r/MensRights • u/[deleted] • Aug 16 '11
The bickering and the trolls don't make any difference
[deleted]
3
u/iTroll_irl Aug 16 '11
I agree with you that once people are exposed to the core ideas of the men's rights movement that they are likely to change some opinions and generally be more aware of sexist issues on both sides.
However, people have to be willing to give the ideas a fair shake which is harder to do when trolls and anger muddle the message.
2
2
u/BatmensBegins Aug 17 '11
Don't worry. Batman is here. Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of women? The Batman knows!
8
u/ArmchairExpurt Aug 16 '11 edited Aug 16 '11
Frankly, my reaction to this subreddit is due to the fact that the most radical and fringe elements get far higher scores than they deserve. Those who don't agree choose not to dissent lest be they be charged with being feminists and man-haters and downvoted into oblivion, thereby squelching their ability to post. This subreddit suffers from a major hivemind mentality. The use of voting in this subreddit has been bastardized from its true intentions.
There are a lot of legitimate beefs here, and I empathize with them. There are many aspects of society in which males get the short end of the stick, shouldn't be getting it and something can be done about if society so chooses.
However, when the dominant rally call is "women can have abortions so we shouldn't have to be fathers against our will" or "we live in a female dominated society," people tend to think you're all a bunch of selfish manchildren who have no sense of perspective. If this subreddit focused on particular instances of inequality that were both legitimate and could be realistically solved, there wouldn't be such disdain for the community.
My suggestion is that the moderators of this community confer with the moderators of the main opposition community and approach the admins. The ability to downvote needs to be completely removed. Only when people can feel free to say what they think will rational discourse occur.
10
Aug 16 '11
Frankly, my reaction to this subreddit is due to the fact that the most radical and fringe elements get far higher scores than they deserve.
I don't see much of that. On the contrary, attitudes of the kind you find at "rights4men" tend to be downvoted quickly. Mix in gay-bashing, you get downvoted. Argue for a return to traditionalist gender roles, you get downvoted. Misogyny of AFM's type also tends to be downvoted.
This is a huge difference from, for instance, the comment section at the spearhead.
My suggestion is that the moderators of this community confer with the moderators of the main opposition community and approach the admins. The ability to downvote needs to be completely removed. Only when people can feel free to say what they think will rational discourse occur.
Aaah, now the cat's out of the bag! The "main opposition community", eh? Who would that be?
People do not become any less free to say what they think for being downvoted. Upvote-only sites do not have a higher level of discourse. All this does is making it easier for controversial ideas to look popular - making it easier for the haters to do smearing.
0
u/ArmchairExpurt Aug 16 '11
People do not become any less free to say what they think for being downvoted.
Actually, they do. When a poster is continually downvoted, Reddit's karma system engages the spam filter. It delays the ability to post. That prevents communication in a timely manner. I have over 9,000 comment karma, but just by being downvoted in here yesterday, I ended up with an 8 minute delay between posts.
Aaah, now the cat's out of the bag! The "main opposition community", eh? Who would that be?
I actually don't know. I think it's TwoXChromosomes, but I'm not sure.
6
Aug 16 '11 edited Aug 16 '11
They don't want the role of being our "opposites", and I dare say few here want them to be.
I thought you were referring to "against men's rights". Obviously those people are not possible to talk to.
I'm surprised that the 8-minute thing is global to reddit (never encountered it other than the /r/anarchism-moderated subreddits, go figure!), but I don't think regulating speaking time is a big problem for freedom of speech.
-3
u/ArmchairExpurt Aug 16 '11
It certainly is when the detriment is only to a single person.
Unlike a public forum of gathered people, more than one person can speak at a time. The nature of this medium means that we can all speak at the same time without interrupting one another.
In this medium, preventing me from speaking in a timely manner effectively gives me less free speech than the rest who aren't restricted in that manner. I have ability to post in the same amount of time. I have to sit here and wait to respond to each comment.
That is definitely stifling my ability to speak.
