Feminism (DH version)

[BFDD]

Why should we let the proving grounds have such an exciting topic all to themselves.

Women and men have become equals under the law in the U.S. However, in society women still appear to be oppressed. A lot of this oppression does not actually exist. Most is just a result of men and women being different, some of it is just made up by feminists. In reality society "oppresses" men just as much as women are "oppressed"

Domestic Abuse

Commonly quoted statistics show that men beat their wives more often than they get beat. These statistics are not actually accurate. Link Men are a lot less likely to report being attacked than women. Our society looks down on men that get abused by women. My claim in another thread that women are more often doing the abusing was met with this perfect example of how society views this subject:

LOL, what? Explain this ^.

Didn't you know? Woman don't get abused.

Well according to him, they're the ones doing the abusing. Which is laughable.

I'm sorry, but if you're a guy getting knocked around by your wife, that's just sad.

That fact is men are looked down upon for getting beaten up by a woman and are looked down upon for beating up a woman. Even though the majority of men are physically stronger than the majority of women, men simply are not allowed to fight back.

After saying all that this really is not a good example of women being oppressed even if they were abused more often. Feminists make the claim that this is, along with sexual assault, is a power issue. This is in no way a power issue. Men do not hit women to feel more powerful. Society views abusive men as weak and cowardly. No one says "hey that guy hits his wife he is so tough", hitting a woman actually makes a man less manly. Abuse happens most often because of frustration in an argument. How many here have wanted to slap a creationists with their own bible? You don't want to feel stronger than them you just want them to listen to reason for once. It is frustration that causes this violence not power.

Jobs

There are also a lot of statistics claiming that men get paid more money than women for the same job. If this was really true why hire men at all? There are reasons other than gender why men get paid more. Men are traditionally seen as the bread winner. Many in society feel it is unmanly if your wife makes more money than you do. Because of this men look at high pay as more important than women. Women look more towards balance in there life. 9 out of the 10 worst jobs are dominated by men simply because men look high paying jobs and look less at comfort. Men will more often take long hours and dangerous jobs.

I will be back to update more later when I find some extra time. There is a lot to write about this subject.

 

[blazedaces]

Why should we let the proving grounds have such an exciting topic all to themselves.

Women and men have become equals under the law in the U.S. However, in society women still appear to be oppressed. A lot of this oppression does not actually exist. Most is just a result of men and women being different, some of it is just made up by feminists. In reality society "oppresses" men just as much as women are "oppressed"

Domestic Abuse

Commonly quoted statistics show that men beat their wives more often than they get beat. These statistics are not actually accurate. Link Men are a lot less likely to report being attacked than women. Our society looks down on men that get abused by women. My claim in another thread that women are more often doing the abusing was met with this perfect example of how society views this subject:






That fact is men are looked down upon for getting beaten up by a woman and are looked down upon for beating up a woman. Even though the majority of men are physically stronger than the majority of women, men simply are not allowed to fight back.

First of all, your source, which I hadn't noticed till quoting you (you should make it more visible, perhaps by capitalizing the full word) makes an incredibly faulty assumption: that ALL woman report domestic abuse.

Further more the source looks very fishy. 2 of the sources it referenced are marked "ibid"... as if that's an excuse to not give one, the first source links to a site that shows nothing, and the third is a book, not a published paper, just a book. There's no excuse for this nonsense. It doesn't matter if it links to a bibliography it "claims" to be using. When it's referencing [1], [2], etc. it's referring only to the "notes" which should be a works cited. Also, did you read it? Percentages like 25%? Sounds very made up to me. It's a good think they have numbers we can look at to verify that. Oops, no they don't, but rather a list of over 100 papers some other source used that no one would bother to go through. I'm not going to go on. This source is awful.

Luckily though, very up-to-date statistics contradict its statements (I took the liberty of highlighting certain parts):

*

Nearly 2 in 3 female victims of violence were related to or knew their attacker. (p. iii)
*

Over two-thirds of violent victimizations against women were committed by someone known to them: 31% of female victims reported that the offender was a stranger. Approximately 28% were intimates such as husbands or boyfriends, 35% were acquaintances, and the remaining 5% were other relatives. ([highlight]In contrast, victimizations by intimates and other relatives accounted for only 5% of all violent victimizations against men. Men were significantly more likely to have been victimized by acquaintances (50%) or strangers (44%) than by intimates or other relatives.[/highlight]) (p. 1)
*

[highlight]Almost 6 times as many women victimized by intimates (18%) as those victimized by strangers (3%) did not report their violent victimization to police because they feared reprisal from the offender.[/highlight] (p. 1)
*

[highlight]Annually, compared to males, females experienced over 10 times as many incidents of violence by an intimate. On average each year, women experienced 572,032 violent victimizations at the hands of an intimate, compared to 48,983 incidents committed against men.[/highlight] (p. 6)

#

While women are less likely than men to be victims of violent crimes overall, [highlight]women are 5 to 8 times more likely than men to be victimized by an intimate partner.[/highlight]
#

[highlight]Violence by an intimate partner accounts for about 21% of violent crime experienced by women and about 2 % of the violence experienced by men.[/highlight]
#

31,260 women were murdered by an intimate from 1976-1996.
#

Females accounted for 39% of the hospital emergency department visits for violence-related injuries in 1994 but 84% of the persons treated for injuries inflicted by intimates.

About 75% of the calls to law enforcement for intervention and assistance in domestic violence occur after separation from batterers. One study revealed that half of the homicides of female spouses and partners were committed by men after separation from batterers (Barbara Hart, Remarks to the Task Force on Child Abuse and Neglect, April 1992)

[highlight]In 92% of all domestic violence incidents, crimes are committed by men against women. Source: "Violence Against Women", Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, January, 1994.[/highlight]

-SOURCE

You're welcome to read the rest of the list on the website. I want you to look at the second to last line in the quote above again. Notice the subject of discussion? MURDER. That's right. Do you think there's some hidden bias somewhere discovering more dead woman than men out there? Or somehow dead men aren't "reporting" their murder by woman? Or are you going to argue that woman are better at murdering men, so that's why they don't get caught as often?

After saying all that this really is not a good example of women being oppressed even if they were abused more often. Feminists make the claim that this is, along with sexual assault, is a power issue. This is in no way a power issue. Men do not hit women to feel more powerful. Society views abusive men as weak and cowardly. No one says "hey that guy hits his wife he is so tough", hitting a woman actually makes a man less manly. Abuse happens most often because of frustration in an argument. How many here have wanted to slap a creationists with their own bible? You don't want to feel stronger than them you just want them to listen to reason for once. It is frustration that causes this violence not power.

Absolutely no legitimate source in the entire world would suggest this. I am willing to bet nearly any sum of money you want that you can't EVER in all of history find a legitimate source claiming this.

Luckily, yet again, there are legitimate sources claiming otherwise:

In a study to be published in February 1998, Dr. Barnett examined the motivations of 30 batterers. The batterers say the lash out physically because:

# They are letting out their violent feelings. Anger and its attendant violence are pent up and demand a release.

# They "want to get her attention." The victim was hysterical or refused to listen, so the man struck her.

# They want to show her who is the boss, gaining or maintaining control of the situation or her behavior.

# They want to teach her a lesson or get revenge for some wrong, whether real or perceived.

Batterers say that smacking or beating a spouse or girlfriend frightens the victim and allows the batterer to get his own way. Eidt says his interviews with violent men revealed that anger, stress, jealousy, possessiveness and men's competitive nature resulted in partners being punished with a beating.

