a man who is serving time for a rape he didn't commit can easily find himself serving his entire sentence as well as dealing with the stigma that comes of being a rapist for the rest of his life...men can be convicted of rape based on the flimsiest of evidence - or even no evidence at all...we have absolutely no way of quantifying how common false rape allegations and convictions are.
I don't know why you think those two incidents are indicative of a societal-wide problem on how easily men can be convicted of rape when in fact conviction rates for rapists are astonishingly low. Although part of this is due to the fact that rape is an under-reported crime, the issue is based on fear -- fear that they wouldn't be able to get a conviction anyway, fear that their assailants would come back and find them, fear of being ostracized. Even among cases that have been reported, only 37% of reported rapes are prosecuted in the US, and 14-18% when expanded to include all forms of sexual assault.
Literally every single study I've seen on false rape allegations still reports that they are the minority. Are they justifiable in any way? NO. No one is saying that. Those women are freaking terrible, no one is disagreeing with you on that. But these incidents do not indicate a societal problem as wide as that of rape. Those women in the articles you posted do not represent all women. I know what you're thinking -- then rapists surely don't represent all men either, right? No they do not, but the fact remains that men still unknowingly contribute to rape culture (see my later comments) even if they are not rapists.
In other words, under that definition a woman still can't be convicted for raping a man unless she uses some sort of object to penetrate his anus.
No. The new definition reads: "The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim." It does not state that the "penetrator" is the offender or that the person who was penetrated is the victim.
It's simply a fact that until VERY recently (i.e. post-Industrial Revolution), women were simply not physically equipped to do the work that men routinely had to do to put food on the table.
Kind of a huge generalization. That doesn't explain why women were also barred from many occupations that did not require field labour, including those in law, health sciences, and the arts.
That's always the end-point with feminism - social justice through government coercion in order to bring about an equality of outcome instead of an equality of opportunity.
I don't know how anyone can sincerely believe that it is possible to re-shape the balance of power by having the people
already in power be the givers of "equal opportunity."
I'm not certain what you would consider a confirmation. A police report? I'm not certain if any such thing exists.
She claims the London bomb asked that all her mail be redirected to their headquarters as a result of the threats. You'd think some form of evidence would show up for something as serious as that.
And I'm not sure where you found that feminists hate Erin Pizzey for saying that women can be abusers too (besides words coming from Pizzey herself), because all I'm finding in my searches are links where Pizzey and MRAs talk about how much they hate feminists and how they think feminism is akin to terrorism.
MRAs are a joke anyway. Every single MRA organization I've come across seems more committed to calling feminists neo-Nazis and skinheads than actual concern about men's issues.
I'm sorry, but victim blaming sometimes has a place. It is simply factual that many women are drawn to abusive relationships. I've seen it first hand.
No. Abuse is
never the victim's fault. When you victim-blame,
you are endorsing the idea that abuse is justifiable under certain circumstances. You are taking the side of the abuser. If you cannot see anything wrong with that I don't know what to say to you. How can you claim that rape culture doesn't exist in the Western world when you literally say that "victim blaming sometimes has a place"?
There are many reasons why a woman (or a man, for that matter) would choose to stay in an abusive relationship.
They have been threatened by their partner and would feel that they would put themselves (and their children, if any) in greater danger if they chose to leave.
Their abusers have threatened with self-harm and suicide if they were to leave.
They grew up in an environment where abuse was common and believe that their relationship is normal.
Their abusers have psychologically manipulated them to the point where they believe that no one else would have them and that they should be grateful to the abuser for staying with them.
They are financially dependent on the abuser.
They feel they would be ostracized by their family and friends if they left the relationship.
They are afraid that the abuser will kidnap the children or turn the children against them if they leave.
They have a disability and are dependent on the abuser (and in some cases, cannot leave the house without them).
Their first language is not English, making it difficult to find resources that can help them.
They are afraid of disrupting the lives of their children.
They are transgender and fear that the police will not take them seriously, given law enforcement's history with trans people, particularly trans women.
They are male and fear that the police will not take them seriously, given the harmful gender stereotypes that promote the notion that men cannot be victims of abuse (traits associated with abuse victims, passiveness and submissiveness, are seen as feminine traits).
Please think about what you are saying, especially since you say there are/were abuse survivors in your life that you know of.
I contest that rape culture doesn't actually exist in the Western world…Yes, there are definitely some rapists and actual rape apologists out there, but their number is so small that I don't agree that they are indicative of a rape culture.
Yes it does exist.