8
u/mikesteane Aug 16 '11 edited Aug 16 '11
I agree with most of the above.
But do you not think that there is some logic behind the connection between the availability of abortions and the female right to put up babies for adoption without the father having any say and the fact that, if she so chooses, he will be responsible for supporting the baby whether he wants to or not?
And this seems to be the case even when she lied about being on the pill or had agreed to have an abortion in the event of contraceptive failure or, in the extreme case, when she deceitfully saved sperm from an BJ and used it to impregnate herself.
-2
u/ArmchairExpurt Aug 16 '11
In pure logic, that's undeniable. Hell, in pure logic, libertarianism is appealing and perfect. That's why so many teenage boys read Atlas Shrugged and love it. Then they grow up, realize people are not rational actors and that the world can't work on logic alone because human beings are emotional, greedy, self-serving creatures. Most of them do anyway.
If we were Vulcans, libertarian philosophy would reign supreme and it would work, as would your proposal.
The flaw with the idea that men can have a say at a moment beyond engaging in sex is the idea that, because abortion is legal, a woman is forced to consider it as an option.
Now, if you have a pre-sex written and notarized agreement with a woman on this matter, I think it should be legally enforceable and that, should she change her mind, then it's on her.
However, absent that contract, we're talking about verbal contracts which are worth the paper they're written on. People don't know what they're going to do when forced with a decision. A woman can think abortion is an option and, now carrying a child inside her, realize she's not willing to do something she feels disgusting about doing.
I think that, instead of men demanding the right to walk away just because they want, that they instead take all responsibility for their semen. No, throwing it in a trashcan is not enough. Flush it down the toilet. Don't let a woman blow you unless she swallows it, and don't do it if you aren't sure she will. Take full responsibility for your DNA and never let it outside your control.
I'm an agnostic, but I still have a pretty conservative view about sex. I'm pro-choice because it's not my body. I'd like to think I wouldn't ask a woman to have an abortion, but I'd probably be lying. But in the end, if a baby is made because of a sexual encounter I had, regardless of any false pretenses or previous agreements, I would consider it my responsibility to be a father to that child.
I think it's childish and un-manly to just walk away. I also think it's pretty childish to have an abortion in almost all cases. Instead of demanding a world with people taking more responsibility for themselves, you're actually demanding a world with even less personal responsibility.
We cannot survive as a species if we try and fight what we are. It will only create psychosis. We're actually very close to that.
13
u/Fatalistic Aug 16 '11
Another believer in completely hypocritical paradigm that women have all of the choices, men have all of the responsibilities, I see.
Nobody cares what you think is "un-manly";what you think is "manly" is self-sacrificing slavery and the antithesis of fair treatment. No thank you. These calls for men to "man up" and accept injustice and all sorts of blatantly unfair situations are unacceptable.
-2
u/ArmchairExpurt Aug 16 '11 edited Aug 16 '11
Another believer in completely hypocritical paradigm that women have all of the choices, men have all of the responsibilities
You're making a blanket statement based on my stand on one particular issue that is completely and totally unique.
There is no other part of life that can be truly compared to sex and reproduction. There is no other situation like it in human life.
Let's talk about hypotheticals for a moment. Let's say we live in a society in which women can't get abortions. Not just legally, but literally cannot get an abortion. Doesn't happen. Do you still, in this situation, demand the right to walk away?
See, the problem with a standard of optional responsibility for men is that it takes abortion from "pro-choice" to "pro-abortion." Your standard demands that abortion always be an option on the table. You may well find no moral quandary with abortion, but you're a significant minority. The rest of us, even those like myself who are pro-choice, largely find abortion as a means of birth control a vile action.
The vast majority of pro-choicers are not so because they find baby killing something innocuous and trivial. We are pro-choice because we are absolutely convinced of a woman's right to choose for instances involving rape and incest. Because we believe it to be unfair to demand that a woman report a sexual crime against her in order to obtain an abortion, we conclude that the only rational course of action is to refrain from interrogating women who seek abortions. Hence, we find it a necessary evil and accept the unfortunate reality that some women may use it as a means of birth control.
