Support NeoGAF

[Devolution]

..forgive me for using the word human being, I assumed you would understand what I meant. I meant they don't want to be treated as inferior. Simple as that.

This is the thing that's hard to document in data and as such many people don't take seriously enough. Women's opinions, work, efforts are continuously diminished under the idea of "is she hot though" or "but she's a woman." A lot of people want to stress that this doesn't happen but it does. It also happens to minorities of other groups as well. You're constantly fighting an uphill battle that seeks to stereotype your every movement.

 

[cyclonekruse]

Here and now women suffer from rape and other kinds of sexual assault, domestic violence, wage gaps, sexual harassment in the work place, glass ceilings, street harassment and a host of other issues that pretty much come from the same place a lot of the awful shit hanging over men's heads does: patriarchy. The movement looking to dismantle patriarchy: feminism. I get this feeling that many people simply don't actually interact with enough nonprofits or do enough reading of Bell Hooks if they do not understand feminism's aims and goals.

And that would be a point of difference between feminists and non-feminist egalitarians. Many of the latter group either don't buy into Patriarchy Theory or they don't think dismantling society to that degree is necessary to achieve equality. Instead they think we should look at individual issues and tackle them without regard to which gender is receiving the help or to fitting into some overall theoretical framework. I know the counterargument. How can you fight the inequity if you're just addressing the symptoms and not the disease? But I think it would work just fine. If you single out enough issues and fix them all, then society will naturally reshape itself.

For example, gay marriage seems to be on a path toward legality and, further, acceptance. While I'm certain many feminists fought for this state of affairs, I didn't see so much commentary about it being a victory over patriarchy. Rather it just seemed to me to be people identifying that the current treatment of the gay community in this instance was unfair and doing something to change it. More bottom-up than top-down and theory-laden.

By the by, I actually do interact with a non profit on a regular basis. I work for one. And while I haven't read much of bell hooks, I was under the impression she preferred to not capitalize her name for some reason.

 

[Kazerei]

You answered your own question. If the average layman doesn't feel like he has power but feminism claims that men have the power, there's a disconnect. The more you tell someone who doesn't feel privilege (because he's poor, for example) that he's privileged, the more resentment you'll foster.

It seems like people who get angry or defensive when male privilege, white privilege, etc. are raised don't actually understand what privilege means. For starters, it doesn't mean that all men or all whites have power. But certainly the people in power (in the U.S.) are mostly white males.

 

[Devolution]

And that would be a point of difference between feminists and non-feminist egalitarians. Many of the latter group either don't buy into Patriarchy Theory or they don't think dismantling society to that degree is necessary to achieve equality. Instead they think we should look at individual issues and tackle them without regard to which gender is receiving the help or to fitting into some overall theoretical framework. I know the counterargument. How can you fight the inequity if you're just addressing the symptoms and not the disease? But I think it would work just fine. If you single out enough issues and fix them all, then society will naturally reshape itself.

For example, gay marriage seems to be on a path toward legality and, further, acceptance. While I'm certain many feminists fought for this state of affairs, I didn't see so much commentary about it being a victory over patriarchy. Rather it just seemed to me to be people identifying that the current treatment of the gay community in this instance was unfair and doing something to change it. More bottom-up than top-down and theory-laden.

By the by, I actually do interact with a non profit on a regular basis. I work for one. And while I haven't read much of bell hooks, I was under the impression she preferred to not capitalize her name for some reason.

I capitalize it because I'm used to dealing with the lending library. Society never "naturally reshapes" itself, it takes people fighting for rights that are given to a specific subset of people but not their own. In the instance of gender, males were endowed with more rights/privileges in the United States and women have had to fight to for those same rights, and they still have to. This idea that the fight is over and done with is hogwash. The ERA was never ratified, the republicans seek to continually restrict the reproductive rights of women back to pre-Roe v Wade, rape is still happening to 1/4 women, the wage gap still continues despite defensiveness to the contrary, not to mention the scores of maternity leave that women continue to fight for but never really improve on (an issue that men should be fighting for as well since it also reflects on paternity leave). A lot of these battles are considered over, done with, someone in the thread even said so. There is so much more to do and yet people act like feminism has run its course.

 

[User 100115]

This is the thing that's hard to document in data and as such many people don't take seriously enough. Women's opinions, work, efforts are continuously diminished under the idea of "is she hot though" or "but she's a woman." A lot of people want to stress that this doesn't happen but it does. It also happens to minorities of other groups as well. You're constantly fighting an uphill battle that seeks to stereotype your every movement.

Yeah, it annoys the crap out of me. You actually see a lot of it in gaming and 'nerd' areas too, but in reverse: Attractive woman couldn't possibly be interested in those things, and they are only doing it for the attention. In most other areas, women are only deemed worthy of having an opinion if they are attractive. Look at women in politics and how often their looks are attacked.

 

[Sanky Panky]

Well, I've had my ass groped before (by a guy). So apparently, yes. Turns out, while it was unpleasant, it wasn't all that traumatic. I was over it within a day.

Let's look at what victims of sexual abuse (majority being women, and many raped/molested as children) go through:

While each individual’s experiences and reactions are unique, there are some responses to child sexual abuse that are common to many survivors:i
Low self-esteem or self-hatred
Survivors may suffer from depression
Guilt, shame and blame
Survivors may feel guilt or shame because they made no direct attempt to stop the abuse or because they experienced physical pleasure
Sleep disturbances / disorders
Survivors may have trouble sleeping because of the trauma, anxiety or may directly be related to the experience they had as a child; children may be sexually abused in their own beds.
Lack of trust for anyone
Many survivors were betrayed by the very people they are dependent upon (family, teachers etc.) who cared for them, who insisted they loved them even while abusing them; learning to trust can be extremely difficult under these circumstances.
93% of victims under the age of 18 know their attacker.ii
Revictimization
Many survivors as adults find themselves in abusive, dangerous situations or relationships.
Woman who were sexually assaulted before the age of 18 [are] twice as likely to report being raped as adults.iii
Flashbacks
Many survivors re-experience the sexual abuse as if it were occurring at that moment, usually accompanied by visual images of the abuse. These flashes of images are often triggered by an event, action, or even a smell that is reminiscent of the sexual abuse of the abuser.
Dissociation
Many survivors go through a process where the mind distances itself from the experience because it is too much for the psyche to process at the time. This loss of connection with thoughts, memories, feelings, actions or sense of identity, is a coping mechanism and may affect aspects of a survivor's functioning.
Sexuality / Intimacy
Many survivors have to deal with the fact that their first sexual encounter was a result of abuse. Such memories may interfere with the survivor's ability to engage in sexual relationships, which may bring about feelings of fright, frustration, or being ashamed.
Adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse often adopt coping mechanisms (or survival strategies) to guards against feelings of terror and helplessness that they may have felt as a child. These past feelings can still have influence over the life and present behavior of an adult survivor. Here are some common coping mechanismsi:

Grieving / Mourning
Many things were — childhood experiences, trust, innocence, relationships with family members. The survivor may feel a deep sadness, jealousy, anger or longing for something never had.
Alcohol or drug abuse
The abuse of substances can act as an escape from the intense waves of feelings, the terror and helplessness.
Disordered Eating / Eating Disorders
Compulsive control of food intake can be a way of taking back control over the body that was denied during the abuse.
Self-injury
There are many ways survivors have coped with the feelings that can cause emotional or physical injury on the self. Burning or cutting are some ways for a survivor to relieve intense anxiety, triggered by memories of the abuse

I hope that nome of this has happened to one of your female loved ones, nor that it will happen to a future daughter of one of us. Will she be the one in four that will go through this? Can you relate to any of these feelings after what happened to you?

But that's right, you will say that a male victim of a violent crime will go through the same... but do you still lack empathy for those feminists who want to fight against the objectification of women (that does lead to sexual crimes against women)?

And every other violent crime is slanted against men. Going by the numbers I ought to be more concerned about getting murdered/robbed/beaten/raped than the average woman. But I'm probably not. Coincidence?

Are you worried when you go out, that if you get too drunk, someone will try to penetrate your ass with a penis? Can you relate to that fear? As a man, I know I can't.

But hey...

Let's not stop at rape. How about some statistics on good ol' common domestic abuse. How about we look to see if feminists have any grounds to be concerned about their safety, or how other women are still treated in the merry times we live in:

Every 9 seconds in the US a woman is assaulted or beaten.

Around the world, at least one in every three women has been beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused during her lifetime. Most often, the abuser is a member of her own family.

Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women—more than car accidents, muggings, and rapes combined.

Studies suggest that up to 10 million children witness some form of domestic violence annually.

Nearly 1 in 5 teenage girls who have been in a relationship said a boyfriend threatened violence or self-harm if presented with a breakup.

Everyday in the US, more than three women are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends.

Ninety-two percent of women surveyed listed reducing domestic violence and sexual assault as their top concern.

Domestic violence victims lose nearly 8 million days of paid work per year in the US alone—the equivalent of 32,000 full-time jobs.

Based on reports from 10 countries, between 55 percent and 95 percent of women who had been physically abused by their partners had never contacted non-governmental organizations, shelters, or the police for help.

But hey, it's easy to be a woman in 2013. Sorry bud, but neither you and I can relate. The best you can do is help spread the message and protect those around you. I hope our petty "man issues" of not being alpha enough don't get in the way of that.

 

[C.Dark.DN]

There's a lot of issues with social institutions to address, and women make up the other half of human beings, which encompass a lot of the Earth's population. Obviously.

I care about their issues, mine as a middle class white male, gay rights, human rights in other countries, the environment. There should be no world hunger, but there is.

I don't know. Keep fighting the good fight in each category for improvement until the world stops being stupid for now.

If there is little improvement, switch things up.

 

[akira28]

Just wait till first women president. "Feminism has won. Hello Post-Feminism."

 

[Karkador]

Well, I've had my ass groped before (by a guy). So apparently, yes. Turns out, while it was unpleasant, it wasn't all that traumatic. I was over it within a day.

I missed this on the last page, so I'll say that minimizing this stuff doesn't help your point

 

[mike23]

But that's right, you will say that a male victim of a violent crime will go through the same... but do you still lack empathy for those feminists who want to fight against the objectification of women (that does lead to sexual crimes against women)?




Are you worried when you go out, that if you get too drunk, someone will try to penetrate your ass with a penis? Can you relate to that fear? As a man, I know I can't.

But hey...

Let's not stop at rape. How about some statistics on good ol' common domestic abuse. How about we look to see if feminists have any grounds to be concerned about their safety, or how other women are still treated in the merry times we live in:



But hey, it's easy to be a woman in 2013. Sorry bud, but neither you and I can relate. The best you can do is help spread the message and protect those around you. I hope our petty "man issues" of not being alpha enough don't get in the way of that.

Domestic violence isn't really your best bet for an argument. Domestic violence against men by women is incredibly under-reported relative to men on women domestic violence.

Plus, from the first source I found, it seems like it's pretty close to even, or was, at least in the UK
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence


ps. My stance on this matter (feminism) is that women are screwed in some areas, men are screwed in probably just as many. Both are situations are different, but both are not great.

 

[CLEEK]

It seems like people who get angry or defensive when male privilege, white privilege, etc. are raised don't actually understand what privilege means. For starters, it doesn't mean that all men or all whites have power. But certainly the people in power (in the U.S.) are mostly white males.

The issue is the term has been abused to the point it is meaningless. And a counter point to your comment is there are just as many people who use the term that don't understand in. Rather than calling for empathy towards groups that have a harder time then yourself, it's just thrown out as an insult.

The original thought behind discussing privilege was (still is) valid, but more often than not, is now used as a way to dismiss the opinions of someone that doesn't agree with them. Or is of a different race/gender/sexuality so could never have valid opinions.