A disturbing number of people don’t actually seem to understand what rape is, and will excuse it as long as the word itself isn’t mentioned anywhere in the discussion, even if they claim that they don’t support rape. Does the phrase "it's not rape if you enjoyed it" ring a bell? I have heard it far too many times. It also hurts male survivors, because gender roles have enforced the idea that there is something wrong with a man who dislikes sex (which rape is not, of course, but many people have a warped idea of what they see as the difference). What about rape when the victim is intoxicated? Why is it that when a man passes out drunk at a party, his worst worry is having someone draw obscene images on his face, but when a woman does the same she must fear something far worse? There are also an astonishing number of people I've seen online who literally don't think there's anything wrong with marital rape.
University of Minnesota study on pornography:
https://www1.umn.edu/aurora/pdf/ResearchOnPornography.pdf#page=1&z oom=auto,0,792
From page 5:
"One study of high school students found very high rates of "rape supportive beliefs", that is,
acceptance of rape myths and violence against women. The boys who were the most frequent
consumers of pornography and/or who reported learning a lot from it, were more accepting of
rape supportive beliefs than their peers who were less frequent consumers and/or who said they
had not learned as much from it. A full 25% of girls and 57% of boys indicated belief that in one
or more situations, it was at least "maybe okay" for a boy to hold a girl down and force her to
have intercourse. Further, only 21% of the boys and 57% of the girls believed that forced
intercourse was "definitely not okay" in any of the situations. Forced intercourse was most
accepted was that in which the girl had sexually excited her date. In this case 43% of the boys
and 16% of the girls stated that if was at least "maybe okay" for the boy to force intercourse."
There are ENDLESS more examples, which I can tell you if you want to hear them.
If feminism is, as you say (and as I agree) all about women's issues, then what possible motive could any man concerned about men's issues have for being a feminist?
Because abolishing gender roles liberates men as well as woman.
Because staying neutral (which is pretty much always another way of saying "any issue that doesn't concern me specifically is unimportant") or actively opposing feminism hurts women.
Because intersectional feminists actively support male members of oppressed groups (men of colour, LBGTQ men, disabled men, etc.) in their own struggles for justice.
Because no woman deserves to be raped, harassed, invalidated or silenced on the basis of her gender and it requires no more than basic human decency to support that statement.
Being concerned with men's issues and being a feminist ally are not mutually exclusive positions, by the way.
Possibly, but I think it's just as or more likely that people were more willing to vote for these women simply because they were women
Or maybe because female candidates are more likely to be versed on/interested in issues concerning women? Because this is a way women can have their voices heard?
I have worked in male-dominated fields all my adult life (military and engineering) and I've never seen any discrimination of the women I work with.
On rape and sexual assault in the US military:
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/2/26/army-dismissals-sexass ault.html
The Army recently dismissed 588 soldiers after many of them were found to have committed sexual assault.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/dec/09/rape-us-militaryThis provides explanations as to why victims are reluctant to report. One survivor says that her superiors told her to keep quiet and that she was called a wh*re and a b*tch and a liar. This thing happens all the time. There are more stories in the article and a link to a survivors' site. Although rape in the military is a huge issue for men as well (and the resulting stigma is different than that for women), women face an enormous number of problems in the military in general:
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19900912&; slug=1092701
"Women in the armed forces appear almost four times as likely as men to be subjected to sexual harrassment."
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/military/story/2012-06-06/female-s oldiers-need-better-health-care/55626156/1
Women forced to use equipment designed for men suffer health problems as a result.
I call myself an anti-feminist because I AM an anti-feminist. I don't like feminism - any kind of feminism.
Okay, not sure why you chose to specifically mention you hated "militant feminism" earlier then (whatever that is).
Nazism is far more than a term relating to genocide. It is widely used as a term for totalinarians and authoritarians and I see nothing wrong with using it in that context. If it makes you feel better, I can refer to them as Femicommies, although Stalin killed far more innocent people than Hitler.
I honestly can't tell if you're joking or not. Either way, I would prefer to drop the issue now; I think I veered off-topic.
The way I see it, her militant feminism was either the cause of her abrasiveness or a symptom. Either way, it was not just an incidental and unrelated character trait.
You're right, her feminist beliefs are not incidental because they are supposed to be ironic, considering the overt misogyny of
The Taming of the Shrew. If she WASN'T aware of the ways in which men manipulative women, Patrick's pursuit of Kat in the film would just seem really creepy. The transportation of the setting allows the "shrew" to fight back and question this. Now I don't think the film pulled it off perfectly and I know its goal in the end is entertainment, not a social statement, but I still don't agree that Kat was intended to be dislikable because of her beliefs.
Tender Years Doctrine, and it is a legal doctrine that was initially put forth by a prominent feminist of the time.