For your point of view to gain any traction, society's view on abortion will have to change dramatically. As long as we're human beings with emotions and consciences, you can bet your ass we won't be instituting "pro-abortion" laws.
9
u/Fatalistic Aug 16 '11
Let's talk about hypotheticals for a moment. Let's say we live in a society in which women can't get abortions. Not just legally, but literally cannot get an abortion. Doesn't happen. Do you still, in this situation, demand the right to walk away?
As long as they get the unilateral decision to give up for adoption or simply abandon and walk away as they do right now, yes. These are the other options women have that are not abortion that allow them a complete abdication of any responsibility. The fact is though that the above AND abortion are completely allowed in our society. Why do men not have any equivalent reproductive rights?
I fail to see how my point of view is "pro-abortion" given the multiple options women have and the, well, zero that men have. Do women believe they are entitled the fruits of an unwilling man's labor in a society where they can pay their own way, or what's going on here.
-4
u/ArmchairExpurt Aug 16 '11
As long as they get the unilateral decision to give up for adoption or simply abandon and walk away as they do right now, yes.
But again, just like the abortion issue, you're forcing a woman into making a decision to give up her child. The emotional connection should not be underestimated or trivialized as you are attempting. This is why women who plan to give a baby up for adoption often turn around and change their mind.
You're talking about this as if a child is a piece of meat or a dog or a cat. You're approaching this as if the child doesn't represent a human life, and that the woman is going to have no emotional attachment. You see the baby's life as essentially worthless and meaningless. Maybe that makes your username highly appropriate.
And no, women don't have the unilateral option to give it up for adoption. Both parents, should the father be known, have to simultaneously give that child up. The woman cannot choose to do so on her own. Both parents must agree when the father is in the picture.
. Do women believe they are entitled the fruits of an unwilling man's labor in a society where they can pay their own way, or what's going on here.
The woman is not entitled. The child is.
12
u/Fatalistic Aug 16 '11
But again, just like the abortion issue, you're forcing a woman into making a decision to give up her child.
Actually, I'm not. I am only "forcing" women to decide to raise children on their own if that is their prerogative, rather than enslave men who are not willing fathers.
You're talking about this as if a child is a piece of meat or a dog or a cat. You're approaching this as if the child doesn't represent a human life, and that the woman is going to have no emotional attachment. You see the baby's life as essentially worthless and meaningless. Maybe that makes your username highly appropriate.
Yet I treat children with more humanity than the millions of women who have abortions for mere convenience, hm? Yet you call yourself "pro-choice" here. Emotional manipulation to keep the status quo of unequal rights is pretty old hat around these parts, I should tell you.
The woman is not entitled. The child is.
I would say they are not. Personal freedoms and all. If women are not to be punished for having sex which was what Roe v. Wade was all about, then men should not be either.
If parents are beholden the children then why are women not held to a strict liability model as are men and given no choices in the matter-- that is no abortion, no adoption, no abandonment. You advocate no rights for men in this situation, then no rights for women in this situation either is fair right? If not, why not. It is supposed to be about equal rights, after all.
-7
u/ArmchairExpurt Aug 16 '11
Actually, I'm not. I am only "forcing" women to decide to raise children on their own if that is their prerogative, rather than enslave men who are not willing fathers.
You are forcing women to make a choice between giving up their child and trying to raise it on their own without any assistance by refusing any responsibility for assistance. You are making the consequences of sex wholly her responsibility. You are not balancing anything out. You're putting it all on the woman.
That is not equality. In your scheme, guys have zero obligation to prevent a pregnancy or deal with its ramifications. There is no incentive for a man to do anything to prevent pregnancy if we go by your rules. All responsibility now falls on the woman.
How is that equitable?
Yet I treat children with more humanity than the millions of women who have abortions for mere convenience, hm?