Another point around privilege is that the single most important one - economic privilege - is usually ignored. It has a far bigger bearing on what you can do in life, and how many doors are open or closed to you, then any other factor, gender or otherwise. You even miss this in your comment: "But certainly the people in power (in the U.S.) are mostly white males". All the people in power are rich. A large subset are white and male. Yet you focus on those two factors the most.

There is a similar devaluation in the terms 'patriarchal society' or even 'rape culture'. Whenever I see commentator say 'patriarchal society', I just get a flash of the Ancient Aliens guy. Any facet of gender discussions can be claimed to be the result of patriarchal society. Even when its obviously not the case.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

haha it's the same post over and over. "I met some shitty woman who ruined it for me."

Just cut the bullshit and let's all agree that women are awesome, make up 50% of us, and need equality. Why do you people keep letting someone in college make you dismissive forever?

 

[cyclonekruse]

I capitalize it because I'm used to dealing with the lending library. Society never "naturally reshapes" itself, it takes people fighting for rights that are given to a specific subset of people but not their own. In the instance of gender, males were endowed with more rights/privileges in the United States and women have had to fight to for those same rights, and they still have to. This idea that the fight is over and done with is hogwash. The ERA was never ratified, the republicans seek to continually restrict the reproductive rights of women back to pre-Roe v Wade, rape is still happening to 1/4 women, the wage gap still continues despite defensiveness to the contrary, not to mention the scores of maternity leave that women continue to fight for but never really improve on (an issue that men should be fighting for as well since it also reflects on paternity leave). A lot of these battles are considered over, done with, someone in the thread even said so. There is so much more to do and yet people act like feminism has run its course.

I'm not saying that there's no more work to be done or that there's nothing to fight for. I'm saying that we can just focus on the specific instances of inequality rather than working off a very broad theory.

Let's look at what victims of sexual abuse (majority being women, and many raped/molested as children) go through:
List of stuff

No one is arguing that rape is acceptable or that victims of rape don't go through hell. I merely took umbrage with your notion that women are so often violently victimized that men couldn't relate to that fear.

I hope that nome of this has happened to one of your female loved ones, nor that it will happen to a future daughter of one of us. Will she be the one in four that will go through this?

If it's one-in-four, then by definition probably not. Though I've read some articles, mostly by Christina Hoff Summers, that suggest the 1 in 4 estimate is significantly inflated.

Can you relate to any of these feelings after what happened to you?

Technically, yes. I did go through some some mental issues (low self-esteem, self-hatred, depression, an eating disorder or sorts, and self-injury--just to name the stuff on the list you gave). And it did occur (some time) after being groped. But I very much doubt any sort of causal link.

But that's right, you will say that a male victim of a violent crime will go through the same... but do you still lack empathy for those feminists who want to fight against the objectification of women (that does lead to sexual crimes against women)?

How am I lacking empathy exactly?

Are you worried when you go out, that if you get too drunk, someone will try to penetrate your ass with a penis? Can you relate to that fear? As a man, I know I can't.

No, but then I don't get drunk. I barely drink any alcohol. But in general, no, I'm not afraid of being the victim of any violent crime.

But hey, it's easy to be a woman in 2013.

Easy? No. Easier in some ways? Yes. As god awful as you're making it out to be? No.

 

[cyclonekruse]

I missed this on the last page, so I'll say that minimizing this stuff doesn't help your point

What did I minimize? I minimized the importance of what happened to me personally but as I am the "victim" I feel I have the right to do that. What I was doing is pointing out that not all sexual assault is created equal. It ranges from the troublesome but ultimately not very harmful (e.g. what happened to me) to completely traumatic (e.g. violent rape).

 

[Mumei]

Sanky, I'm not sure that's really an effective way of presenting your position.

cyclonekruse, there have been multiple reliable studies - 1992 (13%), 1995-96 (14.8%), 2001 - 2003 (10.6%), 2007 (16.1%), and 2010 (12.3%) representing a range of 11.7 to 18 million women - that have consistently supported a figure of approximately one in six women who experience forcible rape, where violence or the threat of violence is explicitly used. I am not aware if there are studies which substantiate his one in four figure for the broader category of sexual assault, but it seems likely. Hoff Summers has also criticized rape studies on rather specious grounds, such as arguing that, for instance, having fingers or objects inserted into one's vagina or anus does not count as rape, or by misrepresenting another study and arguing that it used an overly broad definition of rape (when it actually used a very narrow definition of rape, using only instances where unwanted penetration was at least attempted using force or the threat of force).

Anyway, I really liked this video about commodity model vs performance model of sex, based on an essay by Thomas Miller in one of the essays in Yes Means Yes.

I am going to assume you aren't some extreme nihilist, and you are in favor of some form of life existing. Say I was describing you to someone, and I said, "Mumei is for life, he's pro life."

Wouldn't you feel the need the to elaborate, and maybe distance yourself from the Pro-Life, anti-abortion movement? Labels have baggage.

Not really? I guess I don't see that as analogous. I think even pro-life people would agree that people who are pro-choice are "pro-life" in the vague sense you are describing, but by "pro life" they are talking specifically about the issue of abortion. So I doubt they'd call me "pro life" unless I subscribed to pro life beliefs more specifically.

If I said, "I believe that people shouldn't have abortions," and someone said, "That means you're pro life!" I might reject the label because I don't believe in enforcing those beliefs and I associate the "pro life" label with the goal of creating legal boundaries and limitations against exercising abortion rights - the baggage, as you say. But if that bare minimum belief - without the attendant beliefs about trying to prevent them from happening - means that someone thinks I am pro life, well, whatever. I'm not pro life based on how I define the term. It's really no different than Deified Deity thinking of me as an MRA (and a feminist) in the sense that he's using the word - in a sort of detached and decontextualized way - while I reject it because I think the movement is awful.

The problem is that if I simply said I was a feminist, one may assume that I'm of the sex negative variety, and host of other things that aren't true. No overarching -ism that covers a variety of topics will be a 1:1 mapping of my value set. For this reason I'd rather just divulge my values on a case to case basis.

