Author Topic: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!  (Read 61249 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Lee Li

  • Libertarian Socialist
  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 183
  • Respect: +2
Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
« Reply #45 on: June 06, 2014, 08:38:20 PM »
0
Personally, I find the thread jumping around too much for me to address much of anything. I get the general idea, but attempts to respond to the overall idea would be too vague for my liking. The best general response I can give would be that I suggest questioning one's true nature and just how did we get to be the way we are now? Here's the video clip of what I was talking about: https://youtube.com/watch?v=A4UMyTnlaMY

I digest ideas better when they are broken down into smaller parts. Thus it would be impossible for me to respond to every part Omega's and Zetaman's posts, as much as I would like to address every small thing at once. Since I am aware of the possibility of information overload, I also want to avoid doing that to the reader. The most important issue with Information Overload is that it impairs one's ability to respond coherently, because the number of things to address and the work involved in that creates a sense of urgency, an emotional response, and an cloudy, often irrational, thinking process.

So I'll just pick out a few more of Zetaman's things I know I can respond to.

Quote
Women ... have been given alarming amount of ground to claim rape, beyond the street-level definition of the word.

Perhaps ironically, the majority of rape does occur inside the home or in other familiar places, with familiar people. This is probably the case not only for women, but for men as well. The 'street' rape is very rare. Of course, I am left a bit speechless by the clear message being conveyed here: that if it didn't happen in a surprise attack by a stranger on the street or in the wild, then it's not real. Is that your firm belief?

Quote
And I challenge to you find one area in our society where women are exclusively or disproportionately suffering.
Domestic violence, rape, poverty, income inequality, sexual objectification, and (still) in some countries, human rights.

But why do we need to have an oppression Olympics here, you know? Is this about "we suffer more than them" or what?

I hope I haven't written too much, but the temptation to respond to more than a few things is quite strong when so much has been written already. To that end, I don't mind if we try to simplify the discussion.

Edit: forgot to link the video
« Last Edit: June 06, 2014, 08:53:21 PM by Lee Li »
Keep Calm And Disobey

Omega

  • Banned
  • FDR Authority
  • *
  • Posts: 374
  • Respect: 0
Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
« Reply #46 on: June 07, 2014, 07:07:18 AM »
0
I think you are breaking rules of discussion:
Instead of providing arguments to prove your opponent wrong, you resort to personal attack:
"Is that your firm belief"
or emotional manipulation : listing how women suffer.
Neither beliefs of Zetaman or ways how women suffer have any importance.

Lee Li

  • Libertarian Socialist
  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 183
  • Respect: +2
Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
« Reply #47 on: June 07, 2014, 09:58:41 AM »
0
Since I may be mistaken in my interpretation of the sentence I quoted, it is important to be sure that what I think Zetaman said is correct.

And since Zetaman asked specifically for ways in which women suffer disproportionately to men, I am entirely on topic.
Keep Calm And Disobey

ZetaMan

  • The Master Debator and Cunning Linguist
  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
  • Respect: 0
    • Eclectic Vibrations Radio
Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
« Reply #48 on: June 07, 2014, 12:20:58 PM »
0
Well, I would say that my beliefs on this matter are relevant because I base them on information I have absorbed. I consider myself quite objective and fair. So if I "believe" something, you can be certain that there's a damn good reason.

Lee Li:
No. I do not believe that if you get raped by someone you know, then it's not rape. That's some wild idea right there. I'm at a loss as to why I have to clarify what I meant by that abstract, but I shall:
A woman who knows you can falsely claim you raped her. She will be believed until she finally turns around and admits to her criminality or it is revealed in a Court of Law, but you as an otherwise law-abiding man will have that stigma. It sticks.
We need to entertain the idea that women do not automatically have more integrity (as our biological programming urges us to believe) and realise that women can be assholes who will pull that claim on men they don't like and want to destroy. They can claim that if they aren't satisfied by a sexual encounter or if the man doesn't speak to them the next day.

Sexual relations is and has always been a minefield. Now that the law has been amended to give women extra consideration in these affairs, it is now mostly a minefield for men.

