Just saw the left article posted on a feminist group.
If 560 women were killed, this must be an example of male privilege. Let’s forget than 5064 people were killed overall, making women a massive minority of victims.
When researching the topic, I also found this. Notice how they suggest it’s part of the “war on women” conspiracy when the trend seems to go against women, but when it goes against men they don’t question the authorities at all.
Bigger version of the table: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-U4EtkKk-mb0/T1YcvQr5TwI/AAAAAAAAAbc/Sok9gmxE8is/s1600/2012+Homicides.jpg
Dykewithadick, on male victims of violence. If you are a man who is killed by a man, you can’t complain because you are both men. If you are a man who is raped by a man, you can’t complain because you are both men. You’re shitting in your own pudding. These are “problems men create for themselves”, not problems we should all be working to stop.
On the other hand, all men have a responsibility to protect and support female victims, because they share the blame for their gender. If a man does something wrong, all men are responsible for it. Even men who have never interacted with him are responsible, whereas women in his life (who have actually shaped who he is) are not. Even if a man is the victim, he shares in the blame for his own attack, simply because the attacker called himself a ‘he’.
It is because WOMEN WERE NOT EVEN GENERALLY ALLOWED TO ENLIST.
How could women die for the cause if they weren’t even allowed the OPPORTUNITY to die for the cause?
That’s like saying more white guys died in the World War I than black guys, so black people owe white people for dying for them in that war.
It’s because black people were turned down more often for their race while enlisting. And the ones who enlisted successfully were segregated from the other troops, not given any publicity for their honorable deeds, and were basically written out of white-recorded history.
And…by the way…did you know that women did serve in those wars? Andthey died in them, too. But no, they weren’t given widespread publicity for it because often times they had to do it in disguise (because women weren’t allowed in the military in combat roles), and history is written by white guys who, you know, don’t really give a fuck to record the accomplishments of women.
And even TODAY, women in the military aren’t really allowed combat positions because of male prejudices.
So, like I said, how the fuck can women die for our country if we aren’t even given the CHANCE to die for our country?
Men weren’t just ‘allowed’ to enlist, they were ‘expected’ - if not physically forced and killed if they didn’t. Check your language. It’s still therefore an example of discrimination that millions of men were driven to the slaughter against their will, whereas women were ‘allowed’ (and yes, ‘expected’) to stay at home. There’s a privilege on both sides, just as there is with every issue. However, in this case, the male victims suffered far more.
How terrible it must be to be “expected” (read: allowed) to carry on with your lives while men are “allowed” (read: forced) to die for your safety.
The thing is that a lot of these historical wars, where men only had the choice between being sent and massacred abroad or disgraced and executed at home, simply because of the way they were born, are pretty much comparable to genocide by the state. People like the OP are calling minority groups lucky to be ‘allowed’ to be rounded up and killed (for the colour of their skin or the shape of their body), calling them ‘privileged’, and complaining that other people weren’t ‘given the opportunity’. Too many feminists have been deluded into this sort of reframing, and it’s unbelievably messed up when you think about it. It’s not a privilege to be killed en masse. Men weren’t ‘allowed’ to be killed en masse. They were expected. Stop reframing the issue.
These started popping up on campus late this week.
I understand that men of colour experience way more discrimination than the average white woman. However, I don’t think that is their frame of reference here.
I actually thought it was a joke at first.
Guys, what about teh mens?
.______.
Seriously, I knew people who used the “what about teh mens” line were everywhere but I didn’t expect them to a) be on campus and b) make fun of something that looks actually pretty serious.
“Oh, suicide rates are 66 percent higher? We should make fun of this poster and raise those suicide rates!”
I think they’re trying to realise Sally Miller-Gearhart’s dream of culling the male population to 10% of the human race.
Sexists… sexists everywhere….
*pfft* Well, didn’t you know that cis women are the only possible group to ever experience oppression or issues due to their gender? /sarcasm.
Another example of “what about teh menz” being used rather unprovoked.
I’d even query the “roughly as high” point when it comes to violence. Violence against men is much more common, and when it comes to the students, over 83% of stranger violence (and about 76% of overall violence) against the 16-24 age group happens to men. Men are also more likely to be injured in these attacks. Since 1973, men have consistently been the vast majority of homicide, robbery, and assault victims.
The ‘feminists’ who ripped down these posters without bothering to learn, the same ones who scream “what about the menz?!” whenever somebody tries to educate them, will now be going around talking about how “the world is a safe space for men”. There is a point at which wilful ignorance becomes bigotry.
In 2010, it was estimated that at least 110,000 men were victims of conjugal violence, but less than 5% of these heinous crimes were reported. (source)
Struggling To Be Heard: Is it only empowerment when a White girl picks up a sword?
Here’s something I wanted to talk about every time a movie comes out that shows us an “empowered” White girl and says how she’s some sort of role model for all women because she shows that women don’t have to be fragile or delicate.