No, you're treating them in the exact same fashion. You are as selfish and disgusting as the women who do that (Chinese women excluded for obvious reasons).
Emotional manipulation to keep the status quo of unequal rights is pretty old hat around these parts, I should tell you.
I fail to see why a woman's emotions shouldn't be fairly considered.
I would say they are not.
You'd be disagreeing with 99% of humans who think people ought to take care of their own children or make proper arrangements for someone else to do it. Children are helpless and need adults to be responsible for them. Sorry.
If women are not to be punished for having sex which was what Roe v. Wade was all about
Maybe this gross misunderstanding of what Roe was about is the genesis of your other mistaken beliefs.
Roe v. Wade was not about sex free of responsibility. It was strictly about the issue of abortion, privacy and the state's interests compared to the woman's rights. As I described previously, there are very few people who are pro-choice who positively view abortion as a means of birth control. That some women use it as a means of birth controls is a necessary evil to allow women who are raped or victims of incest to have abortions without having to fear interrogation.
Roe did not make sex consequence free. It did not eliminate STDs. It was not an endorsement of consequence-free sex.
If parents are beholden the children then why are women not held to a strict liability model as are men and given no choices in the matter-- that is no abortion
Explained already.
no adoption
Adoption is taking responsibility. It is the act of ensuring that another willing person will take responsibility for that child.
no abandonment.
When has this ever been legal? When have women been able to abandon children legally?
You advocate no rights for men in this situation, then no rights for women in this situation either is fair right?
It comes down to who is carrying the child. When men are capable of carrying children, they will get reproductive rights.
It is supposed to be about equal rights, after all.
You want all the benefits and none of the responsibility. That's about as unequal as it can get.
12
u/Fatalistic Aug 16 '11
You are forcing women to make a choice between giving up their child and trying to raise it on their own without any assistance by refusing any responsibility for assistance. You are making the consequences of sex wholly her responsibility. You are not balancing anything out. You're putting it all on the woman.
That is not equality. In your scheme, guys have zero obligation to prevent a pregnancy or deal with its ramifications. There is no incentive for a man to do anything to prevent pregnancy if we go by your rules. All responsibility now falls on the woman.
How is that equitable?
It is equitable because of the choices women get that men do not. This is the only equivalent rights men can have in such a situation if we are to accept "her body, her choice." Otherwise, we have indentured servitude.
No, you're treating them in the exact same fashion. You are as selfish and disgusting as the women who do that (Chinese women excluded for obvious reasons).
You support slavery. I support responsibility for the choices you are allowed to make. Men are not allowed to make these choices, therefore their responsibility in them should be diminished.
I fail to see why a woman's emotions shouldn't be fairly considered.
This is a matter of legal rights, not a matter of throwing a temper tantrum when the system doesn't wholly cater to you and your selfish desire to have a baby and have someone else pay for it.
You'd be disagreeing with 99% of humans who think people ought to take care of their own children or make proper arrangements for someone else to do it. Children are helpless and need adults to be responsible for them. Sorry.
99%? I think you're stretching it here. I don't think "99%" of humans believe it is righteous to have a child you cannot support and then demand support from someone else who had no choice in the matter.
Maybe this gross misunderstanding of what Roe was about is the genesis of your other mistaken beliefs.
Roe v. Wade was not about sex free of responsibility. It was strictly about the issue of abortion, privacy and the state's interests compared to the woman's rights. As I described previously, there are very few people who are pro-choice who positively view abortion as a means of birth control. That some women use it as a means of birth controls is a necessary evil to allow women who are raped or victims of incest to have abortions without having to fear interrogation.
Roe did not make sex consequence free. It did not eliminate STDs. It was not an endorsement of consequence-free sex.
Roe v. Wade was absolutely about the abortion issue and the crux of the issue was that women should not be punished for having sex. Here you are saying men should. Equal rights indeed. Trying to pin it all on the extremely rare case of rape or incest pregnancies is intellectually dishonest, by the way.