As for the list of things women suffer, I have two things to say: First of all, I rarely see a woman suffer these problems. I just hear about it on television and radio from people who don't live normal lives like we do. Secondly, men suffer from these exact same plights. You just haven't taken the time to look.
You can find proof of my claim from people on Youtube like ManWomanMyth, Bane666, The Mayor of MGTOWN etc etc etc etc. But I will refer to each of your listed sufferings in brief.

  • Domestic Violence: Men suffer domestic violence in equal portion as women. Verifiable fact. And as an anecdote, a good friend of mine was seriously assaulted by his drunk girlfriend of 8 years yesterday evening. In plain view, too. No one was saving his ass, were they?
  • Rape: Female-on-male rape happens and deserves your investigation. We also have our fair share of female paedophiles - but that's just funny and the 12 year old boy really wanted it, didn't he? And if you're referring to the study that showed 1 in 4 women suffer some form of sexual abuse - that study was unfairly structured to generate feminist-friendly figures. Under the same definition of rape, my wife has raped me 5 times in our first year of marriage
  • Poverty: Children suffer poverty - Adults suffer their choices. In the United States 40% of the homeless are children, with only 23% being women. In the rest of the world homelessness is 90% men. So your poverty argument is dated at best.
  • Income Inequality: Are you referring to the meme that says they earn 79 cents on the Dollar compared to men? This is another mirage cast by the magic of statistics. Women earn 79 cents on the dollar because they work 79% of the time that men do. This time is taken for period-related complications and child-bearing. Every woman has to choose whether to prioritize her career or bringing new life into the world. I agree women deserve a little more for these two reasons, but not gender supremacy.
  • Sexual Objectification: Do you walk around blindfolded? We're ALL sexually objectified because sex sells. This is a problem caused by male and female consumers, both. And if you believe women do not objectify men, then you haven't been included into one of their inner-circles yet or had a woman speak frankly with you about how women in general see men. They objectify us, only just in a slightly different way.
  • Human Rights Violations: Let's take as an example the most oppressive society for females: Afghanistan and Iran. Within these cultures men are equally under great restriction. They cannot display their beauty either. They cannot play football. They cannot speak freely. What is expected from a man in that society is to work and support a family and nothing else, much like Feminists complain that society expects women to do nothing but bear children and clean kitchens. Oppressive regimes oppress people and not genders.
    Men all around the world are sent to die in wars while female Privates and Officers are kept well behind the front lines.
    Men, in almost every Western country, are automatically assumed by Family Courts to be less capable of child-rearing and are disproportionately barred from seeing their children. This problem has gotten to such an extreme that it has given birth to the MRA movement and is responsible for the self-immolation of a man outside of a Family Court in Canada.
    Men suffer Human Rights abuses too.

Don't just take what I say, refuse to do your due diligence, and then attempt to argue these points with me. You have to display some intellectual honesty here for the sake of our entire species.

-------------
Anecdotes Re: rape
http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/this-is-what-a-child-molester-looks-like-nsfw/ (NSFW - images may upset)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-31150/18-year-old-woman-convicted-rape.html
http://www.avoiceformen.com/misandry/tucker-carlson-says-rape-is-great/
http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/false-rape-culture/high-school-teacher-leah-bakely-teaches-how-to-make-false-rape-accusations/
http://www.avoiceformen.com/gynarchy/rapey-logic-laci-green-redefines-rape/
« Last Edit: June 07, 2014, 01:35:39 PM by ZetaMan »
"Suppose they had a gender war, and men showed up"
- Paul Elam

Lee Li

  • Libertarian Socialist
  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 183
  • Respect: +2
Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
« Reply #49 on: June 07, 2014, 01:39:30 PM »
0
Zetaman,

The amount of time it would take for me to go through the materials you have offered me, and the independent research I would also need to do to verify the quality of information, is more than I can spare because I have full time commitments at work and school, and relationships as well. It would take me a few weeks/months. So rather than wait for that before responding, I'll say I appreciate the data you've given me Zetaman, and I will look into it further when I have time.

My impression is that men and women are both oppressed in their own ways by rigid gender roles, and it sounds like some feminist trends may have failed to bring about equality, instead reinforcing inequality in a different way -- for example, it should not be appropriately feminist to act to undermine women's autonomy and responsibility. That would be a failure in my eyes. In fact some feminists (myself and my partner) would consider it patriarchal in of itself, because denying a woman's ability to take responsibility is denying her agency and humanity. That would be a destructive trend for both men and women.