As much as I…
I really hope that people get this message, because it’s exactly the same one that we’ve been trying to get across. Being seen as weak, being allowed to be the princess, being given special treatments and care by society and even the legal system - this can be a privilege. Being seen as strong, whether you want to be or not, being expected to take care of your own problems, being expected to care for other people’s problems - this can be a disadvantage. Black women don’t have ‘princess’ privilege, and men have it even less. Being seen as tough leads to serious issues. Violent people will see you as an honourable target, juries will find it hard to pity you as a victim of their crimes. Law enforcement officers will profile you as violent, and society will expect you to take care of violence. You’ll be expected to work harder for longer, but you’ll be expected to throw the money you make at everyone else. You will receive the most of society’s burdens, but the least of its support. In short: you will suffer. But you’ll be expected to take it. Because you’re strong.
Sure, being seen as strong will give men and black women some benefits. But that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t suck, too. There’s no such thing as a good stereotype.
Seriously, though?
1. The last time a draft occurred was in what year?
2. Women weren’t allowed to go to war because they were viewed as inherently less capable than men, a frivolous distraction, and a liability. They were EXPECTED to stay home and fulfill womanly duties unless needed to do something else, because it was believed that ONLY MEN were capable of handling war.
3. Certainly men had to deal with being drafted when that did occur, and were unfairly pressured into participation in war, but they were chosen to do that because they were viewed as superior to women. Drafting is morally questionable regardless of gender, but men weren’t drafted because they were the weaker sex that everyone wanted to get rid of. They were drafted because they held and enforced their status in society as better than women.
You know how men were the ones deciding who went to war? Yeah.
You remember how women eased their way into battle services over a long period of time? Yeah.
Am I saying that some women aren’t sitting at home saying they’re glad women aren’t expected to go to war? No.
4. Now that women frequently participate in war services, they have a new place to worry about getting raped more often than they would if they’d just stayed out of Man Territory.
Discrimination faced because you are the sex/gender in power IS NOT EQUAL to facing oppression because you are socially viewed as the weaker sex.
That doesn’t mean it’s not wrong, it just means it is not “reverse sexism”. It is the natural result of historically holding a position of power in society and, rather than choosing to raise others up to equal status, choosing to deny that you have privilege.
I’m sorry that there are downsides to being the gender in power, truly,I feel bad for the numerous good men out there who aren’t shitty people yet still have to face discrimination because their male counterparts are overwhelmingly the one beating, raping, and otherwise abusing women, but that “feeling sorry” ends when you start acting like you AREN’T the gender in power, receiving the most social benefits both historically and currently, despite evidence.
1. Irrelevant. It’s still de jure discrimination, even if it isn’t acted upon. If the law said that the government was allowed to enslave a certain race for use as weapons there would be massive protests against it, even if they never intended to use it. The lack of use, far from being some sort of counter-argument, supports the fight to get rid of it. Oh, and the men who have been slaughtered throughout history still count as victims of this institutional discrimination, even if there haven’t been any in your lifetime. You not being there at the time doesn’t stop it from having happened.
2. Let’s look at the language you’re using. Women weren’t allowed to go to war, they were expected to stay at home. Men weren’t expected to stay at home, they were allowed to go to war. Wow, men got a good deal didn’t they? Except that you could just as easily say that men weren’t allowed to stay at home, they were expected to go to war, and that women weren’t expected to go to war, they were allowed to stay at home. You make it look like the men had the choice, and that going out and being shot is some sort of privilege whereas not being allowed to go out and be shot is the worst punishment ever enacted on another human being. If anything, it’s the other way around. Stop reframing the issue.
Being seen as strong isn’t always good, and it can often be a disadvantage, much as you’d like to see it as a positive stereotype. Likewise, being seen as attractive is a positive stereotype for women, but it can lead to disadvantages such as unrealistic beauty standards and objectification. Strength is the same for men, except their disadvantages get them killed. All stereotypes have two sides, and there is no such thing as a solely positive stereotype.
3. Again, being the stronger sex, like being the most attractive sex, is not solely positive. It has many negative effects, with this being a prime example. Even without the draft, men are pressured into violent and dangerous situations because they are seen as strong, and that is the social role they are forced into. Because they are seen as strong, they have traditionally faced the majority of society’s burden. Because they are seen as strong, they have been expected to sacrifice their own happiness to care for others, from health through to finance. Because they are seen as strong, honourable targets, they make up the vast majority of violent crime victims. That sort of thing. Get it out of your head that strength can only be positive, and stop using that to reject the overwhelming evidence that it is often negative, because that’s circular.
A handful of men made those decisions, not all men. Don’t say ‘men’ like all men have a telepathic link and think with one hive mind. Men are still capable of oppressing other men. I know of several rather conservative women who would like to see other women forced back into female gender roles. If they were in power, and women complained about not being allowed out of the house, would it be appropriate for me to respond “ah, but it was women who made the decision”. Men doing it doesn’t stop it being sexist against men, just as women doing it doesn’t stop it being sexist against women. Both misandry and misogyny can be, and are, internalised.
