expectation of men to deal with it, and not ask for, or accept help was created by men themselves.


----------



## Mayfurr (Feb 5, 2012)

Kellie Gator said:


> I've been thinking about the whole "it's the fault of radical feminism!" thing, though. It's been hinted at before but I often wonder if violence against men and how male rape victims often are ignored are indeed a result of patriarchy. Men can't be raped or abused because men are strong. Men can't be submissive to a woman OR another man because it's wrong to be feminine.



An argument can also be made that the whole "_women have an easier time getting child custody_" thing is also caused by the patriarchal system that emphasised the female role of being the primary (if not sole) child caregiver while the male was the sole provider / income earner. Despite society having moved on significantly from the "women's place is (only) in the home" and placing more emphasis on shared gender roles, there is still a strong remaining sense in society that childcare = mothers, and custody decisions may still reflect that to an extent. Anything outside of that family childcare model, like a "stay at home dad, working mum", is still novel enough to make headlines.



Kellie Gator said:


> I haven't read that article about women who enjoy getting raped yet, I'll get right to that and read some other things along the way.



You might want to have some disinfectant handy for after you've read that article :-(



Wreth said:


> The sad part is the expectation of men to deal with it, and not ask for, or accept help was created by men themselves.



This. Definitely this.


----------



## Aleu (Feb 5, 2012)

From personal experience, I believe they need to revamp the whole child custody thing. When my parents fought for custody, it was a really nasty battle that really got dirty. Basically it got down to forcing me to choose and lots of guilt trips. In the end, I said that I wanted to live with my father because he'd be closer to my school and work (logic). My mom still demanded child support from him even though I was living with him. WTF is this shit?


----------



## Wreth (Feb 5, 2012)

Mayfurr said:


> An argument can also be made that the whole "_women have an easier time getting child custody_" thing is also caused by the patriarchal system that emphasised the female role of being the primary (if not sole) child caregiver while the male was the sole provider / income earner. Despite society having moved on significantly from the "women's place is (only) in the home" and placing more emphasis on shared gender roles, there is still a strong remaining sense in society that childcare = mothers, and custody decisions may still reflect that to an extent. Anything outside of that family childcare model, like a "stay at home dad, working mum", is still novel enough to make headlines.



Though I think it's important to remember than men and women are responsible for maintaining this part of our culture in modern times, and everyone, both men and women, need to work to prevent any kind of double standard or sexism towards men and women.

Men may have caused it, but both men and women today maintain it, as well as ''fight'' against it.


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 5, 2012)

Bornes said:


> I know it's already been discussed, but I felt like interjecting a personal account (not my own).


if my bf ever had the balls to do that to me he'd end up on the ground with a wine glass stem stabbed into the back of his damn head

but in al seriousness though, thats horrible shit


----------



## Neuron (Feb 5, 2012)

Ibuuyk said:


> It's true that women have too much power because of feminism, men have no right to do anything without being called a sexist and shoo'd by society.  Since women started having power, they just kept on abusing 'em.
> 
> Girls, you wanted equal rights, now you have more rights than men.  Stop being greedy and fucking learn how to handle responsibilities already, geez.


Uh, no. Still not getting paid equal salary, still not allowed to battle on the front lines despite being as capable if not more so than men when it comes to dealing with PTSD (that's not my "omg feminazi" talking, some studies actually suggest women in the military deal with PTSD a lot better), still being told if I can't find a job I should quit school and just marry a rich sugar daddy. I don't have more power than you as a male, and your claim of that is bullshit to the highest degree. 

Let me guess, you're one of those poor rejected sons of a bitches that thinks that it's "feminism" that's behind the reason men can't just willy nilly hit on women without it being questioned. Well guess what, a real feminist doesn't give a shit and will be flattered that men find her attractive, not bitching everyone out about how freedom as a woman dictates she shouldn't be hit on. Those are called "feminazis," they are few and far between, and they are not to be used as any kind of example in what feminism is actually about.

That being said, Misandry exists, if you want to see the biggest example of how misandry works you need only to look towards divorce custody cases. There's been heroin addict mothers that get awarded custody when there's a perfectly normal father with a good job and a good house who gets left in the dust because of false allegations of "abuse." Then they act surprised when the kids end up dead and still want to blame the father somehow even when he didn't even have custody.

And don't get me started on how men apparently can't be raped or sexually abused in any way, especially not by a woman. And then of course, in abuse cases like the one pictured, the woman will often claim it's the man who started the abuse and they'll often take her word for it, which then makes any allegations of abuse perpetrated by her turn into "Self-Defense."


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (Feb 5, 2012)

Lobar said:


> Not by extension.  It's a separate point.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't even go hunting for the most offensive post I could find.  The _entire site_ is like that.  Many commenters posted in agreement.  They have two years' of articles archived without a trace of irony.  They have a goddamned _radio show_.  This is not a troll site.



Conservapedia

I bet that site is 100% serious too


----------



## Mayfurr (Feb 5, 2012)

Tybalt Maxwell said:


> Conservapedia
> 
> I bet that site is 100% serious too



Sadly, yes.


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (Feb 5, 2012)

Mayfurr said:


> Sadly, yes.



You have as much reason to trust those two sites

as you do to believe me if I said I was magical

Bow down to me and my ancient myjyyx


----------



## Aleu (Feb 5, 2012)

Tybalt Maxwell said:


> You have as much reason to trust those two sites
> 
> as you do to believe me if I said I was magical
> 
> Bow down to me and my ancient myjyyx


Actually Conservapedia is serious, yes.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Feb 5, 2012)

Tybalt Maxwell said:


> You have as much reason to trust those two sites
> 
> as you do to believe me if I said I was magical
> 
> Bow down to me and my ancient myjyyx


Dude Conservapedia is for real. Let that sink in eh.

Landover Baptist isn't though, thank goodness.


----------



## Aleu (Feb 5, 2012)

Ad Hoc said:


> Dude Conservapedia is for real. Let that sink in eh.
> 
> Landover Baptist isn't though, thank goodness.


And ChristWire

Though Fox News is still serious so yeah


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (Feb 6, 2012)

And the onion!!!

(Do you guys belieb in santa too or is that too much)


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 6, 2012)

Tybalt Maxwell said:


> And the onion!!!
> 
> (Do you guys belieb in santa too or is that too much)


fuck, i wish i had the facebook reaction screencaps to this. it was GOLD

http://www.theonion.com/video/justin-bieber-found-to-be-cleverly-disguised-51yea,18178/


----------



## Kellie Gator (Feb 6, 2012)

Lacus said:


> Uh, no. Still not getting paid equal salary,


That's one thing, A Voice for Men and other MRA sites constantly claims that this pay gap between the sexes is merely fictional but I haven't really seen any statistics to prove either way so I can't say much about that. Anyone care to help me out on this?



Tybalt Maxwell said:


> You have as much reason to trust those two sites
> 
> as you do to believe me if I said I was magical
> 
> Bow down to me and my ancient myjyyx


I really hate to say this but you seem to be in some serious denial. o_o


----------



## Ad Hoc (Feb 6, 2012)

Tybalt Maxwell said:


> And the onion!!!
> 
> (Do you guys belieb in santa too or is that too much)


No, dude, seriously, it's real. It was started as a very genuine attempt at a right-wing answer to "liberal Wikipedia" by a certain Andrew Schlafly, a conservative-Christian homeschooling father, and son to Phyllis Schlafly, a conservative activist. There are some troll editors but Schlafly maintains a surprising amount of personal control over the site. Here's an interview with the dude, it's Colbert but this guy is genuine. 

Aren't you the one that was asking what the right wing even _is_ the other day? When you've grown up in America listening to Limbaugh and Beck, this shit's a little further out there but it's not unimaginable by any stretch. (Obviously not all right-wingers are like that, most are good people, but like most groups of people there is a very strange fringe.) 



Kellie Gator said:


> That's one thing, A Voice for Men and other MRA sites constantly claims that this pay gap between the sexes is merely fictional but I haven't really seen any statistics to prove either way so I can't say much about that. Anyone care to help me out on this?


Well, I've heard that part of the discrepancy is that even well-educated women tend to end up in social/humanities type jobs--teaching, social work, that sort of a thing. They're still underrepresented in more technical math/science areas like engineering. (Whether that's being women have a natural inclination to humanities or because we as a society tend to groom girls from the ground up against math/science is a subject of some argument; personally I feel it is the latter.) So, you end up with a big pay difference between men/women even with the same level of education, not from sexism but just because some types of education are going to pay more than others.

Although I don't know what the current status is on male/female pay discrepancies when they really do end up with the same job. I imagine it's still there.


----------



## Heimdal (Feb 6, 2012)

Equality has not at all been fully achieved, but I can't help but note a common problem with a lot of feminist extremists. Their ideals are in the right place, but there are just plenty of them with irrational stances that do little more than hurt their own cause. I saw a screencap image passed around on facebook the other day, with hundreds of "likes". It was a short Q & A from... Twitter or something. (It should be public, at this link, but I'll summarize it just in case.)

The question was something like: "_If your daughter was going to a party with boys who were drinking, would you let her go looking like a slut?_"

The answer response was longer, but here's a summary version: "_It shouldn't matter what she wears. Blah blah.. rape! If you teach your son not to tolerate rape first, I'll worry about raising a daughter!_"

It was worded pseudo-intelligently, and at first glance it had a point, but then I realized the question didn't mention rape at all! There was clearly this implication that "boys + drinking = rape". This is a common thought pattern that misidentifies the problem. Boys are not rapists; rapists are rapists. This person's perspective, at it's very worst, sets up a self-fulfilling prophecy for the future. At it's best, it just demonizes an entire sex. Caution ought to always be exercised, but that's so much different than working from a twisted "boys = rape" perspective.