If the facts you listed are correct, Zetaman, then we need to fix these. I am aware that men, for example, die more by their own hand. And, it would be nice if men had the chance to opt for birth control rather than relying entirely upon the woman's ability to take a pill, for example. I think if people just stopped hating and stopped making it about "who suffers more" (which amounts to infighting), then we could achieve true gender equality (among other equalities)**.

Edit: **At least, we could start really solving problems.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2014, 01:45:36 PM by Lee Li »
Keep Calm And Disobey

ZetaMan

  • The Master Debator and Cunning Linguist
  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
  • Respect: 0
    • Eclectic Vibrations Radio
Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
« Reply #50 on: June 07, 2014, 02:09:04 PM »
0
I think you'd find that after discovering the facts and sources I've provided are accurate that the main thesis of this thread (Feminism is just Marxism in panties) stands up. It IS an affront to gender differentiation itself in order to create a world of absolute equals.

May I ask you a question?
If, as a Feminist, you would be angered by the infantilization of women and you equally support the rights of men, then why do you name your social ideal after one of the genders? I'm not insinuating any maliciousness on your part, just asking you to take note of something that flies straight over all our heads. There can be many reasons why someone who supports the rights of both genders would name their movement after one of the genders... but I'd like to hear why you'd continue to call yourself a Feminist in that light.
"Suppose they had a gender war, and men showed up"
- Paul Elam

Lee Li

  • Libertarian Socialist
  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 183
  • Respect: +2
Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
« Reply #51 on: June 07, 2014, 07:47:03 PM »
0
I think you'd find that after discovering the facts and sources I've provided are accurate that the main thesis of this thread (Feminism is just Marxism in panties) stands up. It IS an affront to gender differentiation itself in order to create a world of absolute equals.

May I ask you a question?
If, as a Feminist, you would be angered by the infantilization of women and you equally support the rights of men, then why do you name your social ideal after one of the genders? I'm not insinuating any maliciousness on your part, just asking you to take note of something that flies straight over all our heads. There can be many reasons why someone who supports the rights of both genders would name their movement after one of the genders... but I'd like to hear why you'd continue to call yourself a Feminist in that light.

Marxism and feminism go well together in my experience, because they are all about equality. The two philosophies are like peanut butter and jelly; there is a good harmony there. However the same goes for LGBT rights, immigration activism, anti-racism, animal rights, anarchism, unorganized religion, environmentalism, and more I can't think of.

The philosophies are not always found together. There are Marxists who are not feminists, and Marxists who say "we'll deal with feminist issues AFTER the proletarian revolution", as well as feminists who are Keynesian or capitalists. Not all feminists wear any particular garment either, and there are a good many male feminists as well as female, and everywhere in between (LGBT). I'm just saying this to say that there is certainly a common thread (Equality), but people's opinions and priorities are as diverse as their personalities. These tendencies in thought encompass the political left wing!

As for why it's called feminism, that has been asked and debated a lot. Sometimes I prefer the term egalitarian because it gets the point across, depending on who I talk to. Feminism brings up a lot of assumptions. So why feminism? Because feminism is a particular type of egalitarianism. Furthermore, the patriarchy hurts all sexes and genders.


https://usilive.org/why-i-call-myself-a-feminist-and-not-an-egalitarian/
« Last Edit: June 07, 2014, 07:49:55 PM by Lee Li »
Keep Calm And Disobey

Lee Li

  • Libertarian Socialist
  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 183
  • Respect: +2
Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
« Reply #52 on: June 07, 2014, 08:07:34 PM »
0
I thought of another thing

Quote
As for the list of things women suffer, I have two things to say: First of all, I rarely see a woman suffer these problems. I just hear about it on television and radio from people who don't live normal lives like we do.