Pointing your finger at feminists for starting all of this is not quite accurate when you look at the historical context. Yes, Caroline Norton fought for legislation for mother's rights...in a time where men still had full custodial rights even if the mothers remained the sole/primary caregivers of the children. The Tender Years Doctrine was the British Parliament's response to this, and was created and maintained by men and interpreted by male judges.
reply
share
DoctorNordo
11 years ago
I don't know why you think those two incidents are indicative of a societal-wide problem
Those are simply the first two examples that sprang to mind that illustrate my point. Conviction rates for rape might be low, but isn't it possible that a lot of those accused were innocent? And the prosecution of rapes might also be low. That sucks, but prosecutors will only pursue cases where there is a possibility of conviction. Lowering the required evidence for a conviction would be unjust to those charged with rape who did nothing to deserve it. So what would be your solution?
Anyway, yeah I am aware of all of those studies talking about how false rape allegations are an extreme minority, but I don't see how anyone could trust a study that is not able to take comprehensive surveys on instances of false allegations. How can you figure out how common a problem it is when a lot of those who are falsely convicted are just considered rapists? And then whenever someone calls into question the validity of rape statistics they are called a rape apologist!
No. The new definition reads...
No, that definition implies that the person being raped is the one being penetrated. That might not be the way that you interpret it, but that absolutely is the way that the law interprets it.
Kind of a huge generalization. That doesn't explain why women were also barred from many occupations that did not require field labour, including those in law, health sciences, and the arts.
Well, that's not really true. Just as one example from off the top of my head, in Renaissance Italy, women were allowed to hold positions of civic office, including lawyers, judges, and legislators (Women in the World's Legal Professions, by Gisela Shaw). Also in Renaissance Italy, there were many notable female artists such as Sofonisba Anguissola and Properzia de'Rossi. Additionally, Renaissance Italy used female actors in their plays. Pope Sixtus V even attempted to get the Roman Colliseum turned into a wool factory to employ the cities prostitutes, but that plan was shelved after his death.
There are many examples from other countries and time periods, but I think that suffices for my argument. I simply bring up the Italian Renaissance because I have been reading about it a lot lately and am a huge fan of Renaissance art. So the claim that women just weren't allowed to work or hold office or be artists is completely fictional.
I don't know how anyone can sincerely believe that it is possible to re-shape the balance of power by having the people already in power be the givers of "equal opportunity."
Equal opportunity is already a reality, so I'm not sure who these "givers" are or what they are going to be giving. Is there anything holding a woman back from pursuing whatever profession she wants? Women can be doctors, lawyers, astronauts, engineers, mathematicians and physicists. There is absolutely nothing holding women back aside from themselves. It is up to women to show interest in a field and then to display the aptitude to perform in that field.
She claims the London bomb asked that all her mail be redirected to their headquarters as a result of the threats. You'd think some form of evidence would show up for something as serious as that.
Possibly, but possibly not. Regardless, have you contacted the London Police Department and asked them? Again, I fail to see how she would have had any motive to make these claims since her claims pre-dated any involvement in the area of men's rights.
MRAs are a joke anyway.
Indeed, many are, thus one main reason why I don't associate with them. However, they do have a lot of valid points which are constantly marginalized by feminists.
Abuse is never the victim's fault.
I agree, abuse is never the victim's fault. However, the act of putting oneself into a vulnerable position where abuse is possible oftentimes is the victim's fault. See, "victim blaming" is a term that feminists like to throw around to try to derail any sort of dissenting voice, even though the term is not accurate. A lot of your examples do have merit (although I would contest how common you imply they are), but that doesn't invalidate my position that in many cases, women put themselves into the positions that they find themselves in. Erin Pizzey was even specifically talking about women who floated from one abusive partner to the next, never altering the behaviors that put them at risk.
They are male and fear that the police will not take them seriously, given the harmful gender stereotypes that promote the notion that men cannot be victims of abuse (traits associated with abuse victims, passiveness and submissiveness, are seen as feminine traits.
I'm surprised you even bring this one up considering how vehemently feminists deny that men are victims of DV in any appreciable quantity.
rape studies
I think an important question here is how the word force is defined. That study never goes into any such thing, and I read all 10 pages. Force might be considered ignoring a "no" or it might mean convincing a woman to change her mind from a "no" to a "yes". It may also simply refer to sex where one acts as a dominant and another as a submissive. My point is that without a concrete definition of terms, it's impossible to gain any useful knowledge from a study.
Or maybe because female candidates are more likely to be versed on/interested in issues concerning women? Because this is a way women can have their voices heard?
It's sexist to assume that men can't act as a representative for women, and vice versa, especially since politicians (especially Democrats) bend over backwards to address women's issues. So I'm sorry, but voting for someone based on gender is discrimination, no matter how you try to sugar-coat it.
The Army recently dismissed 588 soldiers after many of them were found to have committed sexual assault.