I'm a boy, I drink at parties, and I support feminism. That perspective is brutal friendly-fire. Feminism is worse off until every feminist can realize this.


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 6, 2012)

Heimdal said:


> Equality has not at all been fully achieved, but I can't help but note a common problem with a lot of feminist extremists. Their ideals are in the right place, but there are just plenty of them with irrational stances that do little more than hurt their own cause. I saw a screencap image passed around on facebook the other day, with hundreds of "likes". It was a short Q & A from... Twitter or something. (It should be public, at this link, but I'll summarize it just in case.)
> 
> The question was something like: "_If your daughter was going to a party with boys who were drinking, would you let her go looking like a slut?_"
> 
> ...



What's worse is when people say "don't dress like that, you don't want to get raped" or "she was dressing like a slut"
It's victim-blaming covered up with false concern. It implies that it's the females fault that she was raped because of the way she was dressed, not because some pos wanted to force himself on her.


----------



## Tycho (Feb 6, 2012)

Regarding the whole "dressing like a slut" thing - I don't understand why any self-respecting girl/woman of any age would choose to dress in a manner that is inherently attractive to the type of guy she would likely be assaulted, overpowered and raped by because "she obv. wanted it, look how she's dressed" as they would likely rationalize it.

Do they LIKE dressing like that? They have the freedom to, yes, it's not right to rape someone no matter how they're dressed, but the badguys don't CARE about what is legally "right" or "wrong", the rowdy and horny drunks don't care about much of anything but what their id dictates... they dress like this with the assumption that everyone is gonna play by the rules, which is naive to the point of being STUPID and/or daring bad things to happen to them.

And then when these women/girls who like to tempt fate DO get assaulted, the fallout can and does hit the decent guys, the ones who WOULDN'T commit that kind of crime.  It's like a careless bystander conducting themselves poorly in front of a high-risk pit bull and then making a statement on TV that "pit bulls are horrid dogs that are all prone to being unpredictable and violent".  Pit owners and lovers know better, people who have an inkling of what transpired leading to the mauling know better, they know that the pit in question was indeed an incident waiting to happen and the person who was mauled was putting themselves at risk needlessly.  Everyone else? It becomes a normal thing to equate savagery and meanness and high-risk dogs to pit bulls.

Mind you, the pit bulls get a worse bum rap for that than most men get for the acts of the "badguys", but it happens.


----------



## Gavrill (Feb 6, 2012)

how about if guys just restrained themselves from assaulting women regardless of what they are wearing

because everyone is like "Well she dressed like a slut"
but you don't see guys becoming chaotic raping assholes in strip clubs just because the girls are naked

that argument is stupid


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 6, 2012)

Tycho said:


> Regarding the whole "dressing like a slut" thing - I don't understand why any self-respecting girl/woman of any age would choose to dress in a manner that is inherently attractive to the type of guy she would likely be assaulted, overpowered and raped by because "she obv. wanted it, look how she's dressed" as they would likely rationalize it.
> 
> Do they LIKE dressing like that? They have the freedom to, yes, it's not right to rape someone no matter how they're dressed, but the badguys don't CARE about what is legally "right" or "wrong", the rowdy and horny drunks don't care about much of anything but what their id dictates... they dress like this with the assumption that everyone is gonna play by the rules, which is naive to the point of being STUPID and/or daring bad things to happen to them.
> 
> ...


You're fucking ridiculous.
What about guys? What happens when a dude is raped? Dudes don't dress provocative. What is your conclusion there?
A woman should be allowed to feel safe wearing whatever the fuck she feels comfortable in without being afraid of some person raping her and then society saying "lol well look at what you were wearing"

What is your reaction to this photo?






EDIT: Also, your comparison between Pit Bulls and rapists is so botched it's infuriating. You are comparing a human being who KNOWS BETTER than to rape someone and it is expected of them to have SOME SORT OF MORALS with an animal who is trained/bred/conditioned for months and months to kill another animal purely for the satisfaction of the dogmen.
They are both abhorrent acts, but one of the beings *should know better* and the other is doing what it was *trained to do* and doing something that is *not natural in any living being*. No living being in it's right mind will willingly get into a fight with another being and endure the pain until it dies, no human being in their right mind will rape someone and think it's okay and that "hey, look at the way they were dressed".


----------



## Dragonfurry (Feb 6, 2012)

I will just leave these here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JA4EPRbWhQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-Nw3zyYpvs&list=FLLFB137wcAz61eTPzKtfXWQ&index=3&feature=plpp_video


----------



## Cyanide_tiger (Feb 6, 2012)

Gavrill said:


> how about if guys just restrained themselves from assaulting women regardless of what they are wearing
> 
> because everyone is like "Well she dressed like a slut"
> but you don't see guys becoming chaotic raping assholes in strip clubs just because the girls are naked
> ...



Because there are generally bouncers in any given strip club that will be happy to relocate your face to the inside of your ribcage if one of the women says you're getting too grabby. 

The "she's dressed like a slut" argument isn't any more valid for that, just pointing out the fact that in strip clubs, all it takes to get you dislodged from the building is the word of one of the women working there.


----------



## Tycho (Feb 6, 2012)

Gavrill said:


> how about if guys just restrained themselves from assaulting women regardless of what they are wearing



And how about if Wall Street stopped gambling with everyone else's money? And how about if disenfranchised young people stopped subscribing to radical (insert dogma here) rhetoric and stopped killing in the name of *? And how about if people actually voted in their best interests instead of- gee, this could go on for a while.

The good guys can't stop them all and the bad guys are sure as hell not inclined to stop themselves.  Quit living in storybook land where the evils are always big obvious easy-to-see monsters that NO ONE likes with big obvious weak points that always fall when all the goodly folk stick together.



Gavrill said:


> because everyone is like "Well she dressed like a slut"



Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, I'm pretty sure it's a duck, *BLAM*... oh shit, it's just Linda from up the block doing a duck impression, did NOT see that coming! Sorry Linda, you sure do a good duck impression, I hope they remove all the shotgun pellets without a problem.  Surely she would have known that it was a bad idea to pretend to be a duck out here where ducks are certainly more common than people pretending to be ducks.



Gavrill said:


> but you don't see guys becoming chaotic raping assholes in strip clubs just because the girls are naked



No, because there are other people there to keep their asses in check.  In the areas around strip clubs it can be a hazardous place to be a woman OR a man, because some guys just aren't satisfied with what they get at the titty bar.


----------



## Gavrill (Feb 6, 2012)

Cyanide_tiger said:


> Because there are generally bouncers in any given strip club that will be happy to relocate your face to the inside of your ribcage if one of the women says you're getting too grabby.
> 
> The "she's dressed like a slut" argument isn't any more valid for that, just pointing out the fact that in strip clubs, all it takes to get you dislodged from the building is the word of one of the women working there.


Have you ever been to a strip club? It's really not CONSTANT SEXUAL TENSION ON THE VERGE OF RAPE. Really. It's not. A guy should be able to look at a lady in a bikini and go "looks nice" and keep walking 

Or is everyone insisting that yes, if they see a girl with very little clothes, they would assault her?
are guys really that incapable of being on a beach or in a club or in a Victoria's Secret without raping someone

seriously

makin yourself look bad

e: tycho. no. bad.
Did you know that most serial rapists _don't give a shit _what the chick they rape is wearing, because rape is more about control than anything?
Guys know how to control themselves, and should be able to _everywhere, _not just because a place is public or not.
I don't want to argue with you Tycho, because you're friends with one of my friends, but ugh. If you seriously hold these beliefs I just
i don't know

i'm going this is retarded 
remind me to assault the next guy i see wearing a jock strap


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 6, 2012)

Tycho said:


> No, because there are other people there to keep their asses in check.  In the areas around strip clubs it can be a hazardous place to be a woman OR a man, because some guys just aren't satisfied with what they get at the titty bar.



The position you have on women + man rape is a bit disgusting. I'm reading this shit and it just sounds like you're comparing a woman/stripper/whoever walking around and getting raped to holding a hotdog in front of a dog's nose and then getting mad when the dog tries to bite it out of your hand.
It just reeks of objectification of women. Almost as if they're not actually humans and instead walking sex-toys.

I know strippers. I know that the second you lay a hand on them [even if they're giving you a lap dance] you'll get kicked out. You're there to watch naked chicks not fondle a realdoll. Cmon, even the bouncers at a *strip-club* treat women as human beings.


----------



## Fay V (Feb 6, 2012)

Tycho said:


> Regarding the whole "dressing like a slut" thing - I don't understand why any self-respecting girl/woman of any age would choose to dress in a manner that is inherently attractive to the type of guy she would likely be assaulted, overpowered and raped by because "she obv. wanted it, look how she's dressed" as they would likely rationalize it.
> 
> Do they LIKE dressing like that? They have the freedom to, yes, it's not right to rape someone no matter how they're dressed, but the badguys don't CARE about what is legally "right" or "wrong", the rowdy and horny drunks don't care about much of anything but what their id dictates... they dress like this with the assumption that everyone is gonna play by the rules, which is naive to the point of being STUPID and/or daring bad things to happen to them.
> 
> ...