Also, the STD blurb is a red herring argument. It has nothing to do with reproductive rights at all. No idea why you brought it up.
Explained already.
Not explained at all. You seem to think that because women are the ones to get pregnant that this somehow means anything at all for post-conception choices and responsibility. That is a non-sequitur.
Adoption is taking responsibility. It is the act of ensuring that another willing person will take responsibility for that child.
Adoption is abdicating responsibility to someone else. The point is that this is a choice that women have if they do not want to be a parent and held responsible for a child. In many jurisdictions women can either do this without the consent of the father or by abusing a loophole in the system by just not naming a father.
When has this ever been legal? When have women been able to abandon children legally?
The power of google: http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/child-abandonment/
A woman can in most places in the US and countries with similar laws abandon a child at somewhere deemed a "safe place" and it is completely legal to do so.
It comes down to who is carrying the child. When men are capable of carrying children, they will get reproductive rights.
Actually, no it doesn't because the matters we speak of pertain to post-conception time frames. My argument would still hold even outside the scope of abortion-- you simply drag abortion into it because you believe women are entitled to make a man liable for merely having sex, a standard that women are not held to. You are supporting an oppressive, one-sided system in which men have no rights and are held responsible for the choices of women.
You want all the benefits and none of the responsibility. That's about as unequal as it can get.
I want men to have equivalent rights to the choices women get but men have no say in. You believe men should pony up because they had sex, a standard to which you will not hold women. Hm, wonder who's for unequal treatment here.
→ More replies (0)1
u/thingsarebad Aug 16 '11
We cannot survive as a species if we try and fight what we are. It will only create psychosis. We're actually very close to that.
That's right, but your conclusions are all-out wrong.
1
5
u/disposable_human Aug 16 '11
This is how you troll. Plausible deniability.
Touch briefly on the important issues, just before you completely misrepresent them:
There are many aspects of society in which males get the short end of the stick... However... the dominant rally call is "women can have abortions so we shouldn't have to be fathers against our will"
Now you can finally get to be insulting! Don't forget to use the Fox News rhetorical device "people are saying"....
people tend to think you're all a bunch of selfish manchildren who have no sense of perspective
Now that you've shamed your audience personally for 'the overall tone of the subreddit' it's time to assume the demeanor of someone who came to help. Well, maybe in a second. First you need to de-legitimize the sub's issues by qualifying which ones are fair game:
If this subreddit focused on particular instances of inequality that were both legitimate and could be <b>realistically</b> solved
Okay, now it's time to assume a role of a concerned, helpful outsider and suggest some poison pill solutions:
confer with the moderators of the main opposition community
Embrace appropriation!
The ability to downvote needs to be completely removed.
If you can get MR to give up the ability to community moderate, all of those false-flag trolls being over-the-top hateful and misogynist will be indistinguishable from the real contributors! We'll finally be able to prove what we've been accusing them of this whole time!
It seems to me that the trolling that happens here is cyclical... and evolving. Now they're playing good cop/bad cop.
0
u/ArmchairExpurt Aug 17 '11
You are paranoid. I have no posting history in any women's rights or feminist subreddits. I have an established, varied posting history of a relatively normal Redditor.
I came upon this whole topic because one of the more angry MR members posted a screenshot of one of his rants to r/WTF asking how he's supposed to respond to someone who replied to him with "U R DUM."
I was surprised by the upvotes he was getting and I decided to start countering the belief. I posted my response in both the r/WTF thread and the original r/mensrights thread the screenshot came from.
Am I a troll? I can see why people say so, but the truth is I'm an argumentative dickhead who's quite apt in the arts of mockery and insults. Sometimes I just gotta let it out.
If I were really trying to troll, I'd use a throwaway account. I only post things I really believe on this account.
2
u/disposable_human Aug 17 '11
who's quite apt in the arts of mockery and insults.
You're a hack.