"These men tend to be desperate about keeping their wives and beat them to prevent them from leaving," Dr. Barnett said. "They are miserable, suffering low self esteem, and are vulnerable to stress and hostile. They use battering to control their partners, and it seems to work, so they continue."

-SOURCE, Also note I only really care about the results of the study...

There's nothing in there about getting frustrated over a single argument. Arguments happen. Violence might occur once because of a stupid argument, I'll admit, but repeated, continual cases wouldn't occur unless something else was going on.

Jobs

There are also a lot of statistics claiming that men get paid more money than women for the same job. If this was really true why hire men at all? There are reasons other than gender why men get paid more. Men are traditionally seen as the bread winner. Many in society feel it is unmanly if your wife makes more money than you do. Because of this men look at high pay as more important than women. Women look more towards balance in there life. 9 out of the 10 worst jobs are dominated by men simply because men look high paying jobs and look less at comfort. Men will more often take long hours and dangerous jobs.

Do you have any evidence to support that number, or those conjectures? No. I'm sorry man, but you need to provide a source if you're going to make these kinds of statements. I honestly can't think of a source to contradict it because of how convoluted it sounds.

Both men and women want as much money as they can get at their jobs. No excuse you give will show otherwise. Everyone wants and needs money... and everyone would rather get a higher paying job than a lower paying job. This is the default assumption. If you want to state otherwise you're going to have to show some proof. I doubt you'll be able to find anything on the subject. And what "dangerous jobs" are we talking about exactly that are similarly, very high paying? Construction worker? Mechanic? Electrician? Farmer? Pilot? No man, I'm sorry, but the money is to be made in lawyers, doctors, engineers, businesses, etc.

The exact same incentives you claim would entice men towards more money (the traditional nonsense) is more likely to be a reason for why men don't hire women as often in those high paying positions.

And just so you know mate, the reason I believe no one put this topic in the debate hall earlier, is because it's NOT a debate. There exists no debate. People who believe feminism is misguided are ignorant of the facts and can't seem to put into perspective that the civil rights movement only occurred within the last century.

-blazed

 

[Proverbs]

^Wow, that was intense o_o;; Good stuff, blazed.

But I do think there is some debate to be had with feminism. I don't think it lies in who's getting beaten--I think that's sort of irrelevant in regards to whether or not females have equal rights. That's a personal issue and not really a societal issue (Well, it's a societal issue as far as society affects the personal interactions between men and women).

What I do think can be debated is whether or not feminism is going too far or is misguided. You said that someone who thinks feminism is misguided is ignorant, but I'd disagree. I don't mean misguided as in "Women don't need equal rights" but as in, at this point, many feminists are missing the big picture.

The common idea is not "Men and women are equal" but "Women can be everything men can be." The second statement is flawed from the core. Men and women are built incredibly differently, and I think this statement ignores that fact. Men are, without doubt, naturally more suited to things like leadership than women.

If you don't believe me, consider this: What major inventions have been made by a woman? What great novels or works of philosophy, psychology, or theology have been pioneered by women? Even in the fields such as cooking and interior decorating (something women are typically attributed to having natural skill for), which gender is still leading? Even in realms of fashion, men are taking the lead. You might say this is because women have been oppressed, but the thing is that the relationship between the sexes is naturally like this. Why else would practically every culture in existence hold this view--and no culture has yet seriously opposed it? Sure there are the few cultures that worship goddesses and extol women, but men still take the lead in creating and doing things. Even before groups of people started the exchange of ideas, this seemed to be the general trend. And no, I don't have a source for this one, but even a cursory study of world history would make you agree.

I hate to sound like an unapologetic sexist, but I'm just looking at the facts. I was discussing this issue with a friend of mine (a female, mind you) and she admitted that men were superior to women (this I'd disagree with, but read on). While studying sociology, she has learned that men are geared more toward culture and women are more geared toward nature. This is why men have lead countries and made inventions, and women are the ones giving birth and taking care of children. Now, before I continue, let me stop some responses from coming out: There are anomalies. I realize this. But I'm talking about the very large picture.

From here it is left to be considered: If men are the pioneers in most things cultural, does that mean that they are superior to women? (Here's where I start looking less like a sexist) My response is absolutely not. I regard the sexes as two halves of a whole. Sure men are the leaders who, seemingly, accomplish all of the 'important' things, but think about it: Could men survive without women? Even from the most basic level they could not. If there were only men, the human race would die out. But likewise, I'd say that women are what keep men going, in a sense. Men are the very aggressive and conquest-focused gender, and for that reason they need a counterpart who is more gentle and focused on the basic necessities of life. Personally, I'd even see women as much better off than men. They are more in touch with their feelings and even spiritually tend to be more apt to seek God. In my time evangelizing my campus, I've noticed that women respond a lot more easily than men (That might not be seen as a good thing to others, but to me it is). The way I see it is this: Why are we trying to eliminate these roles? By doing so, we fight against our very nature.

I think it's time we stopped trying to tear down the gender roles, but rather embrace them. These weren't just conjured by society, these are inborn, I'd argue. There's been too much fuss over whether or not women can do the same things as men--but I wouldn't want women to be doing the same things as men. If a woman takes the role of a leader, becoming aggressive and conquest-focused, they'd lose their gentleness and would lose their purpose. And likewise, I wouldn't want a man taking care of my child--he's just not suited for it. Think about it this way: If women and men's roles were interchangeable, why are there different sexes at all?

I think much of 'feminism' has degenerated into "I'm just as good as you are!" That's ridiculous. Who cares who's better or worse? The main focus is contributing something and accomplishing something in life--take your role, whatever it be, and be satisfied. I was born a man and I take the responsibilities and role of a man. I don't go around wishing I was a woman or trying to claim equality with them. We're simply different.

Now, I realize that there is much more to 'feminism' than this. I realize that there are unequal wages and other things to be settled. Equal wages is something that needs to be established, but I wouldn't criticize a company for hiring a man over a woman based solely on gender. Sometimes men are just better suited to certain jobs than women. It's the same thing with a man as a caretaker--a woman will probably get hired more easily because she's better suited to it. That's not sexism, that's good reasoning. Not all feminists are like this, but I feel that much of feminism has become not equality in wages, but equality in roles. This is what I speak out against.

And likewise, there is definitely a double-standard with men, I feel. We're supposed to treat women as 'equal' to us, yet at the same time are expected to be chivalrous. As I mentioned in a different debate thread, when my family was on vacation at our cabin in Maine, they resented gender roles when we asked them to do dishes and clean the house, but all of a sudden they loved gender roles when our motor gave out and we asked them to help paddle our boat back to the other side of the lake so we could get home.

Anyway, that's my two cents.

 

[Eor]

If you don't believe me, consider this: What major inventions have been made by a woman?

Circular saw, Electric hot water heater, elevator railway, fire escape, kevlar, life rafts, liquid paper, medical syringe, rotary engine, windshield wipers. There are more, but for many years women couldn't get patents.

What great novels

That's a rediculous thing to state. Too many. I'll just link to a small list of authors, but really a simple google search for visit to a book store would of answered that.

http://classiclit.about.com/od/womenwriters/Women_Writers.htm

or works of philosophy,

For the majority of human history women where not allowed to do this, or were not published or taken seriously, so a lot of the "golden era" of philosophy is men. But there are women. Arete of Cyrene, Aristoclea, Aspasia, Mary Astell, Ban Zhao, Christine de Pizan, Catherine Trotter Cockburn, Anne Conway, Ayn Rand, Marie de Gournay, Emma Goldman, Elisabeth of Bohemia, Hypatia of Alexandria, Teresa of Avilia. Thousands more

psychology, or theology have been pioneered by women?