The issue is not "guys are hitting on me and they're creepy." In that case, yes it's the girl's fault for wearing slutty clothing. Certain guys see slut clothing and think the girls want their attention and hell it might even go so far as unwanted touching. I'll accept that to a certain degree

but clothing choice does not dictate rape. It's more than some guy being a creeper. It's more than unwanted butt slaps. It's rape. Men do not see slutty clothes and turn into a rapist like a wolf under the moon. Rapists are rapists because their personality and beliefs allow them to go so far to violate a person. 
The "well why was she wearing that" thing is awful on so many levels. It blames the victim, as if it is her fault someone could not take no for an answer, that someone else was okay with forcing themself on others and doing irreversible harm. 
It also assumes that all men seem to be rapists just waiting for that trigger. No A rapist would still be a rapist even if everyone around them were dressed in burkas 
And finally it's that idea that men can't be raped. If rape is the result of dressing provocatively then obviously normal boys aren't being touched ever. 

Some girls dress like that because they do want attention, but wanting to flirt does not mean that you're giving the green light for everything. Do I approve of that kind of fashion choice, not really, does it matter in the case of rape, absolutely not.


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 6, 2012)

Also, when does it stop being "look at the way they were dressed" and "oh fuck, they've[the rapist] got some serious issues"
Young children don't dress like skanks but they get raped.
Old people don't dress like skanks but they get raped.
Mentally disabled people don't dress like skanks but they get raped.
What about that? Does that get counted as "wow, the rapist must be some evil sociopath!" or is it still "look at the way they were dressed"?

What about "corrective rape"? Commonly committed in South Africa, it's rape to "cure" people of AIDS/HIV or homosexuality. It's believed *one in three* females was raped in South Africa in one year.

_"One in three of the 4,000 women questioned by CIET Africa, non-governmental organisation, said they had been raped in the past year."

"In a related survey conducted among 1,500 schoolchildren in the Soweto township, a quarter of all the boys interviewed said that 'jackrolling' - a South African term for recreational gang rape - was fun.
More than half the interviewees insisted that when a girl says no to sex she really means yes.
Many of those interviewed also expressed little knowledge about the need to use condoms and to practise safe sex."_

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/258446.stm

Is that "god damn she is slutty" or is that ignorance to rape facts/morals/consideration for other human beings?


----------



## Unsilenced (Feb 6, 2012)

I don't really buy the argument that the way a girl dresses affects the  chances of her being raped because while a man with honest intentions  might be put off by a girl in a burlap sack, rapists tend not to have  such standards. It would also create some weird statistical anomalies in  places with extremely cold weather which, as far as I know, don't  happen. 

Now on the other hand, "men should just stop raping" as  an argument is just as bad. Think about it, what is that  statement saying? If muggers stopped mugging, people wouldn't get  mugged. If car jackers didn't jack cars, cars wouldn't get jacked, and  if rapists didn't rape, there wouldn't be rape. That's pretty much just  an empty statement... but that's not what the argument says, is it?  After all, it's not "if _rapists_ didn't rape," but rather "if _men _didn't  rape." This ties rape not to those that commit it, but to all men. It  says we're really only innocent for lack of opportunity, and perhaps the  restraint to suppress our inherent rapist tendencies. The intent  becomes implied.


----------



## Tycho (Feb 6, 2012)

Clayton said:


> You're fucking ridiculous.
> What about guys? What happens when a dude is raped? Dudes don't dress provocative. What is your conclusion there?



First: What the fuck are you on? Dudes can and do dress provocatively.
Second: I am not saying that how someone dresses is the sole reason for them being raped despite what you insinuate.  There ARE other factors in a rape case.



Clayton said:


> A woman should be allowed to feel safe wearing whatever the fuck she feels comfortable in without being afraid of some person raping her and then society saying "lol well look at what you were wearing"



And I should be able to leave my fucking front door unlocked without fear of someone coming in and walking out with my valuables.  Your point is inv- no, it's not even there.




Clayton said:


> What is your reaction to this photo?



Nothing about what she is wearing is provocative or indicates "she was asking for it".  What is the point of throwing this photo at me? 



Clayton said:


> EDIT: Also, your comparison between Pit Bulls and rapists is so botched it's infuriating. You are comparing a human being who KNOWS BETTER than to rape someone and it is expected of them to have SOME SORT OF MORALS with an animal who is trained/bred/conditioned for months and months to kill another animal purely for the satisfaction of the dogmen.
> They are both abhorrent acts, but one of the beings *should know better* and the other is doing what it was *trained to do* and doing something that is *not natural in any living being*. No living being in it's right mind will willingly get into a fight with another being and endure the pain until it dies, no human being in their right mind will rape someone and think it's okay and that "hey, look at the way they were dressed".



No, I am comparing a human being who is predisposed towards a course of action (yes, rapists' minds work in different ways from non-rapists for certain things, they react differently to the same scenario) to a dog that is predisposed towards a course of action (via abuse, "training", etc.) AS OPPOSED TO their decidedly lower-risk counterparts (a guy who not only KNOWS better than to rape but HAS NO INCLINATION to, and a dog who has no inclination to attack when faced with the same kind of provocation as the high-risk dog).  This isn't about knowing better, this is about simple inclination/disinclination.  This is not a complex study into animal or human psychology and approaching it (and dissecting it) as such is pointless.


----------



## Cyanide_tiger (Feb 6, 2012)

Gavrill said:


> Have you ever been to a strip club? It's really not CONSTANT SEXUAL TENSION ON THE VERGE OF RAPE. Really. It's not. A guy should be able to look at a lady in a bikini and go "looks nice" and keep walking
> 
> Or is everyone insisting that yes, if they see a girl with very little clothes, they would assault her?
> are guys really that incapable of being on a beach or in a club or in a Victoria's Secret without raping someone
> ...



Sorry, I must have made the mistake of believing you were talking about rapists, not random people when you asked why rape isn't more common in strip clubs.


----------



## Tycho (Feb 6, 2012)

Clayton said:


> The position you have on women + man rape is a bit disgusting. I'm reading this shit and it just sounds like you're comparing a woman/stripper/whoever walking around and getting raped to holding a hotdog in front of a dog's nose and then getting mad when the dog tries to bite it out of your hand.
> It just reeks of objectification of women. Almost as if they're not actually humans and instead walking sex-toys.



Are they a human being to a rapist? Do rapists treat their victims in a manner befitting a human being? Rape victims are prey to rapists.  PREY.  Think about it.  



Clayton said:


> I know strippers. I know that the second you lay a hand on them [even if they're giving you a lap dance] you'll get kicked out. You're there to watch naked chicks not fondle a realdoll. Cmon, even the bouncers at a *strip-club* treat women as human beings.



You know better
The bouncers know better
How certain are you that every CUSTOMER in there knows better?
The point of a strip club is sheer objectification.  How many of those customers do you think really care that the dancer's real name is Margaret, she is going to get married in two months and wants to raise a family? How many care that she's afraid of birds, loves pistachio nut ice cream and can beat her fiancee in "Mortal Kombat"?
They care that her tits are enormous and that she works a pole in all the right ways.  She's an object on the stage.  You could equate her situation to that of a Rodin sculpture being admired by a layman at an art museum, in many ways.



Fay V said:


> The issue is not "guys are hitting on me and they're creepy." In that case, yes it's the girl's fault for wearing slutty clothing. Certain guys see slut clothing and think the girls want their attention and hell it might even go so far as unwanted touching. I'll accept that to a certain degree
> 
> but clothing choice does not dictate rape. It's more than some guy being a creeper. It's more than unwanted butt slaps. It's rape. Men do not see slutty clothes and turn into a rapist like a wolf under the moon. Rapists are rapists because their personality and beliefs allow them to go so far to violate a person.



STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH.  I AM NOT SAYING AND HAVE NEVER SAID THAT CLOTHING CHOICE *DICTATES* RAPE.



Fay V said:


> The "well why was she wearing that" thing is awful on so many levels. It blames the victim, as if it is her fault someone could not take no for an answer, that someone else was okay with forcing themself on others and doing irreversible harm.
> It also assumes that all men seem to be rapists just waiting for that trigger. No A rapist would still be a rapist even if everyone around them were dressed in burkas
> And finally it's that idea that men can't be raped. If rape is the result of dressing provocatively then obviously normal boys aren't being touched ever.



What the fuck, I get this thrown at me again and again.  CLOTHING DOES NOT DICTATE AND I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT.  IT CAN BE AN INFLUENTIAL FACTOR, AS IT SENDS UP FLAGS (false or otherwise) THAT "THIS WOMAN IS VULNERABLE, THIS WOMAN IS A TARGET".



Fay V said:


> Some girls dress like that because they do want attention, but wanting to flirt does not mean that you're giving the green light for everything. Do I approve of that kind of fashion choice, not really, does it matter in the case of rape, absolutely not.



You're not listening.  You are picking what you think are the weakest points and harping on them.  Let me make this easy for you.

RAPISTS *DO NOT CARE* IF IT IS A "FALSE POSITIVE" OR IF THERE IS NOT REALLY A GREEN LIGHT

THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IS *WHAT THEY WANT*

THEY ARE *SOCIOPATHIC BY NATURE*

And I do not excuse or condone rape under ANY pretense.  EVER.  IT IS NEVER ACCEPTABLE AND I HAVE NEVER SAID AND WILL NEVER SAY OTHERWISE.


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 6, 2012)

Tycho said:


> First: What the fuck are you on? Dudes can and do dress provocatively.
> Second: I am not saying that how someone dresses is the sole reason for them being raped despite what you insinuate.  There ARE other factors in a rape case.