Wow, 600 people in an army of over a million. So about 1 in 2000 people. Sorry, but I don't consider that to be an epidemic by any stretch of the imagination.
"Women in the armed forces appear almost four times as likely as men to be subjected to sexual harrassment."
Laws in place to address that.
Women forced to use equipment designed for men suffer health problems as a result.
Virtually every one of those disparities cause comfort problems, and the most important ones seem to be in the process of being fixed. These things take time when we're talking about a bureaucracy as enormous as the U.S. military. I don't see what your problem is.
Okay, not sure why you chose to specifically mention you hated "militant feminism" earlier then (whatever that is).
I was specifically talking about militant feminisTS. While I dislike feminism of any stripe, I can actually get along with many normal feminists. Militant feminists, on the other hand, I will never get along with.
As for what militant feminism is, I think that you can figure it out. See: radical feminism. As taken from the appropriate wikipedia page, "Radical feminism is a perspective within feminism that focuses on the hypothesis of patriarchy as a system of power that organizes society into a complex of relationships based on the assertion that male supremacy oppresses women. Radical feminism aims to challenge and overthrow patriarchy by opposing standard gender roles and oppression of women and calls for a radical reordering of society."
You're right, her feminist beliefs are not incidental because...
Yeah I get that it was supposed to be ironic, although I don't necessarily believe that TotS was misogynistic. But I wholeheartedly disagree that her angry-girl feminism was not supposed to contribute in any way to her unlikability.
The Tender Years Doctrine was the British Parliament's response to this, and was created and maintained by men and interpreted by male judges.
If you read her writings you would realize that she was in lock-step with the Tender Years Doctrine. She absolutely believed that women should be the sole custodians of young children, and the feminists of her time agreed with her.
reply
share
Kirthey
11 years ago
So what would be your solution?
That's a question with no easy answer, but I would say to teach police officers to treat cases with neutrality, not judgment, and that complaint withdrawal and an immediate lack of evidence are not indicative of false allegations in themselves. I agree that lowering the required evidence is not the solution.
but I don't see how anyone could trust a study that is not able to take comprehensive surveys on instances of false allegations.
I don't understand what you mean. These studies are meant to examine sample sizes from all rape allegations, prior to determining whether they are true or false.
No, that definition implies that the person being raped is the one being penetrated.
Are we reading the same statement here? How so?
"The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person,
without the consent of the victim." It does not say who the victim would be in such a scenario. How would you reword it?
Well, that's not really true. Just as one example from off the top of my head, in Renaissance Italy, women were allowed to...
And when you look at the US in the 1950s women were pretty much restricted to teaching, secretarial, and nursing jobs. The changing status of women throughout history is not linear. The Italian Renaissance was one of the brighter spots for female artists but it was not perfect. Almost all women who pursued of this period were either a) aristocratic women b) nuns, with the convent being the only alternative to marriage c) daughters of painters. They were still primarily encouraged to marry and fulfill their household duties, and it is only recently that many of their names have come to light.
There is absolutely nothing holding women back aside from themselves.
Right, except for the men already in the workplace as their superiors.
http://www.nwlc.org/resource/affirmative-action-and-what-it-means-wome n#N_5_
MIT officials admit to a long history of discrimination against women in hiring, promotions, awards, etc. A female musician has a 50% greater change of advancing in the orchestra selection process if she performs behind a screen. Texaco admitted that they had consistently paid women in professional and executive positions less than their male counterparts. Sexual harassment, which I already covered. And motherhood and choosing to pursue lower-paying jobs does not explain everything:
"One study shows that after about 11 years on medical school faculties, 23% of men but only 5% of women had achieved the rank of full professor - and the gap persisted when researchers held constant the number of hours worked per week.(32) Another study, of graduates of the University of Michigan Law School from 1972 through 1975, revealed significant wage differentials between male and female lawyers after 15 years of practice, even when hours of work, family responsibilities and other variables were held constant.(33) These women have made the same career choices as men, worked the same hours as men, yet still earn less."
Regardless, have you contacted the London Police Department and asked them?
Um...what.
women put themselves into the positions that they find themselves in
Do you realize what you are saying?
Robbery and murder victims who stay at home alone with their doors unlocked "put themselves into the positions they find themselves in." Yet nobody talks about that issue. No one says "well if they had put up a high-end security system this wouldn't have happened." Why scrutinize "vulnerable behaviour" when you could be tackling the culture that permits the offender's mindset in the first place?
Erin Pizzey was even specifically talking...never altering the behaviors that put them at risk.
"Behaviours that put them at risk." Excuse me?! What behaviours? So women need to take responsibility to prevent
other people from
consciously making the choice to practice abusive behaviour? Yeah, I fail to see how this isn't victim-blaming. Do men also need to "alter their behaviours?"