I'm bored with googling then copying/pasting the basics of it, but really, just google "women phychology" or "women theologists" and read about the ones that did major work.

You might say this is because women have been oppressed, but the thing is that the relationship between the sexes is naturally like this. Why else would practically every culture in existence hold this view--and no culture has yet seriously opposed it? Sure there are the few cultures that worship goddesses and extol women, but men still take the lead in creating and doing things. Even before groups of people started the exchange of ideas, this seemed to be the general trend. And no, I don't have a source for this one, but even a cursory study of world history would make you agree.

Men are naturally stronger and more fit then women. As roaming bands, men would hunt, women would gather, not because women where better at gathering then men, but because men where better at hunting due to being more fit. Women also had children and gave birth. Biologically, yes, women are meant to rear children. What are men meant to do? Impregnate them. Women are way more important then men biologically.

I hate to sound like an unapologetic sexist, but I'm just looking at the facts.

You should of researched them then

I was discussing this issue with a friend of mine (a female, mind you) and she admitted that men were superior to women (this I'd disagree with, but read on).

I know a woman that doesn't think she should be able to vote. Means nothing.

While studying sociology, she has learned that men are geared more toward culture and women are more geared toward nature.

I'd like a source for that

The way I see it is this: Why are we trying to eliminate these roles? By doing so, we fight against our very nature.

Gender roles are not our nature. They're cultural implications we put on them. A couple thousand of years ago a woman couldn't fight off a tiger, but now that she has a gun she could. Just like how historically we had kings, and almost every society started out with monarchs. They got stuff done, historically that's how we originate, in tribes with chiefs (which also isn't true), so why not keep our nature by following a specific leader?

I think it's time we stopped trying to tear down the gender roles, but rather embrace them. These weren't just conjured by society, these are inborn, I'd argue.

The samoans didn't change social status based on sex. Native Americans allowed for people to "cross over" to the other sex, so a woman could hunt or a man could raise children. Margaret Mead, a famous anthropologist, did the following research, and I'm just going to copy/paste it

"One tribe, the Arapesh, socialized both their males and their females to exhibit qualities considered in our society to be "feminine": they were warm, cooperative, and nurturing, and according to their histories had always been so. The Mundugamor tribe, on the other hand, raised their children to be what we consider "masculine": competitive, aggressive, and oppositional. Once more, according to their stories, they had always been this way. The third tribe, the Tchambuli, displayed gender roles the reverse of those prevalent in our society. The women were dominant and controlling, the sexual aggressors, the principle workers, and in control. The men were emotionally dependent on the women, vain about their appearance, and reported by both themselves and the women to be irresponsible (A. S. Walters, personal communication, February 9, 1993)."

In the 70s, two researchers called Maccoby and Jacklin did a test on children under 2 years, the idea being that at that point cultural influences would be negligible. Again, copying/pasting.

In their review, Maccoby and Jacklin examined three specific traits: dependency, visual-spatial ability, and activity level. If traditional Western stereotypes are in fact biological, it would be expected that the female infants would exhibit more dependency, and the male infants would exhibit greater visual-spatial ability and a higher activity level.

Instead, they found that, in regard to dependency, twelve of twenty studies showed no sex differences, and the results of the other eight were inconsistent. They also examined nine studies of newborns which showed no sex differences with regard to visual-spatial ability, and thirty-three studies of infants, in most of which visual-spatial ability was not statistically different between genders; when it was, the advantage could fall to either sex almost equally. As to activity level and aggression, no sex differences were found for infants (cited in Renzetti & Curran, 1989). Tests of spatial ability using older children show no sex differences until adolescence, when males begin to pull ahead (Renzetti & Curran, 1989).

There's been too much fuss over whether or not women can do the same things as men--but I wouldn't want women to be doing the same things as men. If a woman takes the role of a leader, becoming aggressive and conquest-focused, they'd lose their gentleness and would lose their purpose. And likewise, I wouldn't want a man taking care of my child--he's just not suited for it. Think about it this way: If women and men's roles were interchangeable, why are there different sexes at all?

You're confusing sex organs with brains.

I think much of 'feminism' has degenerated into "I'm just as good as you are!" That's ridiculous. Who cares who's better or worse?

Apparently you

The main focus is contributing something and accomplishing something in life--take your role, whatever it be, and be satisfied.

That's absolutely revolting, and only reminds me of a caste system.

I was born a man and I take the responsibilities and role of a man. I don't go around wishing I was a woman or trying to claim equality with them. We're simply different.

I'm a man too. I plan to get a job, get a wife, and have a child. However, if my wife becomes pregnant, and we both have jobs at the time, I'd want one person to stay home. If my wife is making more money then me and enjoys her job, I'd have no problem being the person to raise the child. Why shouldn't I? It makes the most sense.

Now, I realize that there is much more to 'feminism' than this. I realize that there are unequal wages and other things to be settled. Equal wages is something that needs to be established, but I wouldn't criticize a company for hiring a man over a woman based solely on gender. Sometimes men are just better suited to certain jobs than women. It's the same thing with a man as a caretaker--a woman will probably get hired more easily because she's better suited to it. That's not sexism, that's good reasoning.

No, it's definitely sexism. It's like hiring a black guy to be a bouncer "because they're naturally violent".

And likewise, there is definitely a double-standard with men, I feel. We're supposed to treat women as 'equal' to us, yet at the same time are expected to be chivalrous. As I mentioned in a different debate thread, when my family was on vacation at our cabin in Maine, they resented gender roles when we asked them to do dishes and clean the house, but all of a sudden they loved gender roles when our motor gave out and we asked them to help paddle our boat back to the other side of the lake so we could get home.

I don't see gender roles at all in that, could you post the full story here?

Anyway, that's my two cents.

I think there's some parts of feminism that are silly. I heard that some women sued a fire department because they said the physical requirements to join where too strong for what a woman can do. That's ridiculous. Physical strength is needed to be a fireman, it's not like they added a strength test to be a stock broker.

What our gender roles were before I don't think matter, society is changing, therefore things should change with it. Democracy wouldn't of worked in the 12 hundreds, because most people never left their village and weren't informed of anything, with no way of getting info. But with newspapers and schools came the spread of information, which led to regular people wanting a greater say in what happens. Just because it wasn't good before has no inclination about it now.

 

[Crimson King]

*shakes head* No, no, no.

^Wow, that was intense o_o;; Good stuff, blazed.

But I do think there is some debate to be had with feminism. I don't think it lies in who's getting beaten--I think that's sort of irrelevant in regards to whether or not females have equal rights. That's a personal issue and not really a societal issue (Well, it's a societal issue as far as society affects the personal interactions between men and women).

What I do think can be debated is whether or not feminism is going too far or is misguided. You said that someone who thinks feminism is misguided is ignorant, but I'd disagree. I don't mean misguided as in "Women don't need equal rights" but as in, at this point, many feminists are missing the big picture.

Women are STILL subjugated. Women make less than men do, statistically, and women are regularly declined jobs that men may not even be qualified for because the job has requirements that women cannot fill. Most of the jobs that require you to guarantee you can work for a set amount of time, are in place to deter women who would want to get pregnant. Pregnant women = not productive women.

The common idea is not "Men and women are equal" but "Women can be everything men can be." The second statement is flawed from the core. Men and women are built incredibly differently, and I think this statement ignores that fact. Men are, without doubt, naturally more suited to things like leadership than women.

Here is where you become extremely ignorant. In fact, this is almost too dumb to reply to, but I'll try. Women are perfectly capable of leadership roles. There is nothing biologically within a woman that makes her incapable of it. In fact, women are natural leaders because they are the core of a household. In tribal countries, women are revered for their ability to produce children, and in many cultures, women are worshiped. There is NOTHING that makes women different from men in turns of what women can or can't do. To say so makes you a sexist and a *******.