As for the rest… you might want to take a look here and here. The patriarchy is not a male invention, and men suffer from it equally and oppositely to women.
essence of my conversation with a dear friend over coffee. (via missl0nelyhearts)
seriously, guys. it’s almost impossible to understand the fear of sexual assault from our male perspective. start standing up to violence against women
(via davesmachine)
I was doing the key-thing since I was given house keys (somewhere in high school).
(via daskannnichtsein)
This is very binary language, but point = gold.
(via youdontlooklikeafeminist)
Actually… a lot of men are victims of assault, domestic abuse, ect. Men can also be raped, but people tend to ignore that.
(via nerdydyke)
Not just ‘a lot’. Have these people ever seen any sort of crime statistics? It’s fairly easy to find some. I just googled the website of my Home Office, which is the official government source for these things. I opened the first document about crime statistics that I could find, and had a nice scroll down to where they break things up by gender. What does it say?
4.2% of men are victims of violent crime, compared to 1.8% of women. That’s statistically significant, by the way. Violent criminals are much more likely to target men. That’s a fact, and it has been one since these things were recorded. The criminals start to care less the older you get though (0.2% to 0.1% of 75+ men and women, 0.7% to 0.6% when you’re 65-74), and so when we look at the statistics for young people (16-24) the difference is even clearer. 13.3% of young men have been the victims of violent crime, compared to just 4.3% of young women.
Of course, we’re talking about stranger violence here. Domestic violence, and violence as a result of theft, are recorded as much more gender-neutral. So let’s take those out of the equation, and only look at the column called ‘Stranger’ in the violent crime table. What a surprise: 2.2% of men have been violently attacked by a stranger, compared to 0.6% of women. If you rounded up 100 women, not even a whole one would have been the victim of violent crime. So don’t give us the whole ‘all women need to be scared of stranger violence’ speech. It has no factual basis whatsoever.
What is worse though, is that you used that myth to erase men. Not only have you said that stranger violence against women is incredibly common (official records say otherwise), but you’ve explicitly said that men don’t have to worry about it. Seriously? The average man’s risk of a stranger attacking him is 3-4 times greater than that of an average women, so you are spouting nonsense. Looking in the 16-24 row again, 6.5% of young men have been attacked by strangers, and 1.3% of young women have. That’s exactly 5 times more men. You were saying?
Stranger violence is not something that only women have to be scared of, and actually women are pretty privileged in being relatively safe from it. Get any other notion out of your head. As far as I can see, being a young male is actually the biggest risk factor. Your rate also increases, by the way, if you are white and able-bodied. 1.4% of white people are victims of stranger violence, with the next highest rates being 1.3% of mixed race people and 1.2% of black people. Asians, Chinese, and other are tied on 0.7%. 1.1% of people with a long-standing illness or disability were attacked, compared to 1.4% of people without one. I suspect gender and sexual identities will be a massive factor but, of those recorded, that 6.5% is unparalleled. Maybe, before suggesting that men don’t face the problem of stranger violence, you should check that the facts don’t show the complete opposite. Men are the victims of 79% of stranger violence. Now, with that in mind, read that quote again.
The survey did show that women over-estimated the rate of crime more than men did, and that they tended to be more afraid of being the victim, even when in truth they made up the minority of cases. 18% of women worry about violent crime, compared to just 7% of men. That’s a problem. But going around, making speeches about how only women need to worry about violence? That’s making the problem worse for everyone.
For the record, I know men who have been seriously hurt in a random attack by a stranger, I’ve been verbally harassed just walking around, I feel fear when I’m out walking alone, and I have always done the key-knuckle thing. You have absolutely no idea.
i fucking hate being tickled. i hate when i warn boys that if they tickle me i will punch them in the face (no lie, i gave my ex a black eye when he tickled me) and they still try to tickle me because they think they’re being “cute” or whatever and then they act all sad/sorry when i kick them, or punch them, or yell at them to stop. like, no. you do not fucking touch my body in ways i have not consented to, especially when i told you beforehand NOT to do that.
if boys refuse to take my body & my words seriously and treat them with respect then i will speak to them in the language of bodily violence, because apparently that is the only language some of them can understand. and do i feel bad about that? not at fucking all.#if you tickle me i will kill you
If somebody so much as touches me without my consent, am justified to inflict serious physical damage on their body, and it doesn’t matter that they didn’t consent to that. Physical violence is the only language that boys understand, and so if you want a man to do something then you must domestically abuse him until he listens to you.