I'm surprised you even bring this one up considering how vehemently feminists deny that men are victims of DV in any appreciable quantity.
What kind of feminists do you keep coming across? I have rarely heard such a thing, and I can assure you there are plenty of feminists who would be disgusted by such a statement from their fellow activists.
I think an important question here is how the word force is defined.
Force is another word for rape here because it implies the lack of consent. So ignoring a "no" is a use of force. The dominant/submissive thing would not be force, no, if both were consenting. Convincing a woman to change her mind is less black-and-white. It ultimately comes down to whether the woman finally consents out of true willingness and a feeling of safety or out of fear. That's why cases are judged on an individual basis.
voting for someone based on gender is discrimination, no matter how you try to sugar-coat it.
First of all, I meant that many female politicians ARE concerned with women's issues, I'm sorry I didn't make that clear. And blind voting is hardly restricted to gender, people will vote for politicians purely on the basis that they are attractive, that they support marijuana legalization, or whatever crap like that. It's an entirely different issue altogether. I still don't see what kind of fantasy world you're living in when you cry sexism against men in POLITICS of all examples.
Wow, 600 people in an army of over a million. So about 1 in 2000 people. Sorry, but I don't consider that to be an epidemic by any stretch of the imagination.
So according to you, there are no other offenders in the US military. The reason why issue draws so much attention in particular is because of the EXTREME stigmatization that occurs as a result, of the people who try to silence the survivors and erase the issue, more so than in other occupations.
Laws in place to address that.
Doesn't prevent it from happening, so clearly we still have some work to do.
While I dislike feminism of any stripe, I can actually get along with many normal feminists...
This is like the third time you've said this. Feminists don't find it comforting that you think they're easy to get along with if you deny and invalidate their experiences and equate them to Nazis.
(By the way, I don't consider myself a radical feminist, and in fact think a lot of their beliefs are extremely damaging, though not in the way you think. And I'm far from the only one. You said you see merit in some of the issues MRAs bring up. Likewise, I see
some merit in the ideology of radical feminism concerning gender relations.)
If you read her writings you would realize that she was in lock-step with the Tender Years Doctrine.
As I said, it was men who articulated and interpreted the Doctrine. Even if she believed in it, it was the men who had the political power to put it into practice and who used that power.
reply
share
DoctorNordo
11 years ago
That's a question with no easy answer, but I would say to teach police officers to treat cases with neutrality, not judgment, and that complaint withdrawal and an immediate lack of evidence are not indicative of false allegations in themselves.
And maybe that "he said-she said" is insufficient evidence for indicting - let alone convicting! - a man of rape.
I don't understand what you mean. These studies are meant to examine sample sizes from all rape allegations, prior to determining whether they are true or false.
Yes, but an innocent man who has been convicted of rape and is serving a prison sentence is not going to be included in the pool of false accusations. Further, a case that never goes to trial or leads to an arrest due to insufficient evidence is also not going to be counted as a false accusation even if it is one!
In other words, a man who is falsely accused of rape and whose case is dropped due to insufficient evidence is only going to wrongly bolster your stats about low conviction rates while taking away from those regarding the frequency of false allegations. That is why these stats can never be fully trusted.
Are we reading the same statement here? How so?
Yeah, and only women can be vaginally penetrated. That is the way the law sees it, thus men cannot be legally raped where traditional sex is concerned. Other, lesser charges can be made, but not rape, at least not according to the federal definition. I would have to review the definition as given by the states, but I am not optimistic that I would find anything heartening. Maybe it's different in Canada, but that's the way it is here.
Can you find even one single example of a woman being arrested for raping a man (PIV) that wasn't statutory? Because I sure can't!
And when you look at the US in the 1950s women were pretty much restricted to teaching, secretarial, and nursing jobs.
Hmmm, that's weird. My grandmother was a police officer in the 1950's. And I know for a fact that female physicians existed as early as 1900. Then of course we have the exceptional women such as Marie Curie, who won the Nobel Prize in chemistry and physics, and Amelia Earhart. There were plenty of poets and artists and actors as well. Clara Foltz passed the California bar examination in the 1870's and went on to practice law her entire life.
Regardless, the origin of traditional gender roles had absolutely nothing to do with sexism and everything to do with pragmatism as determined by the evolution of our species. Let's face it, if you're going to send someone up against a woolly mammoth armed with nothing more than a spear do you want a woman to do it, or a man? Further, would it have been considered a good idea to risk a woman being eaten by a saber tooth tiger when her role as a bringer of life was far more important to the survival of the tribe? A tribe that loses most of its men still has a chance. A tribe that loses most of its women is pretty much doomed. So you should be a little bit more forgiving of humanity's hesitation to abandon traditional gender roles since it's kinda encoded in our DNA, and further exacerbated by the reality that most work that families had to endure over the course of the last 10,000 years have been far too hard for women to handle.