That's a fine reason not to want to identify as something, I think, though the danger with feminism is somewhat overblown. If you go to, say, any of the biggest feminist blogs or read popular feminist books or watch any feminists on television - well, any of the handful - you're going to see a feminism that is intersectional, post-structuralist, sex-positive, etc., etc. When someone on GAF says they are a feminist, I generally start with the assumptions that this describes their feminism and I can't think offhand of a time I've been wrong in years. It is possible that someone who isn't a feminist nor is necessarily inclined to give someone calling themselves a feminist the benefit of the doubt might misconstrue what I mean when I call myself a feminist, but that's no reason for me to reject the label. It just means that I have to explain further if necessary.

Oh, and I'm not really trying to convince you in particular that you should call yourself a feminist, by the way. It is always possible that your opinions have changed, of course, but based on what I have read in the past I don't think of you as a feminist. I don't know if you were getting the impression that I was trying to do that or not, so I thought I'd clarify if there was lack of clarity on that point.

 

[cyclonekruse]

cyclonekruse, there have been multiple reliable studies - 1992 (13%), 1995-96 (14.8%), 2001 - 2003 (10.6%), 2007 (16.1%), and 2010 (12.3%) representing a range of 11.7 to 18 million women - that have consistently supported a figure of approximately one in six women who experience forcible rape, where violence or the threat of violence is explicitly used.

Source(s)?

 

[Platy]

Damn cyclo ... you are from 2007 and you still didn't learned that Mumei ALWAYS has the sources ? =P

Just wait till first women president. "Feminism has won. Hello Post-Feminism."

Brazil has a woman president.

The pressure from the churchs is almost making the country make abortions ilegal in all cases, including rape and fetus without a brain.

The same churches that have lots of seminars saying that women must obey EVERY order from their husband

 

[rocketknight]

Easy? No. Easier in some ways? Yes. As god awful as you're making it out to be? No.

What did I minimize? I minimized the importance of what happened to me personally but as I am the "victim" I feel I have the right to do that. What I was doing is pointing out that not all sexual assault is created equal. It ranges from the troublesome but ultimately not very harmful (e.g. what happened to me) to completely traumatic (e.g. violent rape).

I think that this is a problem a lot of people have with getting over the hump of understanding privilege and kyriarchy, maybe - trying to use your own experiences to draw conclusions about how other people feel about theirs. It's really important (and this is a big aspect of modern feminism) to sit back and listen to people who have different lives from you, and trust that they are generally describing their experiences better than you can.

So, like, here, you got groped once, and say it wasn't a big deal, and called it "ultimately not very harmful," when the same thing could have happened to me or another woman and been interpreted very differently due to things like power differentials, the fact that it's a common occurrence rather than a rare one, the vague cultural approval/apologetics machinations behind the act, the dismissal she knows she's in for if she brings it up, etc. When people tell you how things feel to them they probably aren't just making it up. Certainly if a woman tells you how it sucks to be a woman in our culture, it's pretty unhelpful to tell her that it's not as awful as she's making it out to be.

A lot of women, really, are saying these things from a place of their own lived experiences, and hopefully society gets better at listening to us and taking our word for it. I'm not trying to call you out specifically, your post just provided a convenient example.

 

[Carcetti]

Hey, did someone want a good hard look at why feminism is still needed. Check out these lovely tennis fans.

http://publicshaming.tumblr.com/post/54864863081/womens-wimbledon-champion-marion-bartoli-deemed

It's amazing how these slimy bastards happily tweet under their own names and faces.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Hey, did someone want a good hard look at why feminism is still needed. Check out these lovely tennis fans.

http://publicshaming.tumblr.com/post/54864863081/womens-wimbledon-champion-marion-bartoli-deemed

It's amazing how these slimy bastards happily tweet under their own names and faces.

The BBC commentator even said "She's not a looker". Why?

 

[Mindwipe]

That's a fine reason not to want to identify as something, I think, though the danger with feminism is somewhat overblown. If you go to, say, any of the biggest feminist blogs or read popular feminist books or watch any feminists on television - well, any of the handful - you're going to see a feminism that is intersectional, post-structuralist, sex-positive, etc., etc.

I'm sorry, but I don't think that's true at all.

The overwhelming majority of academic feminist discourse and popular media coverage is startlingly sex-negative.

 

[Soodanim]

Hey, did someone want a good hard look at why feminism is still needed. Check out these lovely tennis fans.

http://publicshaming.tumblr.com/post/54864863081/womens-wimbledon-champion-marion-bartoli-deemed

It's amazing how these slimy bastards happily tweet under their own names and faces.

A lot of those tweets are bad, but a few of them are quite clearly people fucking about for their followers, which are most likely their mates. Nearly all of the ones about her being a man fall into that category, because I doubt that people seriously think she has a penis. One of the tweets even says she's disrespectful, which indicates that there's more to that person's dislike than appearance alone. It brings the piece down a bit when you start scraping the bottom of the barrel for things to be outraged at.

 

[PogiJones]

A lot of those tweets are bad, but a few of them are quite clearly people fucking about for their followers, which are most likely their mates. Nearly all of the ones about her being a man fall into that category, because I doubt that people seriously think she has a penis. One of the tweets even says she's disrespectful, which indicates that there's more to that person's dislike than appearance alone. It brings the piece down a bit when you start scraping the bottom of the barrel for things to be outraged at.

I don't know. I'm as anti-outrage-culture as the next guy, but as much as I enjoy bringing a minority perspective to the table here on GAF, these tweets were all awful. The point of the compilation was not to show that people seriously believe she has a penis. It was to show the emphasis on her looks. While the sample size is small, that doesn't make the tweets quoted any better.

 

[Laughing Banana]

It is interesting to note that despite claims of great democracy or paragon of equality, the US never actually elected a woman to lead the country.

While, for example, a 3rd world country such as mine (the country with the biggest amount of Muslims in the world even!) has done it.