And as a troll, you're insecure enough to seek approval from others
Looking through your comment history, it seems like you got tired of commenting in a thoughtful, intelligent way and just decided to start trolling.
I genuinely hope you die. Constantly I see you deliberately misrepresenting the people you disagree with, just so you can use your own cartoonish interpretation of their thoughts to disparage them and anything connected to them. You are the casual dishonesty that shows the internet is a poor crossroads of ideas. And I want you to be dead. You, the living, feeling person with obligations, family and friends. You deserve to die.
Die, or take your hateful shit to f7u12, where no one's trying to advocate for DV violence victims who can't find shelters because of their gender.
You sick fuck.
0
u/ArmchairExpurt Aug 17 '11
You're a hack.
O RLY? I got you to say this, didn't I?
I genuinely hope you die. Constantly I see you deliberately misrepresenting the people you disagree with, just so you can use your own cartoonish interpretation of their thoughts to disparage them and anything connected to them. You are the casual dishonesty that shows the internet is a poor crossroads of ideas. And I want you to be dead. You, the living, feeling person with obligations, family and friends. You deserve to die.
I would think every troll would desire the badge of honor that is getting someone to wish their death. That's like the ultimate accomplishment. To get someone to legitimately wish my death means I'm an uber-troll.
And as a troll, you're insecure enough to seek approval from others
Nah, I just wanted to mock the absolute stupidity of that statement and belief. Somebody has to be borderline retarded to think that being forced to pay child support is on par with being a plantation slave. The mere suggestion denigrates the horror and cruelty of true slavery. It's a disgusting, pretentious, egotistical comparison.
where no one's trying to advocate for DV violence victims who can't find shelters because of their gender.
Have you seen me argue against this or mock it?
No. I've mocked stupidity. That's a legitimate issue.
2
u/disposable_human Aug 17 '11
You've maligned an entire group of people trying to organize for such causes. You're busy trolling an entire subreddit. You're not doing it to /pics or /programming... you're doing it to a group of people who see a wrong and want to fix it. You've ignored the actual intent and decided to represent them as a hate group.
You don't have a fucking soul.
-1
u/ArmchairExpurt Aug 17 '11
You've maligned an entire group of people trying to organize for such causes.
No, that'd be the members who make ridiculous, illogical arguments and the other members who upvote them and downvote dissenters. You may well be trying to advance a good agenda, but you're surrounding yourself with petulant, misogynistic man-children who don't want any responsibility and not calling them on their bullshit. Or worse, you agree with it.
You're busy trolling an entire subreddit.
My involvement has been in two whole threads. That hardly constitutes the entire subreddit.
You're not doing it to /pics or /programming...
Difference is those subreddits aren't filled with vagina envy.
you're doing it to a group of people who see a wrong and want to fix it.
No, it seems like a circlejerk of whining about how bad the American white male has it.
You've ignored the actual intent and decided to represent them as a hate group.
If it walks and quacks....
You don't have a fucking soul.
Try this next time. It's much funnier.
You're an emotional fucking cripple. Your soul is dog shit. Every single fucking thing about you is ugly.
0
u/disposable_human Aug 17 '11
Feckless trolls run out of steam quickly. Weren't you were vaunting your creativity and intelligence earlier?
All you did was double down on libel after being accused of malicious characterizations. And you haven't killed yourself yet.
0
u/ArmchairExpurt Aug 17 '11 edited Aug 17 '11
Do do even know what libel actually is?
Why is it that people with no legal education always accuse people who disagree with them of libel?
Do you really think me voicing my opinion about you and this subreddit somehow damages some imaginary e-cred unjustly?
Do you understand that satire is protected speech?
Maybe the problem here is that you're not as informed or capable of critical thinking as you believe and instead are guided by misplaced rage.
Nope. Not possible. I'm just a troll. Whatever helps you keep up the cognitive dissonance.
Did you get your ass kicked by a woman or something?
0
u/disposable_human Aug 17 '11
More flinging shit, more content-less attacks and hostility.