Right, except for the men already in the workplace as their superiors
There are a few good points in that article, but some problems as well. First of all, many of those instances ended up in lawsuits with hefty settlements involved. Sounds like the women ended up doing okay. And since when is getting a job at MIT necessary for success in one's field? Examples such as the one about Texaco say that women were paid less, but it doesn't mention WHY they were paid less. Wall Street Journal articles are of questionable validity, and studies that are 40 years old are also of dubious relevance today so that University of Michigan example is a "meh". Then the article goes on to regurgitate the same old statistics that ignore relevant factors that lead to lower wages.
Um...what.
It was a tongue-in-cheek comment, but I do actually want to know where you checked before dismissing Erin's claims. Was it anything more than a cursory google search?
Do you realize what you are saying?
Yeah, I know exactly what I'm saying. And a person who lives in a crime infested neighborhood who finds himself getting robbed over and over but doesn't move, or get a security system, or a gun, or a dog, and who has the power to do so, they ARE contributing to their vulnerability.
Why scrutinize "vulnerable behaviour" when you could be tackling the culture that permits the offender's mindset in the first place?
Because it urges people to take responsibility for themselves and not to bank their safety on wishes and dreams. The world is not a pretty place, so people need to be willing to take care of themselves. If I got mugged while walking around Detroit while counting the money in my wallet, I would certainly think that the people responsible should be held accountable, but I would also have to question the wisdom of my decision to put myself in such a dangerous environment. And that's exactly what women who are drawn to abusive partners are doing to themselves.
So women need to take responsibility to prevent other people from consciously making the choice to practice abusive behaviour?
Yeah, that's what adults do. It's not 100% guaranteed to work, obviously, but it can certainly be a major mitigating factor.
What kind of feminists do you keep coming across?
Well, there's stuff like this:
http://www.feminist.org/other/dv/dvfact.htmlwhich completely ignore all of the studies that paint a much more...egalitarian picture of domestic violence. And even when feminists do admit that women can be violent it is often shrugged at because women can't do as much damage as men can (ignoring the fact that women often make up for this by using weapons and objects - for example, a step-cousin of mine threw a fork at her husband that punctured his neck all because he made some stupid comment regarding the quality of her cooking).
Then there are always the atrocities like
http://jezebel.com/294383/have-you-ever-beat-up-a-boyfriend-cause-uh-w e-have
and this
http://jezebel.com/5123422/australian-woman-on-murdered-husband-his-pe nis-should-belong-to-me
Just look at how flippant the commenters are on the subject. It's like it's all a big joke to them.
Then of course we have the case of how the hosts of the view handled the story of Katherine Kieu Becker. In case you haven't heard:
http://www.mrctv.org/videos/sharon-osborne-leads-laughs-about-male-gen ital-mutilation
Granted, I don't believe Sharon Osbourne is a feminist, but Sarah Gilbert is absolutely a feminist. And while I do give her credit for pointing out the sexist double standard regarding how un-funny this situation would be were the sexes reversed, it doesn't change the fact that she was participating in that double standard by laughing around and joking about it with everyone else!
It's all indicative of a culture where violence against men is either shrugged off or laughed at.
Force is another word for rape here because it implies the lack of consent.
That's your interpretation, but without actually being able to read the study and know what precise questions were asked the students, it's impossible to parse the data into anything meaningful. I also find it interesting how that study implies a correlation between rape and pornography use when rape statistics have plummeted every since the internet became a big thing. Correlation of course doesn't imply causation, however there are other studies out there that substantiate the hypothesis that pornography leads to a decrease in rapes. I admittedly do not have the energy to dig them up right now.
First of all, I meant that many female politicians ARE concerned with women's issues,
Yeah, and so are male politicians, especially those on the left side of the spectrum. After all, women are the ones voting them in! Of course they're going to be bending over backwards to placate their base.
I still don't see what kind of fantasy world you're living in when you cry sexism against men in POLITICS of all examples.
That's not exactly what I was trying to say. I was mostly just trying to counterbalance your presumption that women suffer from sexism in politics with an example of how sexism might favor them in order to illustrate that the issue isn't black and white.
So according to you, there are no other offenders in the US military.
I'm sure there's some, but how many of those who were kicked out were really guilty in the first place. As a veteran who has seen friends dishonorably discharged from service, I know firsthand that evidence is not something that plays all that much of a role. It's one thing if a court martial is occurring, but that is usually not the case when dealing with issues of discipline and discharge. Universities routinely expel students accused of rape based on nothing more than a preponderance of evidence (i.e. there is at least a 50% chance that he is guilty), and the military is just as bad, especially considering how desperately they are trying to improve their PR. I do know that in my six years of service I never heard of one shipmate getting kicked out for rape, and news travels very fast on a ship.