 

[The Librarian]

The point that I was trying (and apparently failing badly) to make was that I'm not so sure if women would actually want to be treated like men across the board. I think many women couldn't handle it. Some could, of course, but would they be the exception or the rule.

I feel like I should write a paragraph or so in response to this, but I don't know what to say. Okay, I do know what to say, but I'd rather not.

 

[CyclopsRock]

It is interesting to note that despite claims of great democracy or paragon of equality, the US never actually elected a woman to lead the country.

While, for example, a 3rd world country such as mine (the country with the biggest amount of Muslims in the world even!) has done it.

That's more or less an irrelevancy, though. Or, not an irrelevancy, but electing a woman doesn't say much about the level of sexism in a country, I think, for precisely the reason you said; countries where women have a fraction of the literacy rate of men have had female heads of state, because there are an elite few who have escaped the fate of other women thanks to money, mostly. Pakistan's a good example of this; Bhutto may have been Prime Minister, but she's very far from a normal woman. Likewise, the UK elected a female Prime Minister in the 70's and since then we haven't even had another female party leader (other than temporary ones in between party elections where the women always lose), but I think it'd be hard to argue that we're more sexist now than we were 35 years ago.

 

[Sanky Panky]

Domestic violence isn't really your best bet for an argument. Domestic violence against men by women is incredibly under-reported relative to men on women domestic violence.

Plus, from the first source I found, it seems like it's pretty close to even, or was, at least in the UK
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence
.

In the UK, the US, and all over the world (in my country, Domestic Abuse wasn't even a crime until 1999), women are the main victims of sexual abuse. I haven't seen any stats on male under reporting domestic abuse, but we do know that 50 to 95% of women don't report it.

If you want to discuss the ultimate show of domestic violence, MURDER, here is one not so surprising stat for you:

In 70-80% of intimate partner homicides, no matter
which partner was killed, the man physically abused
the woman before the murder.12

http://www.ncadv.org/files/DomesticViolenceFactSheet(National).pdf

Here are some others

One in every four women will experience domestic violence in her lifetime.1

An estimated 1.3 million women are victims of physical assault by an intimate partner each year.2

85% of domestic violence victims are women.3

Historically, females have been most often victimized by someone they knew.4

Females who are 20-24 years of age are at the greatest risk of nonfatal intimate partner violence.5

Most cases of domestic violence are never reported to the police.6

One in 6 women and 1 in 33 men have experienced an attempted or completed rape.10

Nearly 7.8 million women have been raped by an intimate partner at some point in their lives.11

Sexual assault or forced sex occurs in approximately 40-45% of battering relationships.12

1 in 12 women and 1 in 45 men have been stalked in their lifetime.13

81% of women stalked by a current or former intimate partner are also physically assaulted by that partner; 31% are also sexually assaulted by that partner.13

(sources at the link)
http://www.ncadv.org/files/DomesticViolenceFactSheet(National).pdf

No one is arguing that rape is acceptable or that victims of rape don't go through hell. I merely took umbrage with your notion that women are so often violently victimized that men couldn't relate to that fear.

To be honest, the majority of men outside of prison really can't relate to that fear. We should stop trying to minimize violence against women as a first step to better the situation for half of the planet. Men fight other men for power. Women are victims because society has always said they are fuck objects to be used at a man's whim. You don't see how one situation is if even just slightly worse than the other?

Technically, yes. I did go through some some mental issues (low self-esteem, self-hatred, depression, an eating disorder or sorts, and self-injury--just to name the stuff on the list you gave). And it did occur (some time) after being groped. But I very much doubt any sort of causal link.

Thank you for at least admitting no causal link. The list of effects I posted is directly related to being sexually assaulted.

How am I lacking empathy exactly?

Not once have you stated your support for the feminist cause to reduce the objectification and violence against women. Your only response is to say that men don't have it easier (they do when it comes to power over their bodies).

No, but then I don't get drunk. I barely drink any alcohol. But in general, no, I'm not afraid of being the victim of any violent crime.

The point is that women DO have that fear, as their moment to be raped is not necessarily in some dark alley at night. From the minute they are born, any family member or friend could be the one using or penetrating their bodies, without them having the power to do anything.

Easy? No. Easier in some ways? Yes. As god awful as you're making it out to be? No.

As you can see, I'm quite passionate about this subject. Why? call it personal anecdote, but I live with the consequences of violence against women each day. My girlfriend is the one woman out of 5 sisters that was NOT raped or abused. My girlfriend suffers panic attacks, pmdd (look it up), and stomach problems because of what has happened to her family. Her little sister not only has a sleeping/eating disorder, but has to sleep with her legs crossed and her hands on the crotch area because of what happened to her. I could go on and on...

This is not 1813, this is 2013 and shit like this still goes on. Maybe they are an anomaly in the world of statistics, but every other fact out there corroborates that violence against women is a thing we should all care for, fight for, and NEVER trivialize.

 

[dalin80]

In the UK, the US, and all over the world (in my country, Domestic Abuse wasn't even a crime until 1999), women are the main victims of sexual abuse. I haven't seen any stats on male under reporting domestic abuse, but we do know that 50 to 95% of women don't report it.
.

There is also an increasing belief amongst the police that male victims of domestic abuse have higher un-reported crime rates then female due to the perceived embarrassment of a man being abused by a women.

 

[jorma]

That's a fine reason not to want to identify as something, I think, though the danger with feminism is somewhat overblown. If you go to, say, any of the biggest feminist blogs or read popular feminist books or watch any feminists on television - well, any of the handful - you're going to see a feminism that is intersectional, post-structuralist, sex-positive, etc., etc. When someone on GAF says they are a feminist, I generally start with the assumptions that this describes their feminism and I can't think offhand of a time I've been wrong in years. It is possible that someone who isn't a feminist nor is necessarily inclined to give someone calling themselves a feminist the benefit of the doubt might misconstrue what I mean when I call myself a feminist, but that's no reason for me to reject the label. It just means that I have to explain further if necessary.