If you don't believe me, consider this: What major inventions have been made by a woman? What great novels or works of philosophy, psychology, or theology have been pioneered by women? Even in the fields such as cooking and interior decorating (something women are typically attributed to having natural skill for), which gender is still leading? Even in realms of fashion, men are taking the lead. You might say this is because women have been oppressed, but the thing is that the relationship between the sexes is naturally like this. Why else would practically every culture in existence hold this view--and no culture has yet seriously opposed it? Sure there are the few cultures that worship goddesses and extol women, but men still take the lead in creating and doing things. Even before groups of people started the exchange of ideas, this seemed to be the general trend. And no, I don't have a source for this one, but even a cursory study of world history would make you agree.

Marie Curie, Virginia Woolfe, Jane Austin, Emily Dickenson, etc. etc. etc.

Women were not inventors of many things because men subjugated them. It is really hard to create something when you are forced to mother 5 children, take care of the farm, and have food ready, but these are what they were forced to do. Also, just because a man invented it, doesn't mean that eventually a woman wouldn't have. Thomas Edison is credited with inventing the lightbulb when he stole that invention. Eventually, someone would have created a lightbulb, and in the case of Edison, someone will take credit for it.

I hate to sound like an unapologetic sexist,

Too late.

but I'm just looking at the facts. I was discussing this issue with a friend of mine (a female, mind you) and she admitted that men were superior to women (this I'd disagree with, but read on). While studying sociology, she has learned that men are geared more toward culture and women are more geared toward nature. This is why men have lead countries and made inventions, and women are the ones giving birth and taking care of children. Now, before I continue, let me stop some responses from coming out: There are anomalies. I realize this. But I'm talking about the very large picture.

Your friend is a moron. There was a girl at school who said that women shouldn't be allowed to run for even senator or governor. Just because women say this, doesn't mean it's accurate or true. They are just proof that the system is so broken that it can make one turn on others like themselves.

Also, in addition to the women I listed you forgot Harriet Tubman, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Helen Keller, Maya Angelou, Nancy Reagan, Hillary Clinton, Oprah, and Silvia Plath.

 

[Proverbs]

Wow, I just got owned. Yeah, I retract what I said. I was wrong.

 

[Jam Stunna]

My problem with feminism is when instead of women striving to be treated fairly, they're striving to get a leg-up on men.

For example, I fully support this woman in her battle:
http://cms.firehouse.com/web/online...-Want-To-Fight-Fires--Not-Harassment/46$34793

Yet I'm also in full support of this ruling:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE1DF123EF93BA25751C0A961948260

Some people might see my position as contradictory, but I don't think so. The Canadian woman is trying to stop harrassment at her job. The New York case is asking for men to be skipped over simply because they're men. If it's wrong to do that to a woman, why is it okay to do it to a man?

 

[BFDD]

There's nothing in there about getting frustrated over a single argument. Arguments happen. Violence might occur once because of a stupid argument, I'll admit, but repeated, continual cases wouldn't occur unless something else was going on.

That was a bit of an over generalization on my part. Not all are stemming directly from an argument, but out of frustration and anger. As was cited in your source it comes from frustration and stress. Not because men want to keep women down as the feminists would want you to think.

First of all, your source, which I hadn't noticed till quoting you

My bad, I will edit that.

Notice the subject of discussion? MURDER. That's right. Do you think there's some hidden bias somewhere discovering more dead woman than men out there? Or somehow dead men aren't "reporting" their murder by woman? Or are you going to argue that woman are better at murdering men, so that's why they don't get caught as often?

Murder is different from hitting an intimate. The point I was raising was that feminists often quote statistics showing women getting beaten up at home and that men are always trying to oppress their wives. But in reality there are just as many men getting hit by their wives. The problem is that men report less. I have seen on many occasions a man get slapped for making a dirty joke or some sexist comment and its ok, but how often do you see a man slap a women for some joke. Men are a lot less likely to report, that is a fact. If a woman gets angry and hits her husband he is most likely just going to shrug it off. If a man hits his wife she is a lot more likely to report it. There is all kinds of feminist propaganda out there that depict men as barbaric violent demons. It makes it very difficult to actually determine any real statistics.

Feminism has become as corrupt as everything else in politics. Any man that does not support feminism hates women. Warren Farrell was very popular in the feminists movement and was elected to the N.O.W. council several times and appeared on all kinds of talk shows. He then began talking about the men's side of things and stopped appearing on t.v. His books talking about the man's side of things are considered controversial.

Do you have any evidence to support that number, or those conjectures? No. I'm sorry man, but you need to provide a source if you're going to make these kinds of statements. I honestly can't think of a source to contradict it because of how convoluted it sounds.

Read Warren Farrell's book Why Men Earn More. I don't do a very good job of explaining it, but men and women do have different priorities when looking for jobs. Money is always important but other things factor in for women that men don't pay as much attention to.

And what "dangerous jobs" are we talking about exactly that are similarly, very high paying? Construction worker? Mechanic? Electrician? Farmer? Pilot? No man, I'm sorry, but the money is to be made in lawyers, doctors, engineers, businesses, etc.

I also did not explain this very well. The most dangerous jobs don't require much higher education. So a man with no education background is going to pick the highest paying job he can find without worrying about danger or discomfort. A woman with no education is more likely to take a safer lower paying job.

People who believe feminism is misguided are ignorant of the facts and can't seem to put into perspective that the civil rights movement only occurred within the last century.

Feminism is misguided, whether or not women are be oppressed by society or not. Feminism is corrupt and many outspoken feminist leaders are not looking for equality they are looking to become more equal than men.

Ignorant of the facts? I really wish I could remember the name, but one of the leaders of the feminist movement was quoted saying she is willing to lie for her cause. In fact feminists have lied and exaggerated the facts on many occasions.

Unfortunately the sources of my information are excerpts from Warren Farrell's books which I cannot find listed on the internet. I will keep searching and see if I can find links.

This is in fact a debate. There are issues with both genders, but because men had oppressed women in the past (and still very obvious present for some countries) men have become the bad guys. The fact is there are differences between men and women physically and mentally so each gender is going to be treated differently in society. Some differences are bad, but some are just different.

 

[SuperBowser]

I think it would be false to wholly attirbute the fact women earn less than men to different priorities (+ other things listed in OP). Discrimination almost certainly plays a role.

You'd have to provide a source for that claim.

 

[blazedaces]

That was a bit of an over generalization on my part. Not all are stemming directly from an argument, but out of frustration and anger. As was cited in your source it comes from frustration and stress. Not because men want to keep women down as the feminists would want you to think.

There were 4 reasons given. You're ignoring evidence that goes against your theory and only looking at evidence that supports it. There's a word for that. Bias. Men admitted that one of the four reasons was "they want to show who's boss". That's as about power as you can get man.

Murder is different from hitting an intimate.

Yeah, it's murdering an intimate. Yeah, it's just a tad bit worse... You didn't answer my question though. What excuse can you give for an increased number of murders committed on woman by their spouses?

The point I was raising was that feminists often quote statistics showing women getting beaten up at home and that men are always trying to oppress their wives. But in reality there are just as many men getting hit by their wives.

This is a lie. I already proved otherwise with actual facts and discredited the source you provided.

The problem is that men report less. I have seen on many occasions a man get slapped for making a dirty joke or some sexist comment and its ok, but how often do you see a man slap a women for some joke.

A woman slapping a man over frustration one time is not domestic abuse.