Where do you live, sir? (Rhetorical question, don't answer :).) I don't know what this 'normal' life is. I've seen and experienced (either personally or witnessed someone else in person) the majority of those things on a routine basis. Everyone's favorite word around here is 'bitch'. If I had a penny for every time...I'd be rich. No, there is no normal...but there is privilege.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2014, 08:09:05 PM by Lee Li »
Keep Calm And Disobey

ZetaMan

  • The Master Debator and Cunning Linguist
  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
  • Respect: 0
    • Eclectic Vibrations Radio
Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
« Reply #53 on: June 07, 2014, 08:33:36 PM »
0
Where do you live, sir? (Rhetorical question, don't answer :).) I don't know what this 'normal' life is. I've seen and experienced (either personally or witnessed someone else in person) the majority of those things on a routine basis. Everyone's favorite word around here is 'bitch'. If I had a penny for every time...I'd be rich. No, there is no normal...but there is privilege.

By normal I mean a life that's spent dealing with people of a wide variety of classes. Not sealed inside a gated house, only stepping outside to seal oneself up again in a modern car, to go to a university of television studio to tell everyone else how to live. And that's not privilege, that's a wasted life and wasted resources.

And what's wrong with calling a person a bitch? Are you seriously going to tell me that this is a form of oppression? What about the women that call women a bitch? Oh wait, that's internalised sexism lol. Maybe the men who call women bitches instinctively feel the game is stacked against them and that's the best they can do. They can't hit them for some reason nobody has been able to explain yet. If a man gives another man grief, the man receiving said grief kicks the crap out of the other man... so generally grief isn't given under threat of violence - and that's how it should be. But when a woman gives a man grief in full knowledge she won't have to suffer a tangible backlash, all that man can do is "verbally assault" her.

Unless you're talking about "bitch" in the context you hear it in a rap video. Well that's the realm of a minority of men, just as you have a minority of women who do infinitely more sinister things to men that largely go unnoticed.

There's no gender disparity here. It's a figment of your imagination fueled by Communist propaganda.

---------


I try to boil things down and stay on point when discussing things with people and when trying to reach a practical solution. I couldn't read this diatribe due to it's setup which includes skipped premises, and I find your explanation to be a bit of a dodge.
Let me ask my question this way: Unless you're planning to replace what you say is a Patriarchy with a Matriarchy, why use the term Feminism and perpetuate the notion that women are the exclusively oppressed gender?

It comes down to the bare etymology of a word and what that conveys. Feminist (when describing yourself and the movement) comes from Feminine, Female. Favouring or empowering the Feminine. By definition you're excluding the masculine and there is no way around this.
To demonstrate: I'm a White Anarcho-Nationalist. I'm many thing, as are you, but for this conversation I'm a White Anarcho-Nationalist. I'm not a White Supremacist, but the level of comprehension that most people have doesn't allow them to separate the two. I favour my race and heritage because I am of that race and heritage. I respect and wish peace and cultural integrity for every race and nationality on the planet, but my race comes first. I think my race deserves extra attention from it's own kind. However, if I were to embrace and empower ALL races and cultures on the earth I would be an Anarcho-Nationalist or just an Anarchist.
You may say you support the empowerment of both genders, but you're favouring one of the genders by using the terminology of that gender. 200 years from now, people reading about you will automatically get the impression you favour the female gender.

People mix and match all sorts of things, like with religion. One aspect gets traded in for another, and next thing you know nobody can tell you whether Buddhism originated from the Vedas or came about independent of "Hinduism".
I'm certain you'd find with investigation of the Bolshevik Revolution that the notion of women being (or aught to be) exactly like men is a Marxist ideal. Americanism all on it's own would have been enough to make certain that women were equal with men under the Law, but Feminism is something else entirely.
"Suppose they had a gender war, and men showed up"
- Paul Elam

Lee Li

  • Libertarian Socialist
  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 183
  • Respect: +2
Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
« Reply #54 on: June 08, 2014, 12:11:40 AM »
0
Quote
Let me ask my question this way: Unless you're planning to replace what you say is a Patriarchy with a Matriarchy, why use the term Feminism and perpetuate the notion that women are the exclusively oppressed gender?

Why do Men's Rights Activists call themselves that? Presumably it's because they want to have a specialized group or movement that deals with men's issues. Right? Or is it? Because that's why feminism. Or do they want to have a patriarchy? Which is it, then? Because to ask why feminism begs the question why MRA. It also begs the question why people form any group under a similar manner. I hope that answers your question.