Most dudes don't. When I speak of a male getting raped I'm referring to your every day average Joe. Not Terry from Reno 9/11



Tycho said:


> And I should be able to leave my fucking front door unlocked without fear of someone coming in and walking out with my valuables.  Your point is inv- no, it's not even there.


First off, it's a bit off-topic.. but in Canada we don't fear having our doors unlocked at night. 
You're implying that because your door is unlocked you're just asking for someone to rob you which is a bit untrue because I haven't been robbed in years and my door is unlocked nearly every night. Hell, yknow what? You know what happened when the last time I was robbed? The robbers smashed through the back door lock. 



Tycho said:


> Nothing about what she is wearing is provocative or indicates "she was asking for it".  What is the point of throwing this photo at me?


Because you've implied that slutty girls will get raped. That girl isn't dressed provocatively or skanky/slutty/"asking for it" but was raped, showing that dressing like a slut =/= "asking for it". Being a human being = "asking for it" to a rapist.



Tycho said:


> No, I am comparing a human being who is predisposed towards a course of action (yes, rapists' minds work in different ways from non-rapists for certain things, they react differently to the same scenario)


By "predisposed" I assume you're talking about the fact that a rapist is either a sociopathic average-joe or someone who is ignorant to sex. [Like I said, South Africa and all that shit].



Tycho said:


> Are they a human being to a rapist? Do rapists treat their victims in a manner befitting a human being? Rape victims are prey to rapists.  PREY.  Think about it.


No, of course not. I don't know what you took from what I said as me implying otherwise? I was talking about how YOU'RE speaking, not how a rapist is speaking/thinking.



Tycho said:


> You know better
> The bouncers know better
> How certain are you that every CUSTOMER in there knows better?


Because they're told not to.



Tycho said:


> The point of a strip club is sheer objectification. How many of those customers do you think really care that the dancer's real name is Margaret, she is going to get married in two months and wants to raise a family? How many care that she's afraid of birds, loves pistachio nut ice cream and can beat her fiancee in "Mortal Kombat"?


Not quite. It's like real-life porn except with no sex going on. Some people may consider strip-clubs or porn objectification and others not, that depends on opinion.


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 6, 2012)

EDIT: Merging


----------



## Heimdal (Feb 6, 2012)

Huh? There is a place for blaming the victim in moderation. If you travel a dangerous area alone, flaunting hundred dollar bills, you know very well you increase the odds of getting stabbed and robbed. The problem isn't when the woman is blamed, it is when it's used as an excuse for the criminal.

Don't confuse "blaming the victim" with "excusing the rapist". They are often put together, but I think we're missing the point. You can do one and not the other. Just because rape ought to never occur doesn't mean no one should ever take preventative precautions.

Implying that no one is responsible for protecting themselves from rape, because it's not their fault, ignores reality. You reduce the risk if you don't play the part!


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 6, 2012)

Heimdal said:


> Huh? There is a place for blaming the victim in moderation. If you travel a dangerous area alone, flaunting hundred dollar bills, you know very well you increase the odds of getting stabbed and robbed. The problem isn't when the woman is blamed, it is when it's used as an excuse for the criminal.


Ehhh I'm not too satisfied with that example. It would not be smart to walk around flashing $500 in Detroit for example because that area is poor and crime-ridden but.. you're kinda comparing stupidity with freedom to wear what you feel comfortable in.
It kinda plays back into "you're asking for it if you ___"



Heimdal said:


> Don't confuse "blaming the victim" with "excusing the rapist". They are often put together, but I think we're missing the point. You can do one and not the other. Just because rape ought to never occur doesn't mean no one should ever take preventative precautions.


Please, give me your expert advice on what *I* should do to avoid being raped. [You know, instead of placing the blame on who it belongs, I.E the rapist]
When I hear "take precautions to avoid being raped" I hear "rapists are mindless animals and can't help it but rape people so wear a burka and a chastity belt!"
I am eagerly awaiting your reply.


----------



## Aleu (Feb 6, 2012)

I like how arguments go from one extreme to the other with no consideration for why criminals do the things they do. As Tycho had pointed out, rapists (like a lot of criminals) are predators. What do predators do? Prey on the weak. Find an opportunistic moment and take it.

Before we were robbed a while back, I was informed that the burglars were watching us. Why? Because we were two weak, white n' nerdy adolescents. One of which seems to have a good amount of money because she wears scrubs. Scrubs generally = $$$. Can't really HELP in that case because it's uniform. But because of that, we were perfect targets. Sure, there were other people they could've hit but we were EASY.

The same is applied to rapists. They look for easy targets. That doesn't mean that rapists will only go after girls in slutty clothing or whatever. They go after anyone that they see as weak and easy to control.


----------



## Spatel (Feb 6, 2012)

Kellie Gator said:


> That's one thing, A Voice for Men and other MRA sites constantly claims that this pay gap between the sexes is merely fictional but I haven't really seen any statistics to prove either way so I can't say much about that. Anyone care to help me out on this?


According to Pew Research data, the women make 93 cents to the dollar for the 20-24 age group, and then that ratio gets drastically worse the older you go. The income gap is real, although it is slowly closing.
http://www.catalyst.org/publication/217/womens-earnings-and-income 

The education gap, which favors girls by a considerable margin, continues to widen however. 60% of Bachelor Degrees each year are going to women. And females tend to have higher grades than males in the same major.


----------



## Aleu (Feb 6, 2012)

Spatel said:


> According to Pew Research data, the women make 93 cents to the dollar for the 20-24 age group, and then that ratio gets drastically worse the older you go. The income gap is real, although it is slowly closing.
> http://www.catalyst.org/publication/217/womens-earnings-and-income
> 
> The education gap, which favors girls by a considerable margin, continues to widen however. 60% of Bachelor Degrees each year are going to women. And females tend to have higher grades than males in the same major.



Which is pretty odd. You'd think that people with a higher/better education would be paid more. (at least that's what I was taught).

Wasn't sure about the gap myself tbh. I mean, I work with all women and we're kinda forbidden to discuss allowances anyway.


----------



## Fay V (Feb 6, 2012)

Aleu said:


> Which is pretty odd. You'd think that people with a higher/better education would be paid more. (at least that's what I was taught).
> 
> Wasn't sure about the gap myself tbh. I mean, I work with all women and we're kinda forbidden to discuss allowances anyway.



I think it depends on how the numbers are being crunched. For instance it is true that education will put you into the middle class, but being middle class is partially based on education. So you get things like professors make less than plumbers. 
It could be that women are taking jobs in the humanities and getting higher education jobs, but it pays less. Men take the hard science and services, which pay more. that's on aspect. 
I remember studying the differences in salary in identical jobs. Part of it was men are more likely to get promotions and raises. 
Part of this isn't sinister, it's gender roles again. Men grow up with the notion they must be the bread winner, so they go after raises more. They're trained to be more aggressive about it. 
However there was also a more harmful sexist reasoning that in some cases women are denied the raises and promotions and men are selected over them because there is this assumption that women are less reliable. That they'll go back to being a mother/house keeper. So the woman is less stable with things like pregnancy leave looming over, while it's not considered for men.

I don't think all companies or men think like this. Maybe even other women are doing it to women. There's just more reasoning behind the gap, and I think it's reflected in the closing of the gap that the "she's going to run off and have babies" ideology is fading. 
yay progress.


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 6, 2012)

Aleu said:


> I like how arguments go from one extreme to the other with no consideration for why criminals do the things they do. As Tycho had pointed out, rapists (like a lot of criminals) are predators. What do predators do? Prey on the weak. Find an opportunistic moment and take it.
> 
> Before we were robbed a while back, I was informed that the burglars were watching us. Why? Because we were two weak, white n' nerdy adolescents. One of which seems to have a good amount of money because she wears scrubs. Scrubs generally = $$$. Can't really HELP in that case because it's uniform. But because of that, we were perfect targets. Sure, there were other people they could've hit but we were EASY.
> 
> The same is applied to rapists. They look for easy targets. That doesn't mean that rapists will only go after girls in slutty clothing or whatever. They go after anyone that they see as weak and easy to control.



Rapists will groom/coax targets and use them that way, drug them or take advantage of  unsuspecting people. By "unsuspecting" I mean someone walking around texting or having their earphones in. Very easy to sneak up on.
I prank-sneak on my sister when she's doing the dishes. She can't hear me because of the water and she aint paying attention because she's washing dishes. Fun as hell to scare her though and it's so fuckin easy


----------



## Ad Hoc (Feb 6, 2012)

Most convicted rapists don't even remember what their victim was wearing and only 4.4% of them report being "provoked" in any way.

Never got a clear source of this, but AFAIK the most common items worn when attacked by a rapist are blue jeans and a sweatshirt. Only place I can find to corroborate this is Crisis Connect, a resource for rape victims, although admittedly they don't say where they got it either.

Rapists ARE predators. They go after who they don't think will fight back. That means they don't go after the woman confidently strutting her stuff (or, at least, they usually leave her alone after she gives him a snarl and a slap), they go after the woman in baggy clothes with her head down. They go after the disabled, the very old, and the very young. They break into houses and rape women at knife point in the dark. They rape family members that they've been breaking into submission for years. The ones who've got no reason to expect they're at risk because we've been pounding away at this idea of "only sluts get raped" for eons. 

Remember that rape isn't about sex, it's about power. "Sluts" barely factor in here.