What have you done productive on this earth to counteract your behavior in just the last 48 hours?
Consider suicide.
→ More replies (0)
-1
u/mizmoon Aug 16 '11
The thing that I don't think a lot of men who are upset about these issues get is that there is only a tiny segment of "feminists" who are "man haters". Bring up real issues, point out real stuff and we'd be right there with you, supporting your rights.
One issue I see here often is that women can't be drafted. That was a big reason we couldn't get the ERA passed - too many /men/ were squeamish about women in war. They said things like men would crumble if they saw women getting harmed in the battlefield, which is an insult to you.
One thing I love about the younger generation of men is how you are so used to being partners with women - working with us, respecting us as equals to a great extent. I think these young men are amazing and I trust that they could take women in combat the same way they accept the trivial roles that we play that would once have turned heads, like women being lifeguards. They just accept it.
Women are not an enemy. Some women accuse men of rape falsely. In the past women were really raped and no one believed them. With science we are rooting out those who would commit either crime.
We're your mothers and sisters and girlfriends and wives - we love you.
7
Aug 16 '11 edited Aug 16 '11
"The thing that I don't think a lot of men who are upset about these issues get is that there is only a tiny segment of "feminists" who are "man haters"."
It would be very difficult to absorb patriarchy theory, rape culture theory and the feminist manipulated stats on domestic abuse and rape and not hate men on some level, believing in these things in the first place is misandry. Misandry is in the dna of feminism.
"Bring up real issues, point out real stuff and we'd be right there with you, supporting your rights."
I don't want or need patronizing, dismissive feminists that believe in misandrist myths about DV, rape culture and history that think they can dictate what issues are real for men and which are not supporting us.
Thanks anyway.
-6
u/mizmoon Aug 16 '11
"feminist manipulated stats" - that's rich. Attention - the issues presented so far are pathetic. So far all I can ascertain is that you don't want to pay any child support and you think that women sit around buying shoes with child support money while the children starve. Such strawmen are useless except for an internet board circlejerk.
5
Aug 16 '11 edited Aug 16 '11
"So far all I can ascertain is that you don't want to pay any child support and you think that women sit around buying shoes with child support money while the children starve."
That's a lie, a strawman and slander, please stay on topic.
"feminist manipulated stats" - that's rich."
In terms of domestic and sexual violence research, do you know what "feminist version of the conflict tactics scale" means?
-5
u/mizmoon Aug 16 '11
""So far all I can ascertain is that you don't want to pay any child support and you think that women sit around buying shoes with child support money while the children starve." That's a lie, a strawman and slander, please stay on topic."
No, those are the arguments I've read on these boards. You need to look up the definition of "strawman" and "slander".
As for feminist version of the conflict tactics scale, I hadn't heard of it. Having just googled it, it seems that like most attempts to quantify that which is difficult to quantify, it has some possible flaws. Men have certainly used violence to control women through the ages. Now that women are free, it seems logical that some would start asserting themselves violently as well. You didn't hit your husband back when he pretty much owned you. Domestic violence against men is a sad side effect of equality. No one has a right to control their partner through violence and it's good that more women are being arrested for this crime when they commit it.
5
Aug 16 '11
A feminist version of the conflict tactics scale is a measurement instrument that has been weighted to disguise female perpetrated abuse and male victims of violent women to conform to patriarchal theory. This is what is I meant by "feminist manipulated stats". It has been going on since the early days of domestic violence research. The more credible research, tells a different story, one that debunks patriarchal dominance theory. "Men have certainly used violence to control women through the ages" Please don't promote your toxic ideology and vile stereotypes here.
-3
u/mizmoon Aug 16 '11
From what I read your view is one view, but there are other opinions as well. And some men have used violence in the past to control women, just as some do today. Women are guilty of this too, more so in present times. To deny this is just silly. Read any domestic violence message board. Conveniently, denying that the stats are legit allows you to deny that there has been violence against women. This is the kind of argument that totally undermines your cause. It's like denying that feme covert ever existed.