I  am not about to argue about why saying bitch is wrong. I hoped you might understand, but clearly not. You even find it amusing. If you really want to know, https://lmddgtfy.net/?q=Why+saying+bitch+is+misogynistic

FYI, Marxism is a loose set of ideas. Some people interpreted in various ways and configurations, and even Marxists don't all agree with each other. I already said, some Marxists aren't feminists. Marxism != feminism. Complimentary, but not equal. Here's a salient example: during the Bolshevik revolution, women were at first encouraged to work and all household chores were outsourced to the community at large. But then the leaders (I think it was Lenin?) did a 180 on that, calling for women to return to the homes because the country 'needed' them in order to survive the invasion by Western powers. I've heard feminist Marxists complain about women's issues being treated as lower priority, and this serves as an early historical example. Left tendencies cooperate a lot, but they don't always act in perfect harmony. It would be equivocation to act like they are the same.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2014, 12:14:47 AM by Lee Li »
Keep Calm And Disobey

Omega

  • Banned
  • FDR Authority
  • *
  • Posts: 374
  • Respect: 0
Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
« Reply #55 on: June 08, 2014, 08:59:47 AM »
0
Why do Men's Rights Activists call themselves that? Presumably it's because they want to have a specialized group or movement that deals with men's issues. Right? Or is it? Because that's why feminism. Or do they want to have a patriarchy? Which is it, then? Because to ask why feminism begs the question why MRA. It also begs the question why people form any group under a similar manner. I hope that answers your question.
Entire reason for MRA to exist is fight against feminism, because if nothing is done men will lose all rights completely.
And do not lie, because feminism is exclusively about women it is not egalitarianism.

when we discuss various issues like rape inequality etc, we must take into account all side.
like in case of rape there is man and woman and each of them can be falsely accusing each other or lying so while making laws you must treat both sides equally.
Feminists prefer to disregard male side completely assuming that if woman says so it is so, while who cares if that man is guilty or not. Primary objective is to protect women.

Exactly same problems happens with domestic violence, where woman gets priority over man.

And if laws become so biased against men, women start using legal system as weapon.
You may think that world is some kindergarden but it is war zone and we all use all we can to win. Both men and women will try to get the best what they can using all means available and if you provide advantage for women men just leave this game and stop playing.

eternal bias

  • FDR Aware
  • **
  • Posts: 75
  • optimism is cowardice
  • Respect: +7
Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
« Reply #56 on: June 08, 2014, 11:27:25 AM »
0
Quote
Because to ask why feminism begs the question why MRA.


I don't consider myself an MRA and really I don't consider myself an activist in any sense.  However I do find myself agreeing with them on many issues.  Mainly because it seems there is an incredible bias against men in many facets of society.  That's not to say there aren't biases against women in society either, but society is complicated so I don't see how there can't be bias on both ends.

Take this recent example.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIGRRRcuvQw

A woman attacks a young man for practicing his hobby flying remote controlled aircraft, something that is entirely legal where he lives.  She says he is "spying" on people when it's a public beach where taking pictures is perfectly legal.    She calls the police then begins to beat him and choke him.  When the police arrive she quickly accuses him of "creeping on women in bikinis" and of course the police believe her.

Quote
They first listened to her story of lies (she claimed I was taking close ups of people in bikinis, and that she had asked me to stop flying before calling the police, and that I was the one that assaulted her, and and and). The police approached me very aggressively, believing her full story


Now if her story was believed he could be looking at 10-15 years in jail depending on how feminist the judge for he case was feeling.  Thankfully technology and quick thinking saved him.  He recorded her assault of him with a smartphone and she was charged instead.  However she was only given a misdemeanor while her story as a female accusing a male would have ended up with the innocent young man getting charged with a felony, something that would have ruined his future career prospects and his life in general.
source for the story.

The amazing thing is that if you read the comments for the video, not only do most people support htis woman who would have lied and sent an innocent man to prison for over 10 years on her own caprice, but most people condemn the man.  They call him a wierdo, a creep, a loser fo rnot fighting back, a liar, and idiot, all the names in the book, despite the fact he did literally nothing wrong and even the police said he was free to fly his aircraft after they left.  There is nothing the man can do in this situation to look good and nothing the woman can do to look bad regardless of context.  Women are always right and good. Men are always wrong and evil, end of story.