BEING VIOLENT MAKES ME A FEMINIST!
oh my god, are you fucking kidding me
if she has explicitly told someone not to touch her in some way, then they do it anyway, she is justified in protecting her boundaries. no one has ever stopped tickling me because i asked them to. as far as i’m concerned, if you violate someone’s boundaries like that, i don’t care if you get kicked. WHEN YOU PURPOSELY VIOLATE SOMEONE’S BOUNDARIES, YOU’D BETTER BE READY TO DEAL WITH THE CONSEQUENCES
and THE TAG WAS NOT MEANT LITERALLY, I ASSURE YOU
SHE IS NOT LITERALLY GOING TO KILL MEN WHO TICKLE HER
how are mras so fucking disconnected from reality
The issue here is that I’m condemning non-consensual touching and violence in both cases, whereas you’re attempting to justify it in one. Let me tell you some stories from my weekend:
On Saturday, my girlfriend kept attempting to stroke my leg. I repeatedly asked her not to, but she wouldn’t stop, so I picked her up and threw her down the stairs.
On Sunday, footballer Joey Barton violently kicked Sergio Aguero on the opposite team and was sent off. Aguero then went to Barton’s house and slit his throat whilst he was sleeping.
On the same day, I’d gone out for lunch with my family to celebrate my grandmother’s birthday. A child had been brought to the pub by another family, and kept running about and shouting. This annoyed my sister, and so when the child ran into her against her will she sexually molested him and drowned him in the local pond. They are all true stories, apart from the last parts. Because not everyone is a psychopath.
Have you not heard the saying “two wrongs don’t make a right, especially when one of the wrongs is a disproportionately violent reaction to the other”?
Your little ‘violating boundaries’ speech was irrelevant, because I wasn’t even questioning that tickling without consent is a ‘wrong’. What I was pointing out was that punching somebody without their consent is also a ‘wrong’, on a whole new level of wrongness. Just like the examples above, this sort of response is simply not justified.
Disconnected from reality? Why don’t you take a look outside. The government has not passed any laws against tickling. Tickling is not illegal, but assaulting somebody and causing actual harm is. Likewise, society accepts tickling as a normal thing, but they don’t accept assault. It’s pretty much just you, and your violent friend, who have these ridiculously skewed priorities. I’m not sure why this is anything to do with MRAs, unless not supporting unnecessary violence is something they have a monopoly on. If you want to keep stereotyping, I’m also a feminist, so go ahead and assume that I’m a lesbian.
Given that we only found each other because you reblogged an image saying ‘manhater’… we’re done here.
self-defense now counts as touching someone without their consent, you guys
if you use physical force to defend yourself, you’re just like a child molester
There’s no ‘now’ about it. Speaking socially, and legally, and in everybody else’s opinion but you and a few other extremists’:
Punching somebody in the face without their consent counts as touching somebody without their consent.
Being tickled in a joking, non-aggressive way, does not count as a situation where self-defence is needed. You are not in any danger of harm, and so you are not justified in inflicting harm to others.
Welcome to the real world.
(Source: volatile-bodies)
i fucking hate being tickled. i hate when i warn boys that if they tickle me i will punch them in the face (no lie, i gave my ex a black eye when he tickled me) and they still try to tickle me because they think they’re being “cute” or whatever and then they act all sad/sorry when i kick them, or punch them, or yell at them to stop. like, no. you do not fucking touch my body in ways i have not consented to, especially when i told you beforehand NOT to do that.
if boys refuse to take my body & my words seriously and treat them with respect then i will speak to them in the language of bodily violence, because apparently that is the only language some of them can understand. and do i feel bad about that? not at fucking all.#if you tickle me i will kill you
If somebody so much as touches me without my consent, am justified to inflict serious physical damage on their body, and it doesn’t matter that they didn’t consent to that. Physical violence is the only language that boys understand, and so if you want a man to do something then you must domestically abuse him until he listens to you.
BEING VIOLENT MAKES ME A FEMINIST!
oh my god, are you fucking kidding me
if she has explicitly told someone not to touch her in some way, then they do it anyway, she is justified in protecting her boundaries. no one has ever stopped tickling me because i asked them to. as far as i’m concerned, if you violate someone’s boundaries like that, i don’t care if you get kicked. WHEN YOU PURPOSELY VIOLATE SOMEONE’S BOUNDARIES, YOU’D BETTER BE READY TO DEAL WITH THE CONSEQUENCES
and THE TAG WAS NOT MEANT LITERALLY, I ASSURE YOU
SHE IS NOT LITERALLY GOING TO KILL MEN WHO TICKLE HER
how are mras so fucking disconnected from reality
The issue here is that I’m condemning non-consensual touching and violence in both cases, whereas you’re attempting to justify it in one. Let me tell you some stories from my weekend:
On Saturday, my girlfriend kept attempting to stroke my leg. I repeatedly asked her not to, but she wouldn’t stop, so I picked her up and threw her down the stairs.
On Sunday, footballer Joey Barton violently kicked Sergio Aguero on the opposite team and was sent off. Aguero then went to Barton’s house and slit his throat whilst he was sleeping.
On the same day, I’d gone out for lunch with my family to celebrate my grandmother’s birthday. A child had been brought to the pub by another family, and kept running about and shouting. This annoyed my sister, and so when the child ran into her against her will she sexually molested him and drowned him in the local pond. They are all true stories, apart from the last parts. Because not everyone is a psychopath.