Men are a lot less likely to report, that is a fact.

No it's not. You need to prove this to be true. You can't. I'll admit that some men don't report domestic abuse by their partners after you admit that many woman don't report domestic abuse from their partners. In fact, evidence actually shows this to be true to a MUCH higher degree, as explained by my sources above. You can't just claim things are fact without proving them to be true. It's another lie.

If a woman gets angry and hits her husband he is most likely just going to shrug it off.

How likely? Where is your evidence that shows that it's more often ignored than domestic abuse is ignored by woman? It happens to both parties, we know that. But evidence suggests it happens a lot more often to women, and that women a lot more often ignore it. If you're going to disagree with this stance you need to provide evidence that conclusively proves otherwise.

If a man hits his wife she is a lot more likely to report it.

Not according to the evidence.

There is all kinds of feminist propaganda out there that depict men as barbaric violent demons. It makes it very difficult to actually determine any real statistics.

Again with your narrow-minded viewpoint. There's plenty of sexist propaganda out there depicting woman as inferior to men, depicting them as being house wives only, depicting they shouldn't be in the workplace, etc. It's always hard to determine statistics. In the real world there are always biases and issues when it comes to any study. That's why some studies are better than others. Some are published in peer-reviewed journals. Some are repeated, over, and over, and over, and over again by other scientists to verify findings. They are done in different ways to avoid bias wherever possible. Difficult to determine statistics is not equivalent to impossible to determine statistics. And further more, there's only so much evidence you can explain away. You can't ignore all the evidence in the real world just because the real world isn't ideal...

Feminism has become as corrupt as everything else in politics. Any man that does not support feminism hates women.

A blatant exaggeration. Everything in the world can be seen as corrupt from some viewpoint. That doesn't mean the entire cause is discredited.

Warren Farrell was very popular in the feminists movement and was elected to the N.O.W. council several times and appeared on all kinds of talk shows. He then began talking about the men's side of things and stopped appearing on t.v. His books talking about the man's side of things are considered controversial.

Maybe because they are controversial? Just because he used to support feminism he must be unbiased in his perspective now?

Read Warren Farrell's book Why Men Earn More. I don't do a very good job of explaining it, but men and women do have different priorities when looking for jobs. Money is always important but other things factor in for women that men don't pay as much attention to.

No, I'm not reading a biased book on the subject. Provide evidence instead of referring to a book none of the rest of us have access to. Further more it's a book... written by some guy ... Who cares? Is he published in a peer-reviewed journals? What are his findings based on? Has it been scrutinized by scientists and have others in the scientific community come to the same conclusions? No. Because anyone can write a book as long as someone will produce it. Hel, if he had enough money he could have published it himself. Books are not often taken as seriously in the scientific community for a reason.

I also did not explain this very well. The most dangerous jobs don't require much higher education. So a man with no education background is going to pick the highest paying job he can find without worrying about danger or discomfort. A woman with no education is more likely to take a safer lower paying job.

And what percentage of jobs does this account for exactly? How much does this affect the statistics? Notice there are no numbers here. There is no data. Only a vague "reason" that might as well be made up. The truth is that the discrepancies in pay would be more prominent in much higher paying jobs. Let's say 100 women work somewhere for minimum wage (let's assume it's 6 dollars an hour in state x) and 100 men can take a higher paying job that's more dangerous for 8 dollars an hour (an average). But then we look at 1 woman making 50 dollars an hour versus 1 man making 400 dollars an hour. You average them together and you get about 6 dollars an hour difference... you use 2 and you get 9, 3 and you get 12.

What am I saying here? This reason is not significant enough to explain the large difference. And further more, there just aren't that many jobs that fall into this category man. No matter how you spin it, you can't use this as enough of an excuse, and because you have no data to back your story, the entire statement is meaningless.

Feminism is misguided, whether or not women are be oppressed by society or not. Feminism is corrupt and many outspoken feminist leaders are not looking for equality they are looking to become more equal than men.

As I said earlier, just because some feminists are misguided doesn't discredit the whole cause.

Ignorant of the facts? I really wish I could remember the name, but one of the leaders of the feminist movement was quoted saying she is willing to lie for her cause. In fact feminists have lied and exaggerated the facts on many occasions.

Same statement.

Unfortunately the sources of my information are excerpts from Warren Farrell's books which I cannot find listed on the internet. I will keep searching and see if I can find links.

Well good luck. It doesn't help to state that you're arriving at your conclusions from a single source.

This is in fact a debate. There are issues with both genders, but because men had oppressed women in the past (and still very obvious present for some countries) men have become the bad guys. The fact is there are differences between men and women physically and mentally so each gender is going to be treated differently in society. Some differences are bad, but some are just different.

Did you read the statements made by some of the other posters above, specifically the following written by Eor:

The samoans didn't change social status based on sex. Native Americans allowed for people to "cross over" to the other sex, so a woman could hunt or a man could raise children. Margaret Mead, a famous anthropologist, did the following research, and I'm just going to copy/paste it

"One tribe, the Arapesh, socialized both their males and their females to exhibit qualities considered in our society to be "feminine": they were warm, cooperative, and nurturing, and according to their histories had always been so. The Mundugamor tribe, on the other hand, raised their children to be what we consider "masculine": competitive, aggressive, and oppositional. Once more, according to their stories, they had always been this way. The third tribe, the Tchambuli, displayed gender roles the reverse of those prevalent in our society. The women were dominant and controlling, the sexual aggressors, the principle workers, and in control. The men were emotionally dependent on the women, vain about their appearance, and reported by both themselves and the women to be irresponsible (A. S. Walters, personal communication, February 9, 1993)."

In the 70s, two researchers called Maccoby and Jacklin did a test on children under 2 years, the idea being that at that point cultural influences would be negligible. Again, copying/pasting.

In their review, Maccoby and Jacklin examined three specific traits: dependency, visual-spatial ability, and activity level. If traditional Western stereotypes are in fact biological, it would be expected that the female infants would exhibit more dependency, and the male infants would exhibit greater visual-spatial ability and a higher activity level.

Instead, they found that, in regard to dependency, twelve of twenty studies showed no sex differences, and the results of the other eight were inconsistent. They also examined nine studies of newborns which showed no sex differences with regard to visual-spatial ability, and thirty-three studies of infants, in most of which visual-spatial ability was not statistically different between genders; when it was, the advantage could fall to either sex almost equally. As to activity level and aggression, no sex differences were found for infants (cited in Renzetti & Curran, 1989). Tests of spatial ability using older children show no sex differences until adolescence, when males begin to pull ahead (Renzetti & Curran, 1989).

First of all Eor, a very interesting finding indeed.

But BFDD, this evidence shows that "gender roles" are simply social constructs (implicated by society, not due to nature as most would argue). Their physical differences do not excuse unfair treatement to one over the other.

-blazed

 

[BFDD]

No, I'm not reading a biased book on the subject. Provide evidence instead of referring to a book none of the rest of us have access to.

You are right sources found on the internet are much more reliable.

A woman slapping a man over frustration one time is not domestic abuse.

Any physical violence is domestic abuse. It does not matter the severity or frequency.

No it's not. You need to prove this to be true. You can't. I'll admit that some men don't report domestic abuse by their partners after you admit that many woman don't report domestic abuse from their partners.

Many women do not report, that is true, but society is a lot more accepting and sympathetic to a woman getting abused than a man. An abused man is a joke to many people. It is more difficult for a man to admit abuse than a woman because society looks down on a man that gets beat by a woman.

SOURCE

A blatant exaggeration. Everything in the world can be seen as corrupt from some viewpoint. That doesn't mean the entire cause is discredited.