Source for the story here:
http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2014/06/07/crazed-woman-attacks-man-flying-camera-drone-public-beach-connecticut/


Meanwhile according to feminist theory this man should STILL be going to jail regardless of evidence.  Why?  Because according to feminist theory you are NEVER allowed to doubt an alleged survivor of sexual assault or rape.  On these grounds alone the recording should be destroyed and inadmissible as evidence  According to feminists any doubt, regardless of how hesitant, of a "survivors" story is proof that you support violence against women and are in fact a supporter of violence against women.  Even using the word "alleged" is problematic.  The accused is always guilty no matter what evidence there is or isn't.

You might think this is hyperbole but it isn't.  Recently when one feminist, anarchist male wrote a piece online that can be summed up as saying, "people are innocent until proven guilty in our court system" he was universally denounced by feminists as "promoting rape culture".

You can read his article here:
http://towardfreedom.com/29-archives/activism/3455-the-politics-of-denunciation

This article was so offensive to feminists that his speaking engagement at an anarchist meeting was boycotted and he was yelled at and castigated for daring to think you need proof before we haul people off to jail based on accusations and not proof.

Here's the video of that confrontation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r7cwWegXCU

Safe to say he was silenced and the modern feminists felt this was a great victory in the battle against "rape culture" and "patriarchy" despite the fact this self styled anarchist was in fact a radical feminist himself.

It seems to me feminism has become a "blame men first ask questions later" dogma where things like criticism are considered "patriarchal" and where even killing women in videogames is now considered "rape"
Feminism seems to have ironically, recreated the same hysterical conditions that created the Salem witch hunts, that is it has created wild goose chases against imaginary foes.  When no foes are found they just make them up in order to find someone to punish.  The irony comes from the fact these were the very tactics that were once used to oppress women.  Now instead they are being used against largely clueless men who one way or another stumble into they now very ride category of "potential rapists" and are therefore treated as such.

What is the cause of this hysteria?  I think the cause is largely the fact feminists have found no witches to burn or in this case, evil rapists to accuse.  Heather McDonald in her article here puts it best.
http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_1_campus_rape.html

Quote
The campus rape industry’s central tenet is that one-quarter of all college girls will be raped or be the targets of attempted rape by the end of their college years


Quote
This claim, first published in Ms. magazine in 1987, took the universities by storm. By the early 1990s, campus rape centers and 24-hour hotlines were opening across the country, aided by tens of millions of dollars of federal funding. Victimhood rituals sprang up: first the Take Back the Night rallies, in which alleged rape victims reveal their stories to gathered crowds of candle-holding supporters; then the Clothesline Project, in which T-shirts made by self-proclaimed rape survivors are strung on campus, while recorded sounds of gongs and drums mark minute-by-minute casualties of the “rape culture.” A special rhetoric emerged: victims’ family and friends were “co-survivors”; “survivors” existed in a larger “community of survivors.”


Quote
If the one-in-four statistic is correct—it is sometimes modified to “one-in-five to one-in-four”—campus rape represents a crime wave of unprecedented proportions. No crime, much less one as serious as rape, has a victimization rate remotely approaching 20 or 25 percent, even over many years. The 2006 violent crime rate in Detroit, one of the most violent cities in America, was 2,400 murders, rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults per 100,000 inhabitants—a rate of 2.4 percent. The one-in-four statistic would mean that every year, millions of young women graduate who have suffered the most terrifying assault, short of murder, that a woman can experience. Such a crime wave would require nothing less than a state of emergency—Take Back the Night rallies and 24-hour hotlines would hardly be adequate to counter this tsunami of sexual violence. Admissions policies letting in tens of thousands of vicious criminals would require a complete revision, perhaps banning boys entirely. The nation’s nearly 10 million female undergrads would need to take the most stringent safety precautions. Certainly, they would have to alter their sexual behavior radically to avoid falling prey to the rape epidemic.


Quote
None of this crisis response occurs, of course—because the crisis doesn’t exist. During the 1980s, feminist researchers committed to the rape-culture theory had discovered that asking women directly if they had been raped yielded disappointing results—very few women said that they had been. So Ms. commissioned University of Arizona public health professor Mary Koss to develop a different way of measuring the prevalence of rape. Rather than asking female students about rape per se, Koss asked them if they had experienced actions that she then classified as rape. Koss’s method produced the 25 percent rate, which Ms. then published.