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 6, 2012)

Ad Hoc said:


> Most convicted rapists don't even remember what their victim was wearing and only 4.4% of them report being "provoked" in any way.
> 
> Never got a clear source of this, but AFAIK the most common items worn when attacked by a rapist are blue jeans and a sweatshirt. Only place I can find to corroborate this is Crisis Connect, a resource for rape victims, although admittedly they don't say where they got it either.
> 
> ...



My "This" button isn't working but... I couldn't have said it better myself

A woman who is scantily-clad most likely deals with men hitting on her/grab-assing and isn't afraid to kick a man in the balls or tell him off.


----------



## GingerM (Feb 6, 2012)

Kellie Gator said:


> That's one thing, A Voice for Men and other  MRA sites constantly claims that this pay gap between the sexes is  merely fictional but I haven't really seen any statistics to prove  either way so I can't say much about that. Anyone care to help me out on  this?



I can't speak in detail to the US, or to the private sector in Canada, though I can offer a bit of anecdotal evidence; there are secretaries at CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, for those not familiar) who are paid less than (male) janitors. I'm not sure how representative that is, though. I can say with firm knowledge that the pay equity question doesn't exist in the military. You hold rank X, with specialty Y, you get that pay rate and it matters not which heads you use. That said, there is an imbalance in representation of women in the upper ranks, and certainly by different branches of the service. A female fighter pilot, or a female artillery officer, to name two reasonably well-publicised examples (in Canada) are note-worthy simply because they're women, regardless of what other qualities they have.


----------



## Onnes (Feb 6, 2012)

Ad Hoc said:


> Most convicted rapists don't even remember what their victim was wearing and only 4.4% of them report being "provoked" in any way.
> 
> Never got a clear source of this, but AFAIK the most common items worn when attacked by a rapist are blue jeans and a sweatshirt. Only place I can find to corroborate this is Crisis Connect, a resource for rape victims, although admittedly they don't say where they got it either.



There are some reports which attempt to establish a relation between dress and reported sexual victimization, but it tends to be a relative dead-end in terms of research interest because there is no way to establish causation. That is, you really can't distinguish between whether someone who dresses provocatively is therefore more likely to be raped, or if someone who is more likely to be raped for other reasons is also more likely to dress provocatively.

Even if there was some minor proven association between sexual victimization and dress, I don't think we'd want that to determine how we approach the concept of appropriate attire. There's just something inherently detestable about trying to tell people how they should or shouldn't dress and act based on the probabilities that they will be the victims of a crime. It doesn't take much imagination to extend this line of thinking on appearance far beyond the narrow scope of women dressing in sexually provocative manner, and once you make that leap the idea becomes increasingly disturbing.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Feb 6, 2012)

Onnes said:


> There are some reports which attempt to establish a relation between dress and reported sexual victimization, but it tends to be a relative dead-end in terms of research interest because there is no way to establish causation. That is, you really can't distinguish between whether someone who dresses provocatively is therefore more likely to be raped, or if someone who is more likely to be raped for other reasons is also more likely to dress provocatively.


I'm aware of that. Neither of those links actually attempted to measure if the woman was dressed "provocatively" or not. They listed specific items of clothing (blue jeans and sweater) or asked the rapist if they remember the clothes the victim was wearing or if the rapist claimed they were "provoked." Fairly objective stuff.



Onnes said:


> Even if there was some minor proven association between sexual  victimization and dress, I don't think we'd want that to determine how  we approach the concept of appropriate attire. There's just something  inherently detestable about trying to tell people how they should or  shouldn't dress and act based on the probabilities that they will be the  victims of a crime. It doesn't take much imagination to extend this  line of thinking on appearance far beyond the narrow scope of women  dressing in sexually provocative manner, and once you make that leap the  idea becomes increasingly disturbing.


I'd like it if you read the rest of my post. It's all about how it's not about what the victim wears, but aspects of vulnerability which are often well out of the victim's control or things that simply never occur to most people. My initial bit was just to discredit the idea that "only sluts get raped."


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 6, 2012)

Tycho said:


> And I do not excuse or condone rape under ANY pretense.  EVER.  IT IS NEVER ACCEPTABLE AND I HAVE NEVER SAID AND WILL NEVER SAY OTHERWISE.



Good golly, miss Molly. Based on your previous posts in this thread I have no idea *at all* how one would confuse what you have said as being rape-excuse.


----------



## Aleu (Feb 6, 2012)

Onnes said:


> Even if there was some minor proven association between sexual victimization and dress, I don't think we'd want that to determine how we approach the concept of appropriate attire. There's just something inherently detestable about trying to tell people how they should or shouldn't dress and act based on the probabilities that they will be the victims of a crime. It doesn't take much imagination to extend this line of thinking on appearance far beyond the narrow scope of women dressing in sexually provocative manner, and once you make that leap the idea becomes increasingly disturbing.



It isn't a statement of "that person shouldn't dress like that". It's more of a matter of "Don't make yourself a target". There are other factors (as stated before). Some can't be helped (as I mentioned in my robbery example). There are other ways to protect oneself other than attire.


----------



## Onnes (Feb 6, 2012)

Ad Hoc said:


> I'd like it if you read the rest of my post. It's all about how it's not about what the victim wears, but aspects of vulnerability which are often well out of the victim's control or things that simply never occur to most people. My initial bit was just to discredit the idea that "only sluts get raped."



My point is that, in the context of the preceding discussion, whether or not such appearance matters should not factor into how we judge others. That it is not possible to show that provocative appearance provokes victimization makes the issue simple here, but that is not necessarily true in analogous situations. I was really not directing this reply at you in particular, but the discussion in general, so I apologize if it seemed ill targeted.


----------



## Inciatus (Feb 6, 2012)

Ad Hoc said:


> the most common items worn when attacked by a rapist are blue jeans and a sweatshirt



Is this by proportional to other clothing otherwise the figure could easily be skewed in that blue jeans and sweatshirts are one of the most common thing worn


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 6, 2012)

Inciatus said:


> Is this by proportional to other clothing otherwise the figure could easily be skewed in that blue jeans and sweatshirts are one of the most common thing worn



Blue jeans and a sweatshirt =/= what most people would call "slutty clothing"


----------



## Inciatus (Feb 6, 2012)

Clayton said:


> Blue jeans and a sweatshirt =/= what most people would call "slutty clothing"



I'm sure Lady Catherine De Bourgh would disagree.

On a side note I didn't realize he was referring to the notion that slutty females get raped, I thought he was referring to your sarcastic remark about what you should wear to not get raped.


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 6, 2012)

Inciatus said:


> I'm sure Lady Catherine De Bourgh would disagree.
> 
> On a side note I didn't realize he was referring to the notion that slutty females get raped, I thought he was referring to your sarcastic remark about what you should wear to not get raped.



The original argument that sparked this whole dealio about women being raped is that women should "watch what they wear" to avoid being raped and that girls who wear "slutty clothing" are pretty much asking to be raped.


----------



## Tycho (Feb 6, 2012)

Clayton said:


> Good golly, miss Molly. Based on your previous posts in this thread I have no idea *at all* how one would confuse what you have said as being rape-excuse.



This coming from a shitstain who enjoys having a rapist/murderer as an avatar.  So edgy.


----------



## Zaraphayx (Feb 6, 2012)

Tycho said:


> This coming from a shitstain who enjoys having a rapist/murderer as an avatar.  So edgy.



Your avatar is a cat.

There are a million reasons to disregard everything he posts and you hit below the belt like that? :[


----------



## Tycho (Feb 6, 2012)

Zaraphayx said:


> Your avatar is a cat.
> 
> There are a million reasons to disregard everything he posts and you hit below the belt like that? :[



I like cats.  He likes Dahmer.

Whatever, everyone knows he's a closeted zoophile anyway, never seen anyone that rabid about hating dog diddlers before - methinks the lady doth protest too much.


----------



## Zaraphayx (Feb 6, 2012)

Tycho said:


> I like cats.  He likes Dahmer.
> 
> Whatever, everyone knows he's a closeted zoophile anyway, never seen anyone that rabid about hating dog diddlers before - methinks the lady doth protest too much.



You effectively described a good half of this forum/community, but yes, that is correct.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Feb 7, 2012)

Tycho said:


> Whatever, everyone knows he's a closeted zoophile anyway



Wat.


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 7, 2012)

HAHA WOAH WOAH WOAH
CHILL OUT

That is not how you have a civilized conversation. I'm surprised it wasn't me who goofed off and fucked it up this time soo.. kudos on beating me to it.


----------



## webkilla (Feb 7, 2012)

to get somewhat back on topic:

I have an aunt who's husband is a cop

He has told many stories from work - but one of them are relevant here: Apparently around HALF of all rape charges turn out to be fake.

It's something along along the line of a girl who got drunk at a party and ended up banging a guy who normally doesn't like - to save face, she says he raped her

Or similarly when a girl doesn't want to admit to friends/family that she's had a relationship with someone

It has also been used to blackmail men in that regard

Heck, until things like DNA testing came along - most men were screwed if a woman declared you the father of her child. Oh sure, a woman back in those days was equally in trouble if she had a kid out of wedlock, but my point is that its a two way street


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 7, 2012)

webkilla said:


> to get somewhat back on topic:
> 
> I have an aunt who's husband is a cop
> 
> He has told many stories from work - but one of them are relevant here: Apparently around HALF of all rape charges turn out to be fake.



I don't know how many people here are going to believe that word-of-mouth statistic.


----------



## Dragonfurry (Feb 7, 2012)

idk if this has been said but if feminist would talk about men's rights too instead of just the patriarchy of women then things might take a turn for the better.


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 7, 2012)

Dragonfurry said:


> idk if this has been said but if feminist would talk about men's rights too instead of just the patriarchy of women then things might take a turn for the better.