This is like the third time you've said this. Feminists don't find it comforting that you think they're easy to get along with if you deny and invalidate their experiences and equate them to Nazis.
The only ones I call nazis are those who are the militant/radical feminists. The ones who are pleasant do not qualify as nazis. So the ones I get along with are also not being called nazis. Based on the little I know you, for example, I would not call you a feminazi. People like Jessica Valentis, however, I would. Pretty simple stuff.
As I said, it was men who articulated and interpreted the Doctrine. Even if she believed in it, it was the men who had the political power to put it into practice and who used that power.
Who cares? She, and all of her feminists buddies, had a vision and that vision was made a reality to the detriment of loving and capable fathers the world over for well over a century and even today!
I didn't reply in nearly as much detail tonight as I would have liked and I hope you'll forgive me for that. It's just late and I'm really lacking in energy at the moment.
reply
share
Kirthey
11 years ago
And maybe that "he said-she said" is insufficient evidence for indicting - let alone convicting! - a man of rape.
Yes, that's why they have rape kits. I don't know what you would suggest to solve this.
Yes, but an innocent man who has been convicted of rape and is serving a prison sentence is not going to be included in the pool of false accusations.
Okay, well there's literally nothing that can be done about that, so...
In other words, a man who is falsely accused of rape and whose case is dropped due to insufficient evidence is only going to wrongly bolster your stats about low conviction rates while taking away from those regarding the frequency of false allegations.
And true allegations that aren't convicted are also not taken into account. Many "unfounded" cases (unproven because of lack of evidence, but the victim was definitely assaulted) are grouped together with provably false allegations to count under "false" allegations as well. Obviously some work on research methodologies needs to be done, but I don't know what else you can suggest. Like I said, the cultural mindset that police approach rape victims with is skepticism (pre-conceived ideas of the ways victims "should" act).
Can you find even one single example of a woman being arrested for raping a man (PIV) that wasn't statutory? Because I sure can't!
I would argue that this has more to do with the under-reporting of crimes of this nature, for obvious reasons, and not this new legal definition.
Hmmm, that's weird. My grandmother was a police officer in the 1950's
Women were still generally restricted to clerical, service, and sales positions. The famous women you listed are exceptional cases. Marie Curie had to leave her country to pursue the education she wanted because the University of Warsaw did not accept women. It was women's education advocates who gave her a scholarship that allowed her to pursue a second degree in mathematics. Amelia Earhart was only the 16th (!) woman to be issued a pilot's license by the world governing body for aeronautics. Clara Foltz was the
first woman to be admitted to the California State Bar and had to work to change the requirements, because they only admitted white males at the time. They all had to overcome difficulties that males in their positions would not have to face.
So you should be a little bit more forgiving of humanity's hesitation to abandon traditional gender roles since it's kinda encoded in our DNA
Millions of years later and we're still "hesitating." Hm. We don't face the possible catastrophes that you described anymore, at least nowhere near that scale, so I fail to see how that is relevant. Furthermore, you pointed earlier the problem of men facing compulsory registration, which wouldn't exist without the continued establishment of traditional gender roles.
First of all, many of those instances ended up in lawsuits with hefty settlements involved. Sounds like the women ended up doing okay. And since when is getting a job at MIT necessary for success in one's field? Examples such as the one about Texaco say that women were paid less, but it doesn't mention WHY they were paid less. Wall Street Journal articles are of questionable validity, and studies that are 40 years old are also of dubious relevance today so that University of Michigan example is a "meh". Then the article goes on to regurgitate the same old statistics that ignore relevant factors that lead to lower wages.
1. The fact that the women received settlements does not prevent the problem from happening in the first place.
2. No one said getting a job at MIT is necessary for success. It's an example.
3. "but it doesn't mention WHY they were paid less." Yes individual factors may have had something to do with it but a company doesn't pay $3 million in compensation with zero analysis as to why it's needed. There IS an anti-female bias in the workplace and I don't see how that wouldn't extend to Texaco.
4. It fully acknowledges the "relevant factors": "Although some women choose to devote themselves to family concerns or to jobs with lower pay for a range of reasons, such choices do not fully explain the disparities between men's and women's salaries. *example I quoted earlier*"
I do actually want to know where you checked before dismissing Erin's claims
I'm skeptical of her claims, yes, but who knows. I've googled "Erin Pizzey bomb threat," "Erin Pizzey London bomb squad," and one or two other variations and came up with nothing. Honestly I don't feel it was especially relevant to our discussion, which is why I have no interest in pursuing it further.
they ARE contributing to their vulnerability.