Koss’s study had serious flaws. Her survey instrument was highly ambiguous, as University of California at Berkeley social-welfare professor Neil Gilbert has pointed out. But the most powerful refutation of Koss’s research came from her own subjects: 73 percent of the women whom she characterized as rape victims said that they hadn’t been raped. Further—though it is inconceivable that a raped woman would voluntarily have sex again with the fiend who attacked her—42 percent of Koss’s supposed victims had intercourse again with their alleged assailants.


Quote
Campuses do everything they can to get their numbers of reported and adjudicated sexual assaults up—adding new categories of lesser offenses, lowering the burden of proof, and devising hearing procedures that will elicit more assault charges. At Yale, it is the accuser who decides whether the accused may confront her—a sacrifice of one of the great Anglo-Saxon truth-finding procedures.


Quote
So what reality does lie behind the campus rape industry? A booze-fueled hookup culture of one-night, or sometimes just partial-night, stands. Students in the sixties demanded that college administrators stop setting rules for fraternization. “We’re adults,” the students shouted. “We can manage our own lives. If we want to have members of the opposite sex in our rooms at any hour of the day or night, that’s our right.” The colleges meekly complied and opened a Pandora’s box of boorish, sluttish behavior that gets cruder each year. Do the boys, riding the testosterone wave, act thuggishly toward the girls? You bet! Do the girls try to match their insensitivity? Indisputably.

College girls drink themselves into near or actual oblivion before and during parties. That drinking is often goal-oriented, suggests University of Virginia graduate Karin Agness: it frees the drinker from responsibility and “provides an excuse for engaging in behavior that she ordinarily wouldn’t.”


Quote
As anticipated, the night can include a meaningless sexual encounter with a guy whom the girl may not even know. This less-than-romantic denouement produces the “roll and scream: you roll over the next morning so horrified at what you find next to you that you scream,” a Duke coed reports in Laura Sessions Stepp’s recent book Unhooked. To the extent that they’re remembered at all, these are the couplings that are occasionally transformed into “rape”—though far less often than the campus rape industry wishes.


So now witches have been magicked into existence to burn, and that is what feminism largely is now.  Burning constructed witches.

The only other aspect of MRA an undoubtedly it's most popular part among MRAs themselves is mainly overlooked by feminists.  That is child support and alimony.  Many MRAs are fathers angry that that they have been divorced largely because of "irreconcilable differences and never anything close to abuse and left to dry by a legal system designed to cater to women.  Men basically become debt slaves and are forced to give up half of their income while there is no guarantee their money is spent on their kids and not on luxury goods for their ex-wives.  Now feminists can argue against this all they want but there are enough horror stories out there to make their complaints at least plausible.



Meanwhile a woman who sexually assaulted teen boys was given a very light sentence of a few years, something that would get a male possibly ten times that sentence.

In the end i consider there quite enough holes in the feminist mythology that I lok skeptically on their claims to be egalitarians.  Instead it seems like they are merely another French Revolutionary-esque mob looking for someone who needs to lose their head.


Lee Li

  • Libertarian Socialist
  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 183
  • Respect: +2
Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
« Reply #57 on: June 08, 2014, 01:31:30 PM »
0
Quote from: Omega
Entire reason for MRA to exist is fight against feminism, because if nothing is done men will lose all rights completely.


Thanks Omega, that tells me everything I need to know about MRA. :D By your admission, MRA is a hate group whose sole purpose of existence is to eradicate another group (feminists), not to help men with their problems.

Feminism is about helping women, not about destroying another group. It even helps men, transgender, transsexual, queer, bi, lesbian, and gay people who are all affected by patriarchy. IMO, any MRA who sees the difference will understand that they actually share common ground with feminists in the quest for liberation, but only once they realize that we each have a common enemy, but that enemy is not in each other, rather it is in our hearts and minds and we can overcome it. Feminism is your scapegoat, it is not your root cause.

If you don't like the word, look past it and see what it is really all about. I wouldn't even be surprised if I was to find that you guys have never even read feminist literature (which is scattered ALL over the Internet, a search away, let me share some with you!), but rather had someone else tell you caricatures of what feminists say than reading the myriads of things they actually do say (especially the analysis)!!!