That's against what the loudests feminists believe. Societys perspective on feminists is a man-hating lesbian.
These feminists believe women should have better rights than they have now, they have no concern for male rights.


----------



## Dragonfurry (Feb 7, 2012)

Clayton said:


> That's against what the loudests feminists believe. Societys perspective on feminists is a man-hating lesbian.
> These feminists believe women should have better rights than they have now, they have no concern for male rights.



Well if they dont want to listen to it or just blatantly ignore it then they are just as sexist.


----------



## Aetius (Feb 7, 2012)

Tycho said:


> Whatever, everyone knows he's a closeted zoophile anyway.



Burn the witch!


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 7, 2012)

Dragonfurry said:


> Well if they dont want to listen to it or just blatantly ignore it then they are just as sexist.


Not all feminists are sexist, but a lot of the louder ones give that impression :T Unfortunately.


----------



## Zaraphayx (Feb 7, 2012)

"Patriarchy of Women" is going to be my new WoW guild name or something.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Feb 7, 2012)

Aleu said:


> It isn't a statement of "that person shouldn't dress  like that". It's more of a matter of "Don't make yourself a target".  There are other factors (as stated before). Some can't be helped (as I  mentioned in my robbery example). There are other ways to protect  oneself other than attire.


That's . . . not really what I  meant to say, although I guess I can't blame someone getting the idea.  I'm not saying, "Don't make yourself a target," actually kind of the  opposite, I'm saying, "Rape victims don't make themselves targets by  dressing provocatively; ." Most of the things I listed are a bit out of a  person's control (age, illness, abusive family member); the only real  "mistakes" I listed (low self-worth, abusive partner) are, well, I'd  have say they're pretty human "mistakes" to make. 

I can think of few other crimes where the victim's "responsibility" is so closely examined.



Onnes said:


> My point is that, in the context of the preceding  discussion, whether or not such appearance matters should not factor  into how we judge others. That it is not possible to show that  provocative appearance provokes victimization makes the issue simple  here, but that is not necessarily true in analogous situations. I was  really not directing this reply at you in particular, but the discussion  in general, so I apologize if it seemed ill targeted.


Ach, well, I feel like a heel now. Sorry about that eh. 



Clayton said:


> That is not how you have a civilized  conversation. I'm surprised it wasn't me who goofed off and fucked it up  this time soo.. kudos on beating me to it.


 Yeah, going to have to admit, Tycho, that was pretty impressive. 



webkilla said:


> I have an aunt who's husband is a cop
> 
> He has told many stories from work - but one of them are relevant here:  Apparently around HALF of all rape charges turn out to be fake.


 The two biggest national studies (from Australia and the UK) pegs false rape accusations at 2-3%.  The American FBI doesn't collect false rape stats but pegs "unfounded" rape at 8%--but that's unfounded, not false, it  just means they didn't have the evidence to back it up, which can  happen in rape situations for a number of reasons. (Waiting too long to  report, bathing instead of getting DNA samples, etc.,) Either the beat  your uncle works is a outlier or, more likely, he's exaggerating or a  victim of confirmation bias. 



Dragonfurry said:


> idk if this has been said but if feminist  would talk about men's rights too instead of just the patriarchy of  women then things might take a turn for the better.


 They do, kiddo. It was a feminist group that got the federal definition of rape to cover male victims. 

It's okay if they don't spend the energy on it that they spend on women's issues, though. We don't get  mad at people looking for a cure for leukemia because they aren't  looking for a cure for AIDs. We don't get mad at people trying to help  children in Haiti because they aren't helping children in Sudan.  Everyone has to pick their battles. 

Also, uh. Patriarchy of women? Goodness, fella.


----------



## Dragonfurry (Feb 7, 2012)

Ad Hoc said:


> Also, uh. Patriarchy of women? Goodness, fella.



Yeah I kinda messed up when saying that. I mean yeah i saw that on CNN but people still won't take the definition of rape to male victims seriously though.


----------



## Fay V (Feb 7, 2012)

Dragonfurry said:


> Yeah I kinda messed up when saying that. I mean yeah i saw that on CNN but people still won't take the definition of rape to male victims seriously though.


That can't really be blamed on feminism. That's society not taking victims seriously.


----------



## Dragonfurry (Feb 7, 2012)

Fay V said:


> That can't really be blamed on feminism. That's society not taking victims seriously.



And I aint trying to blame it on feminism. If I have made a implication that I was I am sorry for it and I didnt mean to intentionally do that. I am blaming it on societies inability to address problems like this because they just want to ignore problems like this and just go on with their lives.


----------



## Fay V (Feb 7, 2012)

Dragonfurry said:


> And I aint trying to blame it on feminism. If I have made a implication that I was I am sorry for it and I didnt mean to intentionally do that. I am blaming it on societies inability to address problems like this because they just want to ignore problems like this and just go on with their lives.


Yup, that is a big problem, and it blows.


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 7, 2012)

Dragonfurry said:


> Yeah I kinda messed up when saying that. I mean yeah i saw that on CNN but people still won't take the definition of rape to male victims seriously though.



Yeah that's not quite feminism's fault. That's society believing that "strong men" can't be raped by "weak and defenseless women" [or men]


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 7, 2012)

Clayton said:


> Yeah that's not quite feminism's fault. That's society believing that "strong men" can't be raped by "weak and defenseless women" [or men]



Gotta love gender bias.

Anyways, for mens rights and women's, it should fall under human activism instead of Gender-isms. Males are damaged by gender bias the same way women are.


----------



## Keeroh (Feb 7, 2012)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Gotta love gender bias.
> 
> Anyways, for mens rights and women's, it should fall under human activism instead of Gender-isms. Males are damaged by gender bias the same way women are.


Exactly. I wish there was less of a stigma around that idea, but alas, Im a part of some social circles that are highly feminist and if I ever suggest male rights or an idea of feminism becoming equal human rights activism instead, oh god do I just get harped at for hours. That isn't representative of feminists as a whole, but it's a painfully common reaction nonetheless.


----------



## Kellie Gator (Feb 7, 2012)

Thingymabob said:


> and if I ever suggest male rights or an idea of feminism becoming equal human rights activism instead


Wait, isn't that what feminism already is?

(Also, I feel kinda guilty for not posting much here 'cause I made this thread, you guys are insane)


----------



## Keeroh (Feb 7, 2012)

Kellie Gator said:


> Wait, isn't that what feminism already is?
> 
> (Also, I feel kinda guilty for not posting much here 'cause I made this thread, you guys are insane)


I made the mistake of assuming that. In general, most feminists aren't so closed minded, but there are a lot of very outspoken feminists that are certain that there is no such thing as sexism against men since  males as a whole are not/havent been low on the social status ladder. 
It kills me each time I hear it, and I hear it often.


----------



## Zaraphayx (Feb 7, 2012)

The vocal minority speaks for the majority without their consent, this has always been true.

Not all feminists are ball-crushing bull-dykes, and not all men who wish to fight for 'men's rights' are misogynistic woman-haters.

Can I /thread my own post for 10 pretentious points?


----------



## Gavrill (Feb 7, 2012)

Most of the feminists I associate with are uh, this basically: http://jezebel.com/
Pro-choice, liberal (or Democratic, or left-leaning Republican), and pretty much anti-bigotry, regardless of who the target is. 

One time they ran an article where some dude's penis got chopped off or something and people complained that the writer was making light of a horrible situation, comparing it to a woman losing her ability to reproduce via trauma and people laughing at that.
In other words, the feminists I've come to know do just want equality, for everyone, not just themselves/ladies.
I think I'm lucky to associate with non-crazy feminists.


----------



## Keeroh (Feb 7, 2012)

Zaraphayx said:


> The vocal minority speaks for the majority without their consent, this has always been true.
> 
> Not all feminists are ball-crushing bull-dykes, and not all men who wish to fight for 'men's rights' are misogynistic woman-haters.
> 
> Can I /thread my own post for 10 pretentious points?


I think, for that reason, people who are advocating equal human rights should use another self identifier instead of feminist. I have met many, many lovely and thoughtful equal-rights-thinking feminists, but the aforementioned types tend to overshadow them. 
(Also dont assume all us bull dykes are man haters.   )


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 7, 2012)

Thingymabob said:


> I think, for that reason, people who are advocating equal human rights should use another self identifier instead of feminist. I have met many, many lovely and thoughtful equal-rights-thinking feminists, but the aforementioned types tend to overshadow them.
> (Also dont assume all us bull dykes are man haters.   )



It's always unfortunate that the loud minority brings bull-horns to a quet discussion. It's worse when those "feminazis" condemn other feminists for not swaying to their ideals. 

My only experience with Feminazis was at a lecture in Westminster, MD. A middle eastern woman (I think she was from Iraq) wanted to discuss feminism and equal rights to all...but it was overrun with "MEN ARE SUCH PIGS" discussions, and disreguarded all other opinions from the rest of the people...including the woman giving the lecture.


----------



## Kellie Gator (Feb 7, 2012)

Before I go to bed I just wanted to share this other thing from AVfM. A couple of months ago they paid attention to some Swedish staged video of a bunch of girls shooting a man in ecstatic glee. They reacted so strongly that they promised to offer a $1000 bounty to identify the people involved in the video. That's just fucking evil and in Sweden it would be pretty damn illegal, I think.

I don't know much about the original video or the purpose it served but still, this shit just makes me feel uncomfortable.