No I am not claiming the entire cause is discredited I am saying there is so much crap out there it becomes difficult to find where there are actual issues and where there really isn't a problem.

SOURCE

There were 4 reasons given. You're ignoring evidence that goes against your theory and only looking at evidence that supports it. There's a word for that. Bias. Men admitted that one of the four reasons was "they want to show who's boss". That's as about power as you can get man.

But women attack for the very same reason. Men are not hitting women because they need to show that men are better than women and they should stay home and cook and clean. Everyone wants power man or woman, but that part feminists ignore.

SOURCE

Maybe because they are controversial? Just because he used to support feminism he must be unbiased in his perspective now?

No, he is very likely to have some bias like any other person. But he has seen how they operate he knows how it works and has since decided that the feminists were wrong on some things.

Bert: One response I’m getting to your book from a lot of women is that some inherently disbelieve a lot of the facts and statistics cited. They wonder if the statistics from only one side are being presented.

Warren: I was very careful in the book to double-check my data, the sources of it, and even where the sources got their sources from. I didn’t just cite a government study, but I looked at how the study was done, to make sure it was responsible. So the more a person questions the data, if they check the extensive footnotes, the more they will find themselves reassured as to the accuracy of the source.

SOURCE

There are still gender issues to work on, but modern feminism gets too caught up in bashing men to actually look at the real issues.

 

[blazedaces]

Any physical violence is domestic abuse. It does not matter the severity or frequency.

You're right about that by definition, but severity and frequency are certainly important factors to consider in any situation involving domestic violence.

Many women do not report, that is true, but society is a lot more accepting and sympathetic to a woman getting abused than a man. An abused man is a joke to many people. It is more difficult for a man to admit abuse than a woman because society looks down on a man that gets beat by a woman.

SOURCE

I never disagreed that this was true, but rather I disagreed that it was a valid enough factor to consider. The numbers I showed above imply many more women do not report than men. Unless you have evidence that contradicts this then your point is useless.

No I am not claiming the entire cause is discredited I am saying there is so much crap out there it becomes difficult to find where there are actual issues and where there really isn't a problem.

SOURCE

I already said this earlier, just because it's difficult doesn't mean it's impossible. Just because it's difficult doesn't mean that some studies aren't better than others. Why is that? Because some take steps to remove the bias created from the "issues". This is a problem in every situation in real life dude. It's how statistics/studies work.

And further more, your source is an interview... which I'm not going to bother reading. Why should I trust the word of these two people? Who are they? What makes that website valid? Seriously man, if you find this question hard to answer then it's pretty obvious...

But women attack for the very same reason. Men are not hitting women because they need to show that men are better than women and they should stay home and cook and clean. Everyone wants power man or woman, but that part feminists ignore.

SOURCE

Earlier you were arguing it wasn't about power. Now you're changing your mind? And so because some woman do it (fewer, remember, that's what the facts show) it's a-okay that men do it? Why do you think feminists are ignoring this fact? We're not talking about some feminists again mate, we're talking about the cause. The idea. Women are oppressed and don't have as equal opportunities in our society as men do. That doesn't mean ALL men live perfect lives, or that NO men are ever oppressed.

And again man, that source, come on. It's an article, with NO sources to back it up. It talks about surveys, frequencies, etc. but doesn't refer to or link to any! This is not acceptable man. If you posted that article and you had written it yourself I would point out every place you made a claim that wasn't backed up the same way I'm doing to you now. That article is not a valid source. It could be making it all up for all I know because it's not backing up anything it says...

No, he is very likely to have some bias like any other person. But he has seen how they operate he knows how it works and has since decided that the feminists were wrong on some things.

So... we both agree he's likely to have bias... and since you didn't disagree with my other point you must conclude as I did that his book is not a valid source.

SOURCE

Well, I guess if he says it, then it must be true. (I hope you caught the sarcasm there...)

The only way for us to agree the source is valid is to hold it to scrutiny. Peer-reviewed, published papers have to go through that process. He published a book because he could make more money and avoid the whole scientific scrutiny part. Dude, if what he says is that good, then you can just copy it, and show me the sources he used. If the sources he used are as good as he says they are I wouldn't be able to discredit them. I'm hoping very much this source above you found wasn't used by him... since it would highly discredit anything else he says...

There are still gender issues to work on, but modern feminism gets too caught up in bashing men to actually look at the real issues.

Feminism is about evening the opportunistic playing field for both men and women. Bashing men is being sexist. Are some feminists sexists? I'm sure. Should this discredit the whole cause? No. Have we been over this again and again? Yes. Why are we still discussing it?

-blazed

 

[BFDD]

Unless you have evidence that contradicts this then your point is useless.

Did you check the source I listed? It links to a study on domestic violence. Disabusing the Definition of Domestic Abuse; How Women Batter Men and the Role of the Feminist State

And further more, your source is an interview... which I'm not going to bother reading. Why should I trust the word of these two people? Who are they?

Its an interview with feminists that got attacked because their views differed. They point out a lot of the issues with modern feminism.

Sommers points out that several studies cited by feminists don't actual exist.

As examples, Sommers states that the often-cited March of Dimes study claiming that "domestic violence is the leading cause of birth defects" does not in fact exist; that the phrase "rule of thumb" does not come from a law about the diameter of a rod with which one can legally beat one's wife; and domestic violence does not rise during Super Bowl weekend.

Sommers
Paglia

Earlier you were arguing it wasn't about power. Now you're changing your mind? And so because some woman do it (fewer, remember, that's what the facts show) it's a-okay that men do it? Why do you think feminists are ignoring this fact?

It isn't the same power feminists are claiming. The reasons behind it are different from their claims. Feminists are ignoring the fact that men get beat too because they want woman to look like innocent victims. Feminists try to push this idea on women and teach them that they are all victims of male oppression.

We're not talking about some feminists again mate, we're talking about the cause. The idea.

Maybe thats the problem here. I am talking about the modern feminist movement. The leaders of the movement are corrupt and power hungry. They have out right said they are willing to lie for the cause and they have in the past as mentioned in some of the links I listed. There are issues between the genders, but it is on both sides and modern feminism refuses to acknowledge that.

Well, I guess if he says it, then it must be true.

My point was that he wasn't just making stuff up. He used statistics from well known credible studies for his books. Including the U.S. department of justice and department of labor statistics.

Should this discredit the whole cause? No. Have we been over this again and again? Yes. Why are we still discussing it?

I'm not discrediting the cause. I am saying the current leaders of the feminist movement have been taking it in the wrong direction. They completely ignore anything that doesn't agree, over exaggerate, and in some cases outright lie.

What about a father's rights to his children. Feminists claim women are being oppressed and men have all the power, but they ignore a very significant amount of power that women have in child custody cases. In the vast majority of cases women gain custody of the children. Many even deny visitation rights. But men still pay a significant amount in child support, despite having limited to no visitation rights.

SOURCE
SOURCE
SOURCE

What about men having all the political power? According to the US census bureau there are more female voters than male voters. Women have more voting power than men. The first time men were surpassed in voting was in 1984. Men are not keeping women out of power.

SOURCE

What about job related injuries? According to the US bureau of labor statistics men account for 64% of all work related injuries. In work related deaths women were only 8%.

SOURCE

What about women not being drafted in the military? The feminists don't seem to be too upset about that. If they want equality why don't they push for women to register for the draft? Unless I am just missing something. I did several searches for it and couldn't find any information.

There is gender inequality in this country, but it is unequal for both genders.