How would people be able to prevent themselves from entering relationships would later involve abuse? How on earth would you know how to spot a potential abuser from a distance? Not all abusers are "dangerous, violent men" on the surface and even those who are can be capable of apparent kindness (to their partners) and/or extreme psychological manipulation. And I repeat, what kind of so-called "behaviours" "lead" (I put that in quotes because I still fundamentally disagree with the morality of making such a statement) people to abuse an individual?
which completely ignore all of the studies that paint a much more...egalitarian picture of domestic violence
Not focusing on an issue ≠actively blocking access to information on the issue.
Just look at how flippant the commenters are on the subject. It's like it's all a big joke to them.
Not disgreeing with you there, I dislike Jezebel and feel that their writers are a poor voice for feminism, seeking issues primarily concerning white middle-class women and just spewing a lot of overall BS (saying that selfies are a "cry for help," for instance).
It's all indicative of a culture where violence against men is either shrugged off or laughed at.
I have not denied once that there is an issue with the way violence against men is treated. My only concern with this is when you say it completely eclipses the issue of violence against women.
there are other studies out there that substantiate the hypothesis that pornography leads to a decrease in rapes. I admittedly do not have the energy to dig them up right now.
Nor do I for counter-arguments. This is veering into a whole other field anyway, so don't worry.
I was mostly just trying to counterbalance your presumption that women suffer from sexism in politics with an example of how sexism might favor them
So it's okay if female politicians are mocked for and/or have inappropriate comments made on their appearance and dress, called sl*ts and wh*res, and dismissed as crazy (just some of the more well-known examples, and the number is endless) as long as they find some success?
I'm sure there's some, but how many of those who were kicked out were really guilty in the first place
I don't have firsthand experience like you do but whatever number of false allegations there may be does not erase the stories of hundreds of survivors (and these are only the ones that have chosen to step forward), both male and female. And I definitely see no reason for again, hundreds of people to make any of this up, considering many of them are no longer in service and many remain anonymous.
Another story where a woman was ostracized after coming forward following years of silence:
http://www.npr.org/2013/03/21/174840895/sexual-violence-victims-say-mi litary-justice-system-is-broken
in my six years of service I never heard of one shipmate getting kicked out for rape
Again, I don't want to speak over your own experiences as I have none of my own, but the thing is they often AREN'T dismissed.
An example of how a guilty verdict (by an all-male jury) can be overturned, which caused outrage among men and women alike:
http://www.stripes.com/news/air-force-pilot-s-sex-assault-dismissal-sp arks-cries-for-reform-1.210371
Who cares? She, and all of her feminists buddies, had a vision and that vision was made a reality to the detriment of loving and capable fathers the world over for well over a century and even today!
Yeah, made a reality by the all-male Parliament which CHOSE to take her side. She would not have had the power to instate the doctrine (nor did the women around her) and had the doctrine not been legislated, she would just be considered another feminist of that time today. So yes, I do believe you are mischaracterizing the facts.
I didn't reply in nearly as much detail tonight as I would have liked and I hope you'll forgive me for that. It's just late and I'm really lacking in energy at the moment.
No worries, I understand. I apologize for the same thing in this post.
I am actually going to bow down from this discussion, if that's okay with you. I realize I sound like I'm "giving up" and if you or anyone else were to accuse me of that I don't blame you, it's just that I feel like we haven't brought each other a single step closer in changing our mindsets. And it's honestly a bit draining typing thousands of words for a discussion going nowhere; I'm sure you feel it too to some degree. I did learn quite a bit from both sides over the past few days though, so I don't regret having this discussion.
I didn't want to be rude by immediately going "lol bye" after you spent time typing all of that, so I did respond to what you said. But if you want the last word, feel free to respond to my comments one more time (I did ask a few questions after all), which I will read but not reply to, no matter how much I want to. If you don't want to do that, that's fine too.
Thanks for remaining civil throughout all of this, even if you still word certain things in a way I take issue with (sorry, couldn't resist).
reply
share
DoctorNordo
11 years ago
Oh, it's no problem at all. I completely understand and agree that it is very draining. I think my last post took a couple of hours to write after all is said and done. I will respond to some of your questions - and no pressure for you to respond again - but not tonight. Maybe tomorrow.
I would like to take the immediate opportunity to apologize if any of my writing seemed...terse. This is a subject that easily raises my hackles and sometimes it takes a lot of effort for me to remain civil when discussing it online. As you no doubt noticed, my initial post in this board was hardly constructive and more indicative of venting or of a rant.
Again, thank you for the exchange and I will take a few minutes to respond to some of your final queries a bit later.
reply
share