----------



## Cyanide_tiger (Feb 7, 2012)

Kellie Gator said:


> Before I go to bed I just wanted to share this other thing from AVfM. A couple of months ago they paid attention to some Swedish staged video of a bunch of girls shooting a man in ecstatic glee. They reacted so strongly that they promised to offer a $1000 bounty to identify the people involved in the video. That's just fucking evil and in Sweden it would be pretty damn illegal, I think.
> 
> I don't know much about the original video or the purpose it served but still, this shit just makes me feel uncomfortable.



I read through a few of the articles on that AVfM site that some people here posted links to, and I believe that the site has good intentions but is very misguided about representing them. I don't feel like they're fully misogynistic douchebags, but they're not a voice I would want to follow either. 

For example, that post someone linked earlier about how women apparently enjoy being raped - Did anyone actually read through the entire thing, especially the last couple of paragraphs? The writer was not actually advocating rape or anything remotely resembling it. The article was written in satire - he explains the real point behind it in the last two paragraphs: 



> All this should be considered, however, with the caveat that the Romeo study found no results whatsoever as presented in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this article, and the fact that the Kale & Weiser and Fisk studies are not extant.
> 
> These items, indeed this entire article, are illustrative examples of what Murray Straus identified as â€œEvidence by Citationâ€ and other forms of academic fraud in widespread and unchallenged use by feminist ideologues. They were presented here as an example of their destructive use.



There are definately better ways to go about speaking against bending people to your line of thinking by throwing around figures made up by false studies. I think the site is misguided at best, though the fanbase of it is likely so ingrained in woman-hating ways it would crash and burn if the authors started writing more clearly about equal human rights activism instead of making articles that vaguely(or sometimes blatantly) bash at feminism while trying to assert a different point every time they get the opportunity. 

Like I said before, I wouldn't want AVfM speaking for me, but some of their articles have a different point that you have to dig at if you read them all the way through. The secondary point may or may not be better than what the first appears to be, but it's there.


----------



## Wreth (Feb 7, 2012)

I experiemcice stuff tonight. I went to nightclub and was slapped by girls on thea  arse, but if I had complained I would habve been a pussy, not a man defeinding my rights ;c

Being a man when girls think it'sok to do more than just hug when we have just met is more than just a little but  unnerrving


----------



## Cyanide_tiger (Feb 7, 2012)

Wreth said:


> I experiemcice stuff tonight. I went to nightclub and was slapped by girls on thea  arse, but if I had complained I would habve been a pussy, not a man defeinding my rights ;c
> 
> Being a man when girls think it'sok to do more than just hug when we have just met is more than just a little but  unnerrving



That's one reason I don't care for going to clubs/bars(aside from the massive mark-up on the drinks). I can hardly stand to give friends I've known for years a half-hearted hug. The prospect of random people touching me with anything more than a handshake is detestable.


----------



## Wreth (Feb 7, 2012)

Cyanide_tiger said:


> That's one reason I don't care for going to clubs/bars(aside from the massive mark-up on the drinks). I can hardly stand to give friends I've known for years a half-hearted hug. The prospect of random people touching me with anything more than a handshake is detestable.



Personally I really enjoy hugs they are friendly and affectionate without being too personal, beyong that however, is a different matter.


----------



## Lazykins (Feb 7, 2012)

You know what I'd kill for because of stuff like this? (Be it both Misogyny and Misandry)

Secular Humanism.


----------



## Cyanide_tiger (Feb 7, 2012)

Wreth said:


> Personally I really enjoy hugs they are friendly and affectionate without being too personal, beyong that however, is a different matter.



Eh, I usually let (most)people get away with hugs if they become insistant, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. 



Lazykins said:


> You know what I'd kill for because of stuff like this? (Be it both Misogyny and Misandry)
> 
> Secular Humanism.



You mean human rights activism, without the emphasis on any gender? If so, I can't agree more.


----------



## Lazykins (Feb 7, 2012)

Cyanide_tiger said:


> You mean human rights activism, without the emphasis on any gender? If so, I can't agree more.



That's basically what it is.


----------



## Spatel (Feb 8, 2012)

"Not all feminists are sexist" makes it sound like you think most feminists ARE sexist. Lesbian separatists are sexist, sure. Gynarchy, when it's taken seriously and not just as a kinky thing, is sexist. Feminists are not, for the most part, and it is unfortunate that the feminist label has become associated in many people's minds with individuals who had radical misandrist beliefs as opposed to the countless feminists over the years who were actually pretty awesome.


----------



## Cyanide_tiger (Feb 8, 2012)

Spatel said:


> "Not all feminists are sexist" makes it sound like you think most feminists ARE sexist. Lesbian separatists are sexist, sure. Gynarchy, when it's taken seriously and not just as a kinky thing, is sexist. Feminists are not, for the most part, and it is unfortunate that the feminist label has become associated in many people's minds with individuals who had radical misandrist beliefs as opposed to the countless feminists over the years who were actually pretty awesome.



Dude, calm down. You're getting angry over an implication. If people throughout the thread said "most feminists are sexist" rather than "not all feminists are sexist," then your rant here would have some measure of validity to it. As it stands though, it's just an implication and doesn't necessarily confer what those who have been using that phrase actually believe. 

Aside from that, I agree with what some people have been saying earlier - we need to eliminate both feminism and masculinism and move to human rights activism instead.


----------



## Unsilenced (Feb 8, 2012)

Spatel has a point. "Not all" implies a statistical exception. If I said  that not all commercial airline flights burst into flame and spiraled into the ocean, I would be  technically correct, but the statement would not speak well of airline safety. 

The word choice is not hugely important, but whether you mean it or not it does say something.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Feb 8, 2012)

Cyanide_tiger said:


> Aside from that, I agree with what some people have been saying earlier - we need to eliminate both feminism and masculinism and move to human rights activism instead.


I don't think so. Folks have to pick their battles, they can't do everything, and some are going to end up favoring activism for one gender or another. That's fine. It's not sexist any more than, oh, fighting for social equality for Latinos/Hispanics makes you racist against blacks. Hopefully everyone involved wants equal human rights for all, but it's not wrong to pick a sub-label based on one's actual areas of knowledge and action.


----------



## Fay V (Feb 8, 2012)

Unsilenced said:


> Spatel has a point. "Not all" implies a statistical exception. If I said  that not all commercial airline flights burst into flame and spiraled into the ocean, I would be  technically correct, but the statement would not speak well of airline safety.
> 
> The word choice is not hugely important, but whether you mean it or not it does say something.



Depending on context at least. Not all is also a complete shut down of a universality. 
"Feminists care about women's rights and want to abuse their rights against men" This implies all feminists do this and is a universal statement. So an instant way to falsify the statement is "not all feminists believe this" 

Wording is important, it's just we can get into a semantic fight all day, with graphs, and logic equations, but it's harsh to snap at someone over it when the took the time to further explain later in the paragraph.


----------



## AnalogDawn (Feb 8, 2012)

Kellie Gator said:


> That's one thing, A Voice for Men and other MRA sites constantly claims that this pay gap between the sexes is merely fictional but I haven't really seen any statistics to prove either way so I can't say much about that. Anyone care to help me out on this?



Fictional?  Oh boy.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. Highlights of Womenâ€™s Earnings in 2008
Women's Earnings and Income

I don't think there is an question that the pay gap exists, the topic of hot debate is really what forces are behind said difference.  Some camps claim that you can explain the difference only in terms of education and hours worked, others have managed to link it to a social bias for a large percentage of that difference.  For example, unequal perceptions of performance can lead to differences in raises etc.  Obviously you can do your own research, but the problem is real and almost universal.  Speaking from personal experience as a female in the hard sciences of academia, I can most assuredly say that gender inequality still exists, even at the top 1% of the educated workforce.  There is no nirvana.  

Oh, and as a side note: I love how this talk of gender equality is couched almost completely in arguments concerning rape.  Yes, let us reflect the whole of society's attitudes and beliefs in what is one of the most exceptional, polarized and unorthodox of crimes.  I'm sure that will be a perfect mirror for such a complex and wide ranging discussion as gender equality.


----------



## Unsilenced (Feb 8, 2012)

Fay V said:


> Depending on context at least. Not all is also a complete shut down of a universality.
> "Feminists care about women's rights and want to abuse their rights against men" This implies all feminists do this and is a universal statement. So an instant way to falsify the statement is "not all feminists believe this"
> 
> Wording is important, it's just we can get into a semantic fight all day, with graphs, and logic equations, but it's harsh to snap at someone over it when the took the time to further explain later in the paragraph.



True. I didn't see what post Spatel was referring to specifically. If it's in response to an absolute then it makes sense.


----------



## Spatel (Feb 8, 2012)

It was a response to a Clayton post, which I should've quoted.


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 8, 2012)

Spatel said:


> It was a response to a Clayton post, which I should've quoted.



which post of mine?


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 8, 2012)

Ad Hoc said:


> I don't think so. Folks have to pick their battles, they can't do everything, and some are going to end up favoring activism for one gender or another. That's fine. It's not sexist any more than, oh, fighting for social equality for Latinos/Hispanics makes you racist against blacks. Hopefully everyone involved wants equal human rights for all, but it's not wrong to pick a sub-label based on one's actual areas of knowledge and action.




People pick sub-labels to generally help the minority in their areas, or see more trouble concerning one group over the other. I see nothing wrong with it, but it depends on the context and how those people deliver their message to help others. I have seen some latino based groups in my area that help immigrants learn english and search for housing and jobs beyond groundskeeper. Granted, black people get angry about it, but it's not for them and they either already recieve assisstance or they do not need it.