Have you not heard the saying “two wrongs don’t make a right, especially when one of the wrongs is a disproportionately violent reaction to the other”?
Your little ‘violating boundaries’ speech was irrelevant, because I wasn’t even questioning that tickling without consent is a ‘wrong’. What I was pointing out was that punching somebody without their consent is also a ‘wrong’, on a whole new level of wrongness. Just like the examples above, this sort of response is simply not justified.
Disconnected from reality? Why don’t you take a look outside. The government has not passed any laws against tickling. Tickling is not illegal, but assaulting somebody and causing actual harm is. Likewise, society accepts tickling as a normal thing, but they don’t accept assault. It’s pretty much just you, and your violent friend, who have these ridiculously skewed priorities. I’m not sure why this is anything to do with MRAs, unless not supporting unnecessary violence is something they have a monopoly on. If you want to keep stereotyping, I’m also a feminist, so go ahead and assume that I’m a lesbian.
Given that we only found each other because you reblogged an image saying ‘manhater’… we’re done here.
(Source: volatile-bodies)
Well actually, real men talk.
^ Word. You shouldn’t fight in the first place.
The term “real men” implies that there’s “fake men”.
I think the point is being missed here, because yes, talking is best, and yes, in general the idea of “real men” is a harmful conformist stereotype. But it’s basically saying “if you’re gonna lose your damn temper, don’t let anybody lose their damn life.”
True, but it’s also going off of harmful stereotypes that only men lose their temper and resort to violence and uses a gun to do so. There’s PLENTY of female killers out there to prove otherwise and some of them are serial killers. That entire sign reeks with unnecessary sexism and stereotypes. In fact… oozing with it. It’s as if our culture doesn’t even acknowledge that women do this either considering that we now have that portrayal of women in the media. Even in the movie Chicago there’s at least three female characters who used a gun to kill. We’ve known about female killers using guns at times to commit crimes since the 20s. You see it even in old westerns. Yet on that sign alone, it not only implies that only men lose their temper and shoot people, but it also implies that “real men” don’t use guns, they use their fist. Thus… it’s also enforcing male stereotypes. Men are ruthless, mean, have tempers, fight a lot, ect. Men are dangerous. Never mind that some men will never resort to violence and some men are very non-confrontational.
I get a better feel for what you’re saying now, and definitely do agree with it. I do think the “public advert” element can’t be completely ignored here, though. Every sign/advertisement/etc has a particular audience. Being uncertain of the location of this sign, it may be a pointed message to try and counteract a rash of gun violence primarily perpetrated by men. In that case, while this sign does disregard other act of violence/support stereotypes, etc, it may be a specific campaign. If this appeared as a photoshop graphic, I think I would’ve been quicker to see your take on it, but in real-world placement, I suppose I’m more willing to focus on the point than the particulars.
That said, you make totally valid, thought-provoking points that I definitely don’t disagree with. :)
Even still… what makes it different to have that sign vs having toys colored pink and aimed toward girls? Either way, young boys will be seeing that sign and think that violence is ok. Society’s not saying that violence or hitting someone is wrong.
It’s still sending a strong message… and the wrong one at that.
Men probably account for the majority of gun crime, but so do black people: and a sign specifically targeting black people to resist their primal urge to shoot people would also be problematic. Don’t profile or stereotype any group as violent and thuggish just because of the way they were born. The words ‘real men’ are troublesome in themselves.
Not to mention that the campaign is still not helping violence levels, and is even glorifying it; it just suggests that we should fight honourably. That’s a messed up concept, and so this comes from the same people who brought you “it’s dishonourable to hit girls, but okay to hit men”. Not helping peace, and being offensive in the meantime. Not good.
(Source: thehipsterintherye)
The whole men’s rights movement makes me laugh. Unless they want the ability to bear children, it’s pointless. They still get paid more, and they don’t get called “prude” or “slut” based on how they’re dressed. Even though they have to pay child support, they can still technically walk away from the responsibility of bearing a child that has 50% of his chromosomes by denying paternity (Steve Jobs did it for several years). Sometimes I do see men get treated unfairly because someone makes an assumption like “all nerd guys are creeps”. However, men do not act a certain way out of fear for their lives. I’ve never heard of a man who has altered the way he dressed and the way he acts because he is afraid a woman will rape him.
Unbeatable dismissal of men’s rights:
- Men don’t get slut-shamed as much as women
- Men don’t live in fear of rape
Therefore, as I’ve covered the whole spectrum of all potential oppression:
- Men live perfect lives
Or:
- Men do get raped, it is just something we don’t pay attention to: and so they have a harder time of it. They have fewer or no resources, are unlikely to see justice in court, and even the law erases them. Domestic violence is the same issue.
- Men don’t get paid more, or at least not by a significant amount.