Swedish feminism is 100% "sex-negative", porn is just a tool in the "war against women", it wants to eliminate gender roles, and it's extremly antagonistic as i've previously alluded to in this topic. We have feminist principals of universities that thinks that since we have a problem with Swedish women not being interested in pursuing a career in mathematics or physics, we need to change the rules of mathematics and physics so it can appeal to women... Yes, that actually happened.

We have feminsts who actually wants to criminalise critique of feminist axioms. Why? Because if you don't accept queer theroy fundamentals, you are basically a Breivik waiting to happen. And where does Breivik belong? Well, in prison, obviously. It was originally a recommendation to the Norwegian parliament, if i remember this correctly, and the legislation won't likely pass, but just asking for it is bad enough.

A few years ago, there was one school in Sweden where boys received higher grades than girls. One. That school naturally got "gender equality money" from the government to investigate what had gone wrong. Money well spent, because now that school is just like all the other schools - girls get better grades.

If you are male and favour a different kind of feminism, you are anti-feminist and you hate women. If you are a woman you will be ignored with claims that "patriarchy makes you speak against your own self interest". Why? Because "women needs to stick together in the fight".
Plenty of liberal feminists in the public testify to ostracism, ridicule and even threats from the "pc elite". Tolerance towards other peoples opinions is not one of their strong suits. And they all make liu kang sound like kindness and tolerance personified, it's that bad.

Openly racist/misandrist columns are published in mainstream media on a regular basis. These people are extremists but they are getting mainstream attention and credence.

What's my point? I guess that when the US reaches equality like in Sweden, this is what feminists will fight for. They won't fight for equality, they will fight for women.

And it's also why i can't call myself feminist. Because the above is what people would assume i fought for.

That said, life here is pretty equal and good for everyone. This isn't a rant about how difficult life is for teh mens in Sweden. Because it's not.
As long as you keep away from the extremists, normal people will have normal opinions and everyone will be happy knowing that they have the right and the potential to become whoever they want and do whatever they want in life. Sweden is a pretty sweet place all in all.
But the feminist label is not for everyone here. It's an extremist label.

Bonus content:
A few days ago a fairly prominent swedish feminist posted a tweet directed towards the minister of education: "can someone please just shoot him? Do i really have to shoot him myself?". When questioned about the tweet she responded with a "go shoot yourself in the mouth pls".
And when media wrote about it she was all "goddamnit have people lost all their sense of humour??"

So i'm not sure feminism is the remedy to shitheads posting shit on the internet, Carcetti

 

[antipod]

Very good post jorma. Pretty much the reason I wouldn't call myself a feminist here Sweden as well. The word is sort of infected. Everybody thinks of Gudrun Schyman and ultra-feminists when hearing it.

Also, I don't really like the word as it is skewed towards women. Pretty much prefer equalism ('ekvalism').

 

[Übermatik]

Honest question: every feminist I have come across claims they are for equal rights and not the superiority of women. Why not Equalism then? If these people are truly concerned with bringing equal rights to all, then why 'feminism'? No matter what people say to me, it's always going to sound pro-female.

*edit*: Hope I don't sound like an ass here, just asking an honest question. I'm all for equality, regardless of gender, age, race or pronunciation of gif.

 

[Sanky Panky]

There is also an increasing belief amongst the police that male victims of domestic abuse have higher un-reported crime rates then female due to the perceived embarrassment of a man being abused by a women.

So after everything that has been posted, would you agree or not that the majority of victims of domestic abuse are women (and also up to 95% don't report it)? Would you cite "an increasing belief" to dispute the facts? is there anything in your personal life that would prevent you from acknowledging that women are the main victims of sexual and domestic abuse? Be it 60/40 or 80/20 percent against women, do ratios matter that much to you, or can you simply admit that women are systematically more affected by this?

Honest question: every feminist I have come across claims they are for equal rights and not the superiority of women. Why not Equalism then? If these people are truly concerned with bringing equal rights to all, then why 'feminism'? No matter what people say to me, it's always going to sound pro-female.

Why harp so much on semantics? does the word "feminism" diminish the cause of women trying to improve their treatmen in society to be equal to men? When blacks banded together against oppression, would you have demanded them to include the rights of whites in order for you to support the cause?

I think your "and not the superiority of women" is more telling than anything. Are you threatened by the empowerment of women? If not, what priviledges do you think will be taken away if we treat women with respect, view their bodies with respect, etc?

 

[ElectricBlue187]

Never judge a philosophy by its abuse

Eugenics wasnt SO bad I guess.

 

[Übermatik]

So after everything that has been posted, would you agree or not that the majority of victims of domestic abuse are women (and also up to 95% don't report it)? Would you cite "an increasing belief" to dispute the facts? is there anything in your personal life that would prevent you from acknowledging that women are the main victims of sexual and domestic abuse? Be it 60/40 or 80/20 percent against women, do ratios matter that much to you, or can you simply admit that women are systematically more affected by this?



Why harp so much on semantics? does the word "feminism" diminish the cause of women trying to improve their treatmen in society to be equal to men? When blacks banded together against oppression, would you have demanded them to include the rights of whites in order for you to support the cause?

I think your "and not the superiority of women" is more telling than anything. Are you threatened by the empowerment of women? If not, what priviledges do you think will be taken away if we treat women with respect, view their bodies with respect, etc?

Wow. That was an aggressive reply considering the innocence of my question. Calling for equality doesn't mean ignoring the needs of women, at all... I was actually trying to give the cause more meaning... Like I said, I'm all for it.

Think you ran away a bit there, I'm not threatened in any way. I'd go as far to tell you to stop being so pathetic.

 

[WanderingWind]

Wow. That was an aggressive reply considering the innocence of my question. Calling for equality doesn't mean ignoring the needs of women, at all... I was actually trying to give the cause more meaning... Like I said, I'm all for it.

Think you ran away a bit there, I'm not threatened in any way. I'd go as far to tell you to stop being so pathetic.

But do you hate women or do you just have low self-esteem??!!?

 

[Übermatik]

But do you hate women or do you just have low self-esteem??!!?