@eternal bias: That post is too long, I won't read it.

LINKS:
**read this first:
http://feminspire.com/feminism-its-good-for-men-too/
http://www.davkadeergirl.com/2008/03/cosmic-titty-archetype_07.html
http://quiteirregular.wordpress.com/2014/05/08/she-can-always-tell-me-to-stop-sexual-assault-and-just-trying-something-new/
**Bookmark these and read later:
http://time.com/2796068/two-sisters-raped-and-hanged-from-a-tree-in-india/
http://souciant.com/2014/06/the-gender-syndrome/
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-uncomfortable-truths-behind-mens-rights-movement/
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175850/tomgram%3A_rebecca_solnit%2C_%23yesallwomen_changes_the_story/
http://www.reddit.com/r/feminisms/comments/26wic2/exactly_why_it_happens_to_men_too_doesnt_apply_to/
http://www.reddit.com/r/feminisms/comments/27hlt6/gender_nonconformance_vs_feminism/
http://www.motherjones.com/media/2014/06/street-harassment-survey-america
http://quiteirregular.wordpress.com/2014/05/22/feminism-and-not-hating-men/
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2014/05/the-pay-gap-the-chicken-and-the-egg.html
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1608463869/ref=nosim/?tag=tomdispatch-20
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175846/tomgram%3A_rebecca_solnit%2C_the_new_feminist_road_map/
http://www.reddit.com/r/feminisms/comments/264nzu/the_new_feminist_road_map_feminism_is_an_endeavor/

« Last Edit: June 08, 2014, 02:18:30 PM by Lee Li »
Keep Calm And Disobey

Prodigal son

  • Guest
Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
« Reply #58 on: June 08, 2014, 04:34:39 PM »
0
Thanks Omega, that tells me everything I need to know about MRA.


Hardly. It might tell you - stretching a point - how Omega views that movement, but he is not its spokesperson any more than am I (and I have nothing to say other than that I broadly support its aims as long as they are peaceful, truthful, and respectful) or Stefan Molyneux (who has lots).
Seeing the link war that seems to have flared up, I almost (but not quite!) regret posting my earlier reply, with which I was attempting - in a moment of heady euphoria - to draw attention to reasonable (or what seem to me to be reasonable) ground rules, and will make no further comment. In the unlikely event that anyone cares to know my personal reasons, they are summarized in two posts I made here on FDRL some time ago:
http://www.fdrliberated.com/forum/index.php?topic=707.msg8665#msg8665
http://www.fdrliberated.com/forum/index.php?topic=705.msg8649#msg8649

ZetaMan

  • The Master Debator and Cunning Linguist
  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
  • Respect: 0
    • Eclectic Vibrations Radio
Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
« Reply #59 on: June 08, 2014, 05:49:22 PM »
0
Eternal Bias: Thank you for that extensive post. We would all do well to spend some time with it.

Hardly. It might tell you - stretching a point - how Omega views that movement, but he is not its spokesperson any more than am I (and I have nothing to say other than that I broadly support its aims as long as they are peaceful, truthful, and respectful) or Stefan Molyneux (who has lots).

Thanks for that, PS.

What that leap did was tell ME everything I need to know: Lee Li's agenda is to devalue the MRA movement (c wat i did thar?)

Why do Men's Rights Activists call themselves that? Presumably it's because they want to have a specialized group or movement that deals with men's issues. Right? Or is it? Because that's why feminism. Or do they want to have a patriarchy? Which is it, then? Because to ask why feminism begs the question why MRA. It also begs the question why people form any group under a similar manner. I hope that answers your question.

No. It doesn't.
We have the MRA because Feminism does not address male issues (from male perspectives and concerns). We wouldn't need the MRA if Feminism didn't go overboard while seeking parity of esteem for women (as well as other reasons).

Feminism is called Feminism because it seeks to restructure the world from the feminine perspective EXCLUSIVELY. This is the truth until it is adequately answered. And invoking the Tu Quoque fallacy does not answer the question.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2014, 05:51:54 PM by ZetaMan »
"Suppose they had a gender war, and men showed up"
- Paul Elam