- Men do get raped less frequently, but it is the one area of violence for which this is true. Looking at violent crime in general, men are at a much much greater risk. The media, by the way, glorifies and makes comedy from violence towards men, whilst our society still has a taboo only against violence towards women. Campaigns preventing violence against women get a great deal more support (including from the state) for a tiny minority of the victims, statistically one of the safest demographics. This is caused by the same ‘men are strong, they can take it’ stereotypes which lead to men being attacked much more in the first place (and have led to millions of men being sent to their deaths in wars - both historically and today in many countries - where women are allowed to stay safe at home).
- These stereotypes also mean that men are again unlikely to see justice against their attacker in court, as the jury are more likely to sympathise with a female victim, whilst judges also hand out shorter sentences when you attack a man - the crime isn’t seen as as bad.
- The reverse is also true: male defendants face a disproportionately higher risk of being convicted, having longer sentences, having the death penalty, and so on. It isn’t just the court system that enforces this discrimination though: police are also much more likely to arrest men. The statistics here are worse than those regarding the similar racial profiling of many ethnic groups.
- You’re right: men have virtually no reproductive rights. ‘Being able to just about sneak out of it if you’re Steve Jobs’ is not the same as a right, and so there is still a glaring double standard in many areas here. The issues are also around concerning older children, and father’s rights to custody, where they face discrimination. Or make that divorce courts in general. Or, taking the above into account, make that courts in general.
- Men face just as many stereotypes as women do, and have much greater societal pressures and expectations as a result.
- The ‘prude’/’slut’ thing is not something men have invented to hurt women, it’s part of a much older evolved gender binary which imposes restrictions on male sexuality too.
- Issues such as the widespread mutilation of little boys without their consent go ignored, where it would not be allowed on girls.
- Speaking of altering the way we dress, men have it worse here - and no, there isn’t an excuse.
- Because of higher expectations, men are often seen as disposable.
- The education system is problematic for boys, who constantly under-perform whilst girls over-perform relative to later life and general intelligence tests.
- Men are blamed for a system of sexism which they could not have created, which affects them in equal and opposite ways, and which has clearly evolved from similar systems in other social animals.
- Men therefore face trouble from those in the equality movement who don’t want to share their victimhood. Whether saying that all men are rapists or just erasing their suffering and speaking over their experiences (ahem), this is itself a form of discrimination within supposed safe spaces.
There are of course more, but if you don’t accept the evidence now then you never will. The good news is that, once you have appreciated that others suffer, there is one problem on that list which you have already started to solve - the last one. If you have, then thank you. If you haven’t, then please do not speak about other people’s issues again. You’re not helping anybody. But we’d love it if you were.
notes found in the girls bathroom on my campus
May I also state that this is false? Men are not over 99% of the perpetrators. That is buying into a myth, and spreading lies. If you’re going to spread awareness, do it RIGHT.
- One in six adult men reported being sexually molested as children, and — in a surprise finding — nearly 40 percent of the perpetrators were female, a new study found. (Source Link)
- In cases of daycare molestation, more than 60% of children who were molested, were molested by women. – (Source link)
- Approximately 95% of all youth reporting staff sexual misconduct said they had been victimized by female staff. In 2008, 42% of staff in state juvenile facilities were female. (Bureau of Justice Report)
- In a study of 17,337 survivors of childhood sexual abuse, 23% had a female-only perpetrator and 22% had both male and female perpetrators. ( Dube, Shanta R et al. “Long-Term Consequences of Childhood Sexual Abuse by Gender of Victim.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine. (2005):28(5), p 430 – 438.
- According to a major 2004 study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education – In studies that ask students about offenders, sex differences are less than in adult reports. The 2000 AAUW data indicate that 57.2 percent of all students report a male offender and 42.4 percent a female offender with the Cameron et al. study reporting nearly identical proportions as the 2000 AAUW data (57 percent male offenders vs. 43 percent female offenders).. (Source .PDF Download)
Yes, it is an issue that society defines it as a Women’s issue, because it’s not. It allows men to feel safe and secure that they wont be raped— which clearly is a false assumption. Then, it allows groups that provide service and help for victims to shrug off male victims. It allows men to be victimized further by the justice system and by society as a whole. It also makes it very difficult to prove a point in terms of non-opposite-sex couples. Rape, sexual assault, and molestation isn’t a women’s issue. It’s a society issue.
Also, some men don’t even feel safe walking around by themselves at night in some areas. Stop spreading myth, lies, and generalizations in order to “make a point”. It helps no one in the long run.
The thing is that these people must think that they are being helpful when they make up these statistics and spread them everywhere. But who do they think they are helping? Who is helped when you make women more scared than they should be? Who is helped when you vilify men more than you should do? Who is helped when you enable female rapists? Who is helped when you erase their victims?