 

[Lore]

Yes, the main problem with the whole 'Feminism' movement is the fact that they are not trying to get equal rights, but are trying to get equal rights WITH what they think they deserve as a female. One minute they may be campaigning for equal rights in the workplace, the next minute they may be yelling at someone because you called a girl fat. According to them, you don't call girls fat. BUT it is alright to do the same to males. Is this equal rights? No, this is just them trying to become superior.

Here's an old webcomic, but a decent representation of what I just said: http://easy-skankin.com/?c=c&id=16

 

[Aesir]

I'm sure Blazed could probably take on your entire post but your last half just sounded so asinine.

I'm not discrediting the cause. I am saying the current leaders of the feminist movement have been taking it in the wrong direction. They completely ignore anything that doesn't agree, over exaggerate, and in some cases outright lie.

As far as I can see you haven't offered anything to really support that at all. Feminists rage over things that are clearly gender discrimination. being hired for a job BECAUSE of your gender, that's why they rage.

What about a father's rights to his children. Feminists claim women are being oppressed and men have all the power, but they ignore a very significant amount of power that women have in child custody cases. In the vast majority of cases women gain custody of the children. Many even deny visitation rights. But men still pay a significant amount in child support, despite having limited to no visitation rights.

Okay you're sympathizing with the male way to much especially since you don't know the main reason why divorces happen.

Furthermore if a father has no custody rights he has no right to see the children.

SOURCE
SOURCE
SOURCE

My response above applies to these, since you don't know the nature of these divorces you can't accurately evaluate it. For all you know the father is scum who shouldn't be allowed to see his kids.

What about men having all the political power? According to the US census bureau there are more female voters than male voters. Women have more voting power than men. The first time men were surpassed in voting was in 1984. Men are not keeping women out of power.

SOURCE

Most asinine thing I've seen you post, when one talks about political power they're not talking about voters. We're talking about politics, all you need to do is look at MSNBC or CNN and look how they handled Clinton and Palin. Especially Chris Mathews , I must emphasize this man.

What about job related injuries? According to the US bureau of labor statistics men account for 64% of all work related injuries. In work related deaths women were only 8%.

SOURCE

Men generally have more dangerious jobs so it's not unlikely for a man to get injured more than a woman.

If there was an incentive for a woman to go into say construction it might even out, but there isn't so men generally will gt injured more often then not.

What about women not being drafted in the military? The feminists don't seem to be too upset about that. If they want equality why don't they push for women to register for the draft? Unless I am just missing something. I did several searches for it and couldn't find any information.

There is gender inequality in this country, but it is unequal for both genders.

in 1980 the NOW passed a resolution stating male only drafts were discriminatory.

Also Rostker v. Goldberg was a cased challenged by a man that men only drafting was unconstitutional. Whats interesting is if woman didn't want equal rights why did a womans group send monetary support to the plaintiff? Nice try though.


tl;dr: Cool Story Bro.

 

[BFDD]

y response above applies to these, since you don't know the nature of these divorces you can't accurately evaluate it. For all you know the father is scum who shouldn't be allowed to see his kids.

Yet you support statistics on abuse that can't prove any details on the circumstances. It could be that more abuse appears to be caused by men because they get blamed for it even if it was self defense. Or it could be under reporting by men because society deems that it is unacceptable for men to get beat by women. You can make all kinds of assumptions about all stats why are the stats I posted there any different from the ones that support your side?

Most asinine thing I've seen you post, when one talks about political power they're not talking about voters.

In the U.S. politicians are given office when they have a majority vote in an election. If women wanted more women in politics they could do it because they have the votes. Men aren't keeping women out of politics because of oppression.

Men generally have more dangerious jobs so it's not unlikely for a man to get injured more than a woman.

So you admit that men and women have different kinds of jobs. If we go back to my previous statements about jobs you can see that this is what I had been saying is the reason for the gender gap in pay. Dangerous jobs pay better than safe jobs, otherwise there would be no incentive to take construction over a call center job. HERE are the average hourly earnings for a construction worker and HERE
are the average hourly earnings for a call center job. There is a very significant difference in these types of jobs. Male dominated jobs tend to be higher paying than female dominated jobs. Is this because of different choices men and women make not pure discrimination.

I can not speak for all employers, I'm sure there is still some discrimination when it comes to jobs, but I don't think that it is nearly as wide spread as the statistics make it appear. A lot of it can be explained by the difference in job choice by men and women.

Also Rostker v. Goldberg was a cased challenged by a man that men only drafting was unconstitutional. Whats interesting is if woman didn't want equal rights why did a womans group send monetary support to the plaintiff? Nice try though.

They seemed to give up pretty easy considering that was 20 years ago. It was also initiated by a man rather than the feminists. Still it does prove that last comment of mine wrong.

When it comes to the military I support the women's side. A friend of mine was really disappointed when she was told by a military recruiter that she couldn't serve on the front lines. If a woman is capable of fighting she should be allowed to serve on the front lines.

However I do not support lowering the physical requirements for service in the military. There have been feminists that claimed that the physical requirements to join the military or firefighters was discriminatory because many women couldn't do it. It upset a lot of people including women who were able to pass the physical requirements. There are reasons for the tests. For instance, as a firefighter you should be strong enough to carry the weight of an average adult male(I say male because the average for male weight is higher than the average female weight). This is not discrimination against women it is necessary to save lives.

Yes, the main problem with the whole 'Feminism' movement is the fact that they are not trying to get equal rights, but are trying to get equal rights WITH what they think they deserve as a female.

This is what I have been trying to say. There is discrimination and we should try to stop it, but we should be fighting for equality between genders, most feminists get caught up in man hating and end up fighting to be more equal.

 

[Aesir]

Yet you support statistics on abuse that can't prove any details on the circumstances. It could be that more abuse appears to be caused by men because they get blamed for it even if it was self defense. Or it could be under reporting by men because society deems that it is unacceptable for men to get beat by women. You can make all kinds of assumptions about all stats why are the stats I posted there any different from the ones that support your side?

I never posted stats, I'm saying your stats don't give the detail your conclusions need it's not a double standard so don't paint it as one.

I don't buy the self defense argument a man is physically more capable then a woman, a grown man could easily restrain a woman until she calms down. Smacking her around til she has a black eye or broken limbs is not what I call "handling" the situation.

In the U.S. politicians are given office when they have a majority vote in an election. If women wanted more women in politics they could do it because they have the votes. Men aren't keeping women out of politics because of oppression.

I think you're choosing to just over look sexism in politics, that's okay though we all make mistakes.

There's very little oppression going on today unless it's disproportionate salaries, or being denied work. What you're over looking is sexism and I stand by the 2008 elections as proof of that.

So you admit that men and women have different kinds of jobs. If we go back to my previous statements about jobs you can see that this is what I had been saying is the reason for the gender gap in pay. Dangerous jobs pay better than safe jobs, otherwise there would be no incentive to take construction over a call center job. HERE are the average hourly earnings for a construction worker and HERE
are the average hourly earnings for a call center job. There is a very significant difference in these types of jobs. Male dominated jobs tend to be higher paying than female dominated jobs. Is this because of different choices men and women make not pure discrimination.

Are you trolling? you have to be.

When we talk about the differences in pay we're not taking a construction worker and secretary. We're taking a male and female in the same job and comparing their salaries.

They seemed to give up pretty easy considering that was 20 years ago. It was also initiated by a man rather than the feminists. Still it does prove that last comment of mine wrong.

This was during a time when the draft was initiated, guess what? we don't have drafts anymore.

It's counter productive to fight for a right that doesn't even exist.