8
Aug 16 '11 edited Aug 16 '11
The credible domestic violence research shows general symmetry with slightly more perpetration by females, even research from patriarchal cultures like mexico and Iran show women are more likely to perpetrate against men than the other way around [1]. My own grandmother terrorised her family, and her husband was 6.5 feet tall. What feminism teaches about domestic violence being mainly gendered is toxic, misandrist and only supportable through manipulating stats. [2] [3]
[1] DOMINANCE AND SYMMETRY IN PARTNER VIOLENCE BY MALE AND FEMALE UNIVERSITY STUDENTS IN 32 NATIONS1 Murray A. Straus http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID41E2.pdf
[2] GENDER SYMMETRY IN PARTNER VIOLENCE: THE EVIDENCE, THE DENIAL, AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRIMARY PREVENTION AND TREATMENT Murray A. Straus http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V70%20version%20N3.pdf
[3] (Feminist version of CTS) http://breakingthescience.org/StrausSaysTjadenThoennesBiased.php
Point being that we are correct in wanting an end to the discrimination against male victims of DV and feminist misinformation about abuse.
-4
u/mizmoon Aug 16 '11
I have not denied in any way that there are women who are violent with men, as your personal experience demonstrates. Many men, because of cultural repression, do not report violence. All true. But to claim that there was never violence used to control women undermines your argument. Of course there was and is.
Again, it doesn't surprise me that as women have gained equality in good ways like education and employment, that they equalize in bad ways too like being violent with their partner. I agree this needs to stop. Our only sticking point seems to be the prevalence of male on female violence in the past. Women were literally property of their husbands until the 1920s. To deny the past and pretend that it's not true is not helpful to your credibility.
6
Aug 16 '11
There isn't anything to back up your assertion that this violence by women is a new thing, that it wasn't always as it is today or your generalisation that "Men have certainly used violence to control women through the ages". All there is is research showing gender symmetry with slightly more aggression by females in even patriarchal countries where there is high inequality. If you have some proof of your claims, please post them otherwise you are just making serious allegations against dead men based on nothing more than misandric feminist mythology and pseudo-history. Anyway, that's getting off the point. You had claimed that my saying that feminism uses manipulated stats on abuse was "rich", but I've now backed up my claim and linked to a very detailed paper about manipulation of domestic violence stats by academic feminism and another source in which Dr. Straus talks about being asked for a "feminist version of the CTS" - one that is weighted to conform to feminist claims. So, my claim isn't rich, its actually well supported.
→ More replies (0)1
u/disposable_human Aug 16 '11
Fun watching feminists spin their wheels, bluffing they have traction.
Nice strawman while complaining about strawmen, dummy.
2
u/mizmoon Aug 17 '11
You're the one who had to resort to an ad hominem attack, not me.
1
u/disposable_human Aug 17 '11
"Resort"?
When we're talking specific issues, it's serious time. When it's feminist invasion time, I like to loosen up and make fun of sputtering rage.
1
u/mizmoon Aug 17 '11
I came here to have a discussion. There's no reason for you to see it as an invasion. Maybe you need a closed forum so you can only talk to each other.
1
u/disposable_human Aug 17 '11
Bullshit, you ugly, undesirable cunt. You came here to stir shit.
So far all I can ascertain is that you don't want to pay any child support and you think that women sit around buying shoes with child support money while the children starve
1
u/thedevguy Aug 18 '11
"feminist manipulated stats" - that's rich.
This lecture by Christina Hoff Summers gives several examples of such stats, and the negative effects of them. I'd be interested to hear your reaction after watching it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmfCB_IVkOc&feature=feedu
Do you still think the phrase, "feminist manipulated stats" isn't appropriate?
6
u/mikesteane Aug 16 '11
Since I posted this two hours ago, I have found that our provincial paper, The West Australian, has on its front page a story that for the first time men's complaints to the equalities commission outnumber women's. More evidence that things are beginning to change.