I might as well say ‘over 99% of crime is perpetrated by Mexicans’ (1) and think that I’m being helpful. How does that logic even make sense? The statement on its own is offensive, because of the accusations it makes regarding the disposition to rape amongst Mexicans vs other ethnicities. It’s racist on those grounds alone. But when you look at the fact that this prejudice is backed up by institutional discrimination, it becomes a whole magnitude more problematic. So the prejudice and libel alone is sexist, but when you consider that men (like certain ethnic minorities) face profiling by law enforcement officers - a bias which extends throughout the whole legal system - based on this sort of prejudice, it becomes inexcusable. Not only is the sexism now part of a wider oppressive system, but it perpetuates that system. This isn’t helping anybody, and in supporting sexist ideals it is hurting the whole of society. Always check your facts, because simple mistakes can cause a great deal of suffering.
The ‘half the population’ (3) bit also doesn’t make sense, unless they are referring to men. Why? Because the vast, vast majority of stranger violence happens to men. The only type of violence women are at a greater risk of is sexual violence, and even that is only when you discount prison rape. But, if you know anything at all about these issues, you’ll also know that most (and I mean the vast, vast majority again) sexual violence against women comes from somebody they know, including people within the relationship. So ‘going out on a walk at night’ is pretty much safe for women, and so much safer than it is for men given that men face a higher risk of all other assault, mugging, and even murder.
That then deals with another few of the post-its, the ones about gender violence. Men have no idea how men’s violence affects women (2)? I wouldn’t be surprised, because it barely affects women at all compared to the levels to which it affects men. Sexual and domestic violence? If you’re not using the ridiculous 99% statistic, you’ll now realise that you can’t use ‘women’ to mean victim and ‘man’ to mean attacker, so it doesn’t ‘tell us more about men’ (5) at all. Men are actual victim to quite a lot of domestic violence, as well as a fair amount of sexual assault. ‘Gender violence’? (4) That’s your name for the few types of violence which affect women on a scale even slightly comparable to that of men, whilst the others are leagues apart. You make these types of violence seem more important, so that you can focus on women only and ignore the fact that men suffer obscenely greater levels of violence overall. The video at the start of this post, and the post itself, give a good discussion of what ‘gender violence’ really means.
There are too many to go through, but you should probably get the point by now. Whatever your intention, please stop perpetuating these harmful myths. They really don’t help anyone.
(Source: jamthefish)
So, STFUSexists was blogging about Tone Arguments again. You know the idea: “you can’t tell an oppressed person how to react to their own oppression”. That’s why ‘racism’ against white people is okay, because white people are the oppressive ones. That’s why misandry is a justifiable reaction to the oppression of women. That’s why misogyny is a justifiable reaction to the oppression of men. Because every reaction is justifiable, because it’s the oppressed group’s right to react how they see fit.
In this case, it was trans people telling cis people to kill themselves. This is okay, because trans people are oppressed, and so it is up to them how they react to this oppression. We can’t tell them to ‘control themselves’ or ‘play nicely’ in their reactions. It’s like when terrorists bomb us because we’ve invaded their country, and we have to side with them because they’re allowed to react however they want.
Or not. But why not? Is it because that involves violence? But ‘die cis scum’ is violent. Verbal harassment can be violent: violence doesn’t have to be physical. If you’re going to launch a mental attack against somebody for being born in the wrong body at the wrong time, you don’t know what effect that’s going to have on them. You don’t know if the person you’re calling a worthless asshat, the one you’re telling to go and die, is struggling with a lifetime of depression. You don’t know if you’re triggering them, or preying on somebody with a mental disability. They might not be the oppressed group on this particular issue, but that doesn’t make them immune to harm. One type of privilege does not suddenly make their life perfect. It doesn’t stop them being human.
See, I’ve studied civil disobedience in some depth. This includes which forms it should take, and what is justified: a topic of some relevance to this discussion of a different form of rebellion against authority. Assuming that civil disobedience is justified at all (in an SJ context this is reasonable) you get arguments from the likes of Gandhi and Rawls saying that civil disobedience must be a peaceful last resort. Tone arguments, in other words. But then you get objections from Muste (saying that going through the legal process first shows a tacit acceptance of the evil machine), King (saying that ‘justice delayed is justice denied’), and Marx (saying that violence is necessary to overthrow an established power, because they won’t listen to peace). Firstly, none of these arguments are very relevant in this context. Shouting at a stranger about how worthless and repulsive they are is not going to cause a revolution and end all oppression, and neither is it going to speed anything up. In fact, Tone Arguments are frequently based around the fact that civility would be a faster path to equality - that this is rejected as ‘derailing’ says a lot about the true priorities of these supposed social justice workers, who would rather the deontological right to vent their anger than the teleological end of having less to be angry about.