----------



## webkilla (Feb 8, 2012)

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...9/10/how_often_do_women_falsely_cry_rape.html

this article highlights several of the issues when it comes to proving the rate of true VS false accusations of rape

it highlights issues with methodology (how and when do you classify a rape charge as false? when it fails to convict the accused, when the accuser recants?) and the mixed statistics on the area.

some apparently say 2% of all rape charges are bogus, other say 40% and some even 90% - but all of them have dodgy statistics to form their basis


My aunt's husband - the cop - says that he based his estimate that half of the rape charges that they get in (so his figure is based on local numbers, not national or international statistics) on practical experience. I forget the exact title, by he's the sort of cop who actually investigates crime and whatnot (don't they all do that anyway?) - anywho, he said that in his experience the nr. 1 sign that a rape charge is fake is that the accuser, usually a girl, can't keep her story straight: this indicates that she's making stuff up.

now, he's been in the force for decades now - I have no clue exactly how many rape cases he's dealt with - but if he says his local numbers are 50/50 on true/false accusations, then who are we to disprove it?


----------



## Ad Hoc (Feb 8, 2012)

webkilla said:


> http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...9/10/how_often_do_women_falsely_cry_rape.html
> 
> this article highlights several of the issues when it comes to proving the rate of true VS false accusations of rape
> 
> ...


I don't think you read your own article very well. The only studies which were conclusively fucked were the 40%-90% ones. The issue that article has with the US Department of Justice's 8% stat, as I said earlier, doesn't actually measure false accusations but "unfounded" ones. The article mostly seems to suggest that a lot of claims about false rape accusations are _inflated_, because people discount the victim for nonsense like "tight jeans" or polygraph tests (which are not reliable). Your own article suggests that police bias may play a huge role in inflating these stats.




webkilla said:


> My aunt's husband - the cop - says that he based his estimate that half of the rape charges that they get in (so his figure is based on local numbers, not national or international statistics) on practical experience. I forget the exact title, by he's the sort of cop who actually investigates crime and whatnot (don't they all do that anyway?) - anywho, he said that in his experience the nr. 1 sign that a rape charge is fake is that the accuser, usually a girl, can't keep her story straight: this indicates that she's making stuff up.
> 
> now, he's been in the force for decades now - I have no clue exactly how many rape cases he's dealt with - but if he says his local numbers are 50/50 on true/false accusations, then who are we to disprove it?


Again, your own article article suggests that police bias may play a huge role in inflating these stats. Furthermore, you are honestly suggesting that we forgo actual studies in favor of one dude's anecdotal evidence.


----------



## Cyanide_tiger (Feb 8, 2012)

webkilla said:


> I forget the exact title, by he's the sort of cop who actually investigates crime and whatnot (don't they all do that anyway?)



You mean he's a detective?


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Feb 8, 2012)

As a guy working predominantly in sports media and events, I can tell you at least in my industry women often get the short end of the stick while men are often much better off in the fraternity atmosphere of the ESPNs of the world.  Sure, some have broken through to become major players on television and on the business side of things, but there's still a big sense that women are often hired because of sex appeal and perkiness as opposed to their knowledge on sports.  Many people have felt that way about Anita Miers in New York who works the Giants postgame on the radio, where broadcast partner Carl Banks (an NFL player from the 80s) often seems to have great disdain for her.  Erin Andrews of ESPN College sports fame seems to exist mostly because of her looks, I can't honestly tell you anyone I've met from ESPN ever really talk about her knowledge of college basketball or football.  Michelle Beadle of SportsNation is pretty and has a decent knowledge of sports, but her comments are often tailored towards commenting on pop culture and the goofy side of sports as opposed to anything serious, as per the nature of SportsNation's format.  Tony Kornheiser of course also made his comments about ESPN anchor Hannah Storm dressing essentially saying she was dressing like a slut on national television in a roundabout way.

Now of course there are some women in sports media who are taken legitimately for their knowledge and insight.  Kimberly Jones on WFAN is taken very seriously and her coverage of the Penn State story have been very well received in many circles, considering she herself was a Penn State grad.  No one can argue with Suzyn Waldman's near-limitless knowledge on baseball statistics and history, though sometimes she goes on-and-on talking about numbers which are too difficult to follow on the radio.  Jackie MacMullan is probably right up with Hall of Fame sportswriter Bob Ryan in Boston as the predominate authority on the NBA and NCAA basketball.

But the vast majority of stations seem to be following the very simple marketing principle that sex sells, and having bombshell sports anchors, field-reporters, or perky hosts is more important than having women who offer major insight into sports.  All of this combined with a little production tool many people aren't aware of.  Most people have heard of B-Roll, but there also exists something called C-Roll; those shots you'll see of attractive women in the stands eating ice-cream cones, wearing bikinis in sub-zero temperatures, giggling, or applying sunscreen and so on.  It's a very real thing that technical directors will ask from their cameramen from time-to-time, in some cases a production assistant will go out into the stands with free ice cream or something else to fabricate the shot.  Also consider that the only publicized version of female football that exists is the Lingerie League.

tl:dr, Term works in a male-dominated industry that often puts women in position to be gawked at by male sports fans.


----------



## Onnes (Feb 8, 2012)

The gender wage gap issue becomes really complicated when you consider how exactly the wage gap has been slowly closing for the average American over the past several of decades. It's not that women's wages have been rising faster than men's, but that men's wages have been declining faster than women's. Just looking at the trends in hourly wages, it looks like the gap only narrows when a recession causes a large sustained drop in men's wages. ( Graph )


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Feb 8, 2012)

I understand that Paternal leave exists, but how often is it written into contracts for fulltime workers as opposed to the nearly universal availability of maternal leave?


----------



## Digitalpotato (Feb 8, 2012)

Aleu said:


> Smells like a troll but it still has a point that men indeed DO get discriminated against for whatever reason in whatever situation.



Yep, there is such a thing as discrimination against men, or other "majority" groups that people typically don't care about. If people really wanted social equality, men complaining about stuff like sexual harassment wouldn't be told to "suck it up and take it like a man", or women would be told the same thing and get laughed away. Women abusing men would get just as much jailtime and social stigma. (Dude...look at Tiger Woods. If that was *him* hitting *his* wife with a golf club, people would be screaming for his death in the streets like Casey Anthony. His wife does it to him? she gets cheered because "he deserved it".)


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Feb 8, 2012)

Digitalpotato said:


> Yep, there is such a thing as discrimination against men, or other "majority" groups that people typically don't care about. If people really wanted social equality, men complaining about stuff like sexual harassment wouldn't be told to "suck it up and take it like a man", or women would be told the same thing and get laughed away. Women abusing men would get just as much jailtime and social stigma. (Dude...look at Tiger Woods. If that was *him* hitting *his* wife with a golf club, people would be screaming for his death in the streets like Casey Anthony. His wife does it to him? she gets cheered because "he deserved it".)



It's all discrimination in the end...
Because people expecting Tiger Woods' wife to respond in such a fashion implies that most people expect women to be emotionally insecure and highly unstable, while men were expected to be hormone-driven assholes is a form of bias against both females and males.


----------



## Digitalpotato (Feb 8, 2012)

JesusFish said:


> It's all discrimination in the end...
> Because people expecting Tiger Woods' wife to respond in such a fashion implies that most people expect women to be emotionally insecure and highly unstable, while men were expected to be hormone-driven assholes is a form of bias against both females and males.



Yep. You'll even notice this in fiction, too. 

Look at most sitcoms. If the genders were reversed on half of those shows, people wouldn't be laughing - they'd be gasping in horror and it'd be a soap opera. Just look at Malcolm in the Middle - if you switched Hal and Lois's personalities and *she* was the clueless submissive idiotic one while *he* was the emotionally unstable wreck with the temper of a MOBA player, people wouldn't be laughing. They might be, because the wrath is being directed at males, but if those were *girls* instead of boys, it'd be a soap opera.


----------



## Aleu (Feb 8, 2012)

Digitalpotato said:


> Yep. You'll even notice this in fiction, too.
> 
> Look at most sitcoms. If the genders were reversed on half of those shows, people wouldn't be laughing - they'd be gasping in horror and it'd be a soap opera. Just look at Malcolm in the Middle - if you switched Hal and Lois's personalities and *she* was the clueless submissive idiotic one while *he* was the emotionally unstable wreck with the temper of a MOBA player, people wouldn't be laughing. They might be, because the wrath is being directed at males, but if those were *girls* instead of boys, it'd be a soap opera.



Wasn't there an episode where Lois had some fantasy of all of them being girls?


----------



## Neuron (Feb 9, 2012)

I feel like this thread could benefit from this

It's a large image, but look at it and read all of it. It's worth it, I promise.


----------



## Digitalpotato (Feb 9, 2012)

Aleu said:


> Wasn't there an episode where Lois had some fantasy of all of them being girls?



Yep, and note that Hal was still a doormat because it was funny.


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 10, 2012)

Something that made me laugh [not really] tonight.

_"*Conrad says*
LOL
that sucks though huh
like you could say "girl"
and girls could say "boy"
*Clay . says*
yeah it does
*Conrad says*
but we can't say boy
lame
*Clay . says*
I can say "girl" and have people think im talking about a chick/woman/whatever
teenager
However, "boy" is used as a juvenile term
all it is is the male version of girl :T
*Conrad says*
i know right
fuck
like
if you want to specify that they're juvenile you have to say "little girl"
but for males it's just "a boy" "_

A bit lame, IMO.


----------