:lol

 

[Sanky Panky]

Wow. That was an aggressive reply considering the innocence of my question. Calling for equality doesn't mean ignoring the needs of women, at all... I was actually trying to give the cause more meaning... Like I said, I'm all for it.
.

How would making a pro-women (which it seems you take issue with) movement change its name, be in any way, giving the pro-women cause more meaning?

*note* I specify PRO-WOMEN starting from the assumption that you recognize that women as a group have been and still are systematically oppressed (even if to a lesser degree compared to the 1960's). If you don't hold this view, then of course you will see no point in the movement being specifically pro-women.

 

[Übermatik]

How would making a pro-women (which it seems you take issue with) movement change its name, be in any way, giving the pro-women cause more meaning?

*note* I specify PRO-WOMEN starting from the assumption that you recognize that women as a group have been and still are systematically oppressed (even if to a lesser degree compared to the 1960's). If you don't hold this view, then of course you will see no point in the movement being specifically pro-women.

I'm going to stop posting until you stop being ridiculous. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH FEMINISM. I have NO PROBLEM with feminists, OR WOMEN. I was questioning the term, the name!

This thread looked like a minefield when I entered, I think I was right.

 

[Karkador]

Honest question: every feminist I have come across claims they are for equal rights and not the superiority of women. Why not Equalism then? If these people are truly concerned with bringing equal rights to all, then why 'feminism'? No matter what people say to me, it's always going to sound pro-female.

*edit*: Hope I don't sound like an ass here, just asking an honest question. I'm all for equality, regardless of gender, age, race or pronunciation of gif.

"Equalism" sounds pretty broad to me. The thing is that being 'for equality' is often not specific enough for how we need to address our society's issues. Some of these issues are so persistent that they could even have their own movements.

When women are being unfairly mandated to use their bodies a certain way (usually by a group of men) or suffering sexual abuse that a mostly male power structure is sweeping under the rug, it takes a decidely feminist or female-oriented message to really push back on that. 'Equalism' would simply be too vague of a call there.

Of course, men have their issues, too, and men should definitely speak up about them and have a movement (instead of being bitter about feminism)....but feminism is not at odds with men resolving those issues, they are both actually striving to move in the same direction and interested in eliminating the same things. There's nothing wrong with only working for your segment of an issue. What's wrong is working against each other, and not communicating and listening.

I think you can be a feminist, as in some one concerned with specific women's rights issues, while also holding the broader view of equal rights for both genders. Why not call yourself both? In the future, maybe people will finally settle on a proper movement for men...and then we can all have three things to call ourselves.

 

[cyclonekruse]

To be honest, the majority of men outside of prison really can't relate to that fear.

You're limiting fear of violence to just fear of rape. No, guys do not have as high of risk of being raped. But, as I've repeatedly noted and you've repeatedly ignored, we do have a higher risk of being violently victimized in other ways. I should actually be more fearful of being murdered/robbed/raped/assaulted than a woman. Rape is the only one of those four things where female victims outnumber male victims.

We should stop trying to minimize violence against women as a first step to better the situation for half of the planet. Men fight other men for power. Women are victims because society has always said they are fuck objects to be used at a man's whim. You don't see how one situation is if even just slightly worse than the other?

So your answer is to treat women as delicate flowers and to minimize the violence that happens to men in our country as being men's own faults? My preference is to say that all violence is bad regardless of the victim's gender.

Not once have you stated your support for the feminist cause to reduce the objectification and violence against women. Your only response is to say that men don't have it easier (they do when it comes to power over their bodies).

I don't think women are special and deserving of more protection than men. Check that. Due to the higher instance of rape, they should be allotted more protection in that area. However for violence overall? No. Men are just as deserving (and actually need more) protection than women. I think that's equal treatment. Treating women as if they are less able to handle violence or that men are somehow more deserving of it is sexist.

In regards to power over one's body, I've consistently said that men have it easier in some ways and harder in others.

This is not 1813, this is 2013 and shit like this still goes on. Maybe they are an anomaly in the world of statistics, but every other fact out there corroborates that violence against women is a thing we should all care for, fight for, and NEVER trivialize.

Maybe, just maybe, it's possible to not care about violence against women any more than violence against men. All violence should be prevented.

 

[Übermatik]

"Equalism" sounds pretty broad to me. The thing is that being 'for equality' is often not specific enough for how we need to address our society's issues. Some of these issues are so persistent that they could even have their own movements.

When women are being unfairly mandated to use their bodies a certain way (usually by a group of men) or suffering sexual abuse that a mostly male power structure is sweeping under the rug, it takes a decidely feminist or female-oriented message to really push back on that. 'Equalism' would simply be too vague of a call there.

Of course, men have their issues, too, and men should definitely speak up about them and have a movement (instead of being bitter about feminism)....but feminism is not at odds with men resolving those issues, they are both actually striving to move in the same direction and interested in eliminating the same things. There's nothing wrong with working for your segment of an issue. What's wrong is working against each other.

I think you can be a feminist, as in some one concerned with specific women's rights issues, while also holding the broader view of equal rights for both genders. Why not call yourself both? In the future, maybe people will finally settle on a proper movement for men...and then we can all have three things to call ourselves.

Thank-you. This was a better response. I think maybe I'm naive in thinking that we can now move straight onto Equalism. I do often forget that a lot of people still don't recognises feminism as a genuine cause and force behind reaching equality, so for now I think the term 'feminism' is still needed.

 

[WanderingWind]

How would making a pro-women (which it seems you take issue with) movement change its name, be in any way, giving the pro-women cause more meaning?

*note* I specify PRO-WOMEN starting from the assumption that you recognize that women as a group have been and still are systematically oppressed (even if to a lesser degree compared to the 1960's). If you don't hold this view, then of course you will see no point in the movement being specifically pro-women.

He doesn't hold any anti-female views, but you went off on a rant about how he hates women. You call yourself a feminist. Yet, you seem confused why some would rather not be associated with people who act like you just did.