Secondly, these objections can be dealt with in any context. It is conceded that, for a truly righteous cause, violence may be necessary to bring about less suffering in the long term (teleological) or may be the right for an oppressed group anyway (deontological). However, there is no objective way of deciding which causes are sufficiently righteous. That’s why peace is usually proposed as a blanket guideline by the Gandhi and Rawls school of thought: damage limitation. If you react violently, and you turn out to be wrong, you’ve caused suffering for nothing. If you react peacefully, and you turn out to be wrong, you haven’t. Because we can’t assume our own infallibility, we have to impose this sort of limitation. You might be very sure that you’re right, but you can never be sure enough that it’s okay to become violent. That’s why peaceful protest will always be preferred to terrorism. Terrorism could be justified if it is for a righteous cause, but because we aren’t so arrogant as to believe that we are necessarily right in supporting that cause (and those opposing it are necessarily wrong), we don’t do it. If everyone is allowed to be violent when they feel they have a righteous cause, then we would have civil war. Attempts at peaceful co-operation aren’t perfect, but at least they respect all human beings as having the right to be treated as such. That’s got to be the most fundamental rule a social justice worker can enforce.
I could add that if acting violently leads to progress, then acting peacefully could lead to progress, but with less suffering along the way. I could add that if acting violently doesn’t lead to progress, then acting peacefully would only have an equal level of failure, and with less suffering along the way. But I won’t, because we’ve already established that the outcome is not what you care about. You just want free reign to attack anybody you see as offensive, but will then condemn anybody who finds you offensive, and will get incredibly angry if they return the attacks. You want certain rights for certain groups of people, and you want to be able to assign the groups based on your own subjective view of who deserves it. That sort of attitude is why we need to make the infallibility point, and talk about damage limitation. I’m not therefore going to tell you to ‘calm down, dear’, but I am going to ask you to start showing a little humility and respect. You are not infallible, you are not perfect, and you are not the only one with feelings. Suffering is part of the human experience: everybody does it at some point, to some degree. It’s been established that adding to another’s suffering does not help your own, and may even increase it in the long term, and so there is no way that such violence can be justified.
You’re allowed, if not encouraged, to disagree with somebody or challenge their opinions, but don’t tell them to go and die. You’re allowed, if you don’t feel able to reply calmly, to ignore them. Tumblr has a handy ‘block’ feature, if you want that. But don’t tell them to go and die. That’s not helping them be better, and it is just going to make the long term problem of the bigotry worse, whilst adding some short term suffering. It’s not helping you, either, because both of these things will come back to bite you. If you want to educate them, educate them properly. If you don’t want to educate them, fine; you’re not obliged to. But you are obliged to not harass them, trigger them, target their vulnerabilities, body shame them, sex shame them, use racial or sexual slurs, threaten them, defame them, or anything else which contradicts their right to be treated as an equal human being. If you don’t just care about your own right to rage, and if you genuinely care about social justice at all, then that’s the right you ought to be respecting. Not the right to terrorism.
it’s like
women are surrounded by sharks
and men are in a boat with a tiny hole in it
women could definitely try to fix that boat while they’re being attacked
because, like, it would be nice or whatever and it would prevent men from eventually getting hurt
but maybe if the women were on the boat in the first fucking place they all could have put their heads together and found a way to fix the boat
NAMEEN? NAMEEN?
Women hating men isn’t as dangerous as men hating women because we live in a society where structural violence toward women is common and accepted and joked about. Women simply don’t have the power to affect men the way men affect women. So everyone who’s mad can go unfuck themselves.
Except that anyone that publicly sees women in danger is completely outraged and rushes to her aid, while men don’t get the same treatment. Except that men’s shelters are rare or don’t exist, while women’s shelters are everywhere. Except that everyone is outraged by rape of women, even when it’s fake, even though it’s not that common, but doesn’t seem to care that over 300,000 male rapes occur in prison per year, and that the male side of sex trafficking is completely ignored.
When you ignore one side, the problem is going to get worse on that side because the consequences are non-existent or not that severe.
Maybe you should go fuck yourself. Or hey, instead of pulling things out of your ass, fact checks are nice.
I’m liking this day….I show up thinking I’m going to spend three hours writing when I’m tired and not in the mood for it, and find out that everyone else has already done it for me!
Oh, come on, guys! A woman hating men can’t do nearly as much damage as a man hating women can!
… Except that she can point a finger, falsely cry rape, and have the man thrown in prison.
And even if the claim is discovered to be false, she’ll most likely receive what amounts to a slap on the wrist, like here.
And, while in prison, the man runs a higher risk of being raped (as previously stated above).
False domestic violence claims are common as well and are just as harmful.
And you’re so right about men harming women to be accepted and commonplace. That’s why you’ll get a longer jail sentence for murdering a woman as opposed to murdering a man.
*sigh*
Despite the fact that, on the other end of the scale, men make up a surprising number of domestic violence victims, but it is assumed by individuals and authorities that they are never victimised. Despite the fact that the media, both fictional and informative, don’t care as much about male victims, and neither do campaigners. Despite the fact that legal definitions worldwide don’t acknowledge male victims of rape, or domestic violence. Despite the fact that the rape of men is ignored, derailed, erased and trivialised by all of the above groups, as well as the justice system. Despite a billion other things. But apart from that, you’re absolutely correct.