If somebody is willing to fight for equal rights, why the holy hell is it so goddamn important for them to do so under your terms under the banner you want them to hold? The fight over labeling the movement is easily one of the most asinine things I've ever seen. If uber wants to be an equalist, feminist, unifuckingtarian, why does it matter to you as long as he makes the right actual-world decisions that further the rights of every individual?

 

[Übermatik]

He doesn't hold any anti-female views, but you went off on a rant about how he hates women. You call yourself a feminist. Yet, you seem confused why some would rather not be associated with people who act like you just did.

If somebody is willing to fight for equal rights, why the holy hell is it so goddamn important for them to do so under your terms under the banner you want them to hold? The fight over labeling the movement is easily one of the most asinine things I've ever seen. If uber wants to be an equalist, feminist, unifuckingtarian, why does it matter to you as long as he makes the right actual-world decisions that further the rights of every individual?

*Hi-five*

Acting the way you did only deters me from using the term 'feminism' MORE, because it's now easy to associate it with people like yourself. You jumped onto what I said as if I'd labelled women inferior, or hated them or something, which I didn't.

Karkador gave a genuine and helpful response to the question I actually asked, not the motive you thought I had.

 

[Karkador]

Thank-you. This was a better response. I think maybe I'm naive in thinking that we can now move straight onto Equalism. I do often forget that a lot of people still don't recognises feminism as a genuine cause and force behind reaching equality, so for now I think the term 'feminism' is still needed.

I mean, I think 'equalism' is a fine banner to fly under, but we do need the more specific movements, too.

 

[Übermatik]

I mean, I think 'equalism' is a fine banner to fly under, but we do need the more specific movements, too.

Sure man, I agree. I think this may have been what Sanky Panky was trying to say too, but I missed it under all the blind criticism.

 

[Sanky Panky]

The reactions here truly speak to how defensive men get over this subject. It baffles me as to why.

You're limiting fear of violence to just fear of rape. No, guys do not have as high of risk of being raped. But, as I've repeatedly noted and you've repeatedly ignored, we do have a higher risk of being violently victimized in other ways. I should actually be more fearful of being murdered/robbed/raped/assaulted than a woman. Rape is the only one of those four things where female victims outnumber male victims.

Please visit the link I posted again, or look at the stats again. Stalking, rape, sexual harassment, sexual assault, homicide. Women victims still outnumber men all around the world. No crime is good, and YES equal protection is needed. This is what feminists want. They don't want 95% of rapists to never see a day in jail. Unfortunately, half of the world population has to remain complacent because people like you react the same way, and diminish their plight. I hope you defend and protect women with the same fervor you wish no crimes against men. I hope you defend and are outspoken about the feminist cause as much as you are for crimes against men. I hope you don't publicly diminish systematic societal crimes against a particular group of humans. I hope you are able to recognize when women are being objectified, and voice out against it, as much as you do so for men. That's all I can hope for at this point.

So your answer is to treat women as delicate flowers and to minimize the violence that happens to men in our country as being men's own faults? My preference is to say that all violence is bad regardless of the victim's gender.

"Delicate flowers"? Is that what I am implying, or am I saying that they should be treated as equal human beings (not just a piece of ass)? It's rather insulting to women who just want the same respect you give your boys. I'm not accusing you of mistreating women at all, but your defensive behavior seems to be rooted in your own personal issues. These subjects are good, because it is a chance to discover our own biases and prejudices. Don't miss this opportunity.

He doesn't hold any anti-female views, but you went off on a rant about how he hates women. You call yourself a feminist. Yet, you seem confused why some would rather not be associated with people who act like you just did.

If somebody is willing to fight for equal rights, why the holy hell is it so goddamn important for them to do so under your terms under the banner you want them to hold? The fight over labeling the movement is easily one of the most asinine things I've ever seen. If uber wants to be an equalist, feminist, unifuckingtarian, why does it matter to you as long as he makes the right actual-world decisions that further the rights of every individual?

Did I say that he hates women? You both seemed to jump to this conclusion on your own. I questioned his basis for wanting to change the name of a pro-women movement, and I questioned why he views feminism as a movement to somehow make women superior to men.

I don't want anybody to hold a label they don't want to hold. I WILL tell you that language is description by association, so if we don't give a pro-women movement the name that reflects what it truly is, then the meaning is lost. I agree with you, in that the fight over the label is asinine. Anybody trying to change it is focusing on the entirely wrong thing.

 

[Übermatik]

The reactions here truly speak to how defensive men get over this subject. It baffles me as to why.

Isn't it a bit dodgy to say this? Sounds like you're generalising a whole group of people who don't share the same view. It's like me saying:

"The reactions here truly speak to how offensive women get over this subject. It baffles me as to why."

It doesn't really make sense.

 

[Sanky Panky]

Isn't it a bit dodgy to say this? Sounds like you're generalising a whole group of people who don't share the same view. It's like me saying:

"The reactions here truly speak to how offensive women get over this subject. It baffles me as to why."

It doesn't really make sense.

If you need me to tell you, I was wondering why YOU, and others here, get so defensive about it. I did generalize, because it does happen in every thread about this.

 

[Übermatik]

If you need me to tell you, I was wondering why YOU, and others here, get so defensive about it. I did generalize, because it does happen in every thread about this.

Where was I ever defensive!? You keep pulling these arguments from nowhere!

I'm done here.

 

[Sanky Panky]

Where was I ever defensive!? You keep pulling these arguments from nowhere!

I'm done here.

I'm sorry but your innocent honest question was based around the notion that TO YOU, the word feminism is a movement for "the superiority of women" (your own words). Where did you get this notion from? You also stated that if not named "equalism", you will always view the movement as "pro-female" (no matter what people say to you),

I proceded to forcefully question why is it an issue that the movement is viewed as "pro-female", and you consider to label me as pathetic. Who is the one being defensive here? I was going to attribute the way you phrased your question as a unintentional... until you came back and reinforced my initial interpretation. I can't blame you, because most of us are oblivious of the things we say, but more importantly, what's truly behind the things we say.