However I do not support lowering the physical requirements for service in the military. There have been feminists that claimed that the physical requirements to join the military or firefighters was discriminatory because many women couldn't do it. It upset a lot of people including women who were able to pass the physical requirements. There are reasons for the tests. For instance, as a firefighter you should be strong enough to carry the weight of an average adult male(I say male because the average for male weight is higher than the average female weight). This is not discrimination against women it is necessary to save lives.

It just sounds like your grouping a small group of feminists with all of them which a bad position on your part.

I once asked my very liberal feminist buddy if she thought it was unfair she couldn't be a firefighter (she's like 110lbs and 5'4") she said no because it's not discrimination of sex, it's discrimination of ability. (something along those lines.

Just something to think about. (A lot of my friends are feminists =X )

 

[BFDD]

I don't buy the self defense argument a man is physically more capable then a woman, a grown man could easily restrain a woman until she calms down. Smacking her around til she has a black eye or broken limbs is not what I call "handling" the situation.

Do you have stats on domestic abuse that detail the injuries or are you just assuming that all of them are from being smacked around? Injuries are easily obtained during any struggle, even just trying to restrain someone they are likely to get hurt. How can you assume that the 70% of men that feel they don't get enough time are scum bags and don't deserve to see their children.

I think you're choosing to just over look sexism in politics, that's okay though we all make mistakes.

And you seem to be overlooking the fact that large numbers of women voted for the political leaders. Are other women being sexist against women? Maybe you could list some examples instead of just saying 2008 elections.

It just sounds like your grouping a small group of feminists with all of them which a bad position on your part.

Except that this small group of feminists are the most outspoken and have become the leaders of the movement. Which is exactly what my problem is with feminism.

 

[Aesir]

Do you have stats on domestic abuse that detail the injuries or are you just assuming that all of them are from being smacked around? Injuries are easily obtained during any struggle, even just trying to restrain someone they are likely to get hurt.

Women are significantly more likely than
men to be injured during an assault: 31.5
percent of female **** victims, compared
with 16.1 percent of male **** victims,
reported being injured during their most
recent ****; 39.0 percent of female physical
assault victims, compared with 24.8 percent
of male physical assault victims, reported
being injured during their most recent
physical assault.

source
I assume you know what happens during **** right? 31.5 % is a pretty hefty chunk.

How can you assume that the 70% of men that feel they don't get enough time are scum bags and don't deserve to see their children.

I didn't say they were, I said for all we know they are scum bags, considering how much divorces cost I'm willing to bet there was a good reason for them to divorce in the first place.

And you seem to be overlooking the fact that large numbers of women voted for the political leaders. Are other women being sexist against women? Maybe you could list some examples instead of just saying 2008 elections.

Jesus Christ you're dense.

The fact that some one could go to a Hillary Rally and with a sign that says "Iron My Shirt" and it's not a big deal because hey that's not sexist at all!

On the flip side if I went to a Obama rally back in 08 with a sign that said "Go back to the Cotton field." well I wouldn't be here debating with you.

Except that this small group of feminists are the most outspoken and have become the leaders of the movement. Which is exactly what my problem is with feminism.

You're going to have to back this up with evidence.

 

[BFDD]

I assume you know what happens during **** right? 31.5 % is a pretty hefty chunk.

**** and getting slapped around are two very different things. Not really sure how this applies. The original argument was you claiming that the self-defense argument was not legitimate because men can restrain women without hurting them. This doesn't support your argument that women are not reporting abuse when a man is just defending himself. Men are typically bigger than women so they are most likely going to do more damage even if the woman starts the fight.

An interesting statistic from your source though, more men were reported being abused as a kid. It is probably those women trying to oppress the men when they are young so they learn to fear them when they are older(sarcasm).

Here is a survey that found men and women are equally likely to initiate violence. Also note it also asks what to victim did after getting attacked . 8.5% of women called the police compared .9% of men. That means men are less likely to report.
SOURCE

THIS site that I listed earlier in the topic links to a study that mentions that men and women are equally likely to initiate violence and also explains the issues with other studies.

Jesus Christ you're dense.

The fact that some one could go to a Hillary Rally and with a sign that says "Iron My Shirt" and it's not a big deal because hey that's not sexist at all!

I'm dense because I don't accept a large event as an argument? A lot of things happened during the election. Like if I said I don't agree with feminism because of 1982. Not really a legitimate argument.

So, one person has an offensive sign and doesn't get called on it? You are absolutely right feminism is correct,men are all evil oppressive dogs. It just sounds like your grouping a small group of men with all of them which a bad position on your part.

 

[Aesir]

**** and getting slapped around are two very different things. Not really sure how this applies. The original argument was you claiming that the self-defense argument was not legitimate because men can restrain women without hurting them. This doesn't support your argument that women are not reporting abuse when a man is just defending himself. Men are typically bigger than women so they are most likely going to do more damage even if the woman starts the fight.

Bolded: Why don't you go ask a **** victim what happened during her ****, I'm sure you'll be surprised how much violence is involved. I really hope you're just playing devils advocate at this point, I'd hate to believe you're this dense.

Self defense isn't legitimate because a man can restrain a woman without smacking her around, smack her around = serious injury. If a woman is seriously injured from a domestic dispute I'm going to assume the guy went out of line.

Furthermore the man can simply walk away it's not hard I've done it more then a few times.

Here is a survey that found men and women are equally likely to initiate violence. Also note it also asks what to victim did after getting attacked . 8.5% of women called the police compared .9% of men. That means men are less likely to report.
SOURCE
THIS site that I listed earlier in the topic links to a study that mentions that men and women are equally likely to initiate violence and also explains the issues with other studies.

Both of these points, I'd like to know where I said gender bias was okay? The whole point is woman usually don't report when their spouses abuse them. Anyone who's had a friend or a family member in that situation will tell they usually hide from it. That's the problem, sure men run into that same problem but that's a machinists job to advocate those statistics.

I'm dense because I don't accept a large event as an argument? A lot of things happened during the election. Like if I said I don't agree with feminism because of 1982. Not really a legitimate argument.

Now you're being silly, must I list every single instance? you asked for evidence I gave it to you. The argument was sexism exists in politics, the rally was evidence to support it. You can shut your eyes to it, all you want but it doesn't change the fact that it exists.

So, one person has an offensive sign and doesn't get called on it? You are absolutely right feminism is correct,men are all evil oppressive dogs. It just sounds like your grouping a small group of men with all of them which a bad position on your part.

Many signs along with many people screaming "Go back to the kitchen." maybe you'll drop this point now?

I feel we're just arguing semantics at this point, woman are more likely to be abused by their spouse, dates, or close family members. While men are more prone to random acts (people who aren't close to them.) The biggest problem is while most men do get abused, woman are getting abused in situations they really shouldn't be getting abused in.

 

[BFDD]

Bolded: Why don't you go ask a **** victim what happened during her ****, I'm sure you'll be surprised how much violence is involved. I really hope you're just playing devils advocate at this point, I'd hate to believe you're this dense.

Again does not apply to the argument. No where did I claim women are not victims of ****. I will full admit women are more often the victims of **** than men. I am still talking about violence between partners and nothing more. You keep claiming I'm dense yet you bring up a point that doesn't have much meaning at all.

Self defense isn't legitimate because a man can restrain a woman without smacking her around, smack her around = serious injury. If a woman is seriously injured from a domestic dispute I'm going to assume the guy went out of line.

This is what I was arguing against in the first place then you give me **** statistics. If someone struggles while you are trying to restrain them it is very likely that they will get hurt. Do you have statistics that show all women who reported domestic abuse were seriously injured or slapped around? And don't give me more **** stats because that is an entirely different event from just violence. You are assuming that all women that report have serious injuries you need to have grounds for your assumptions.

Both of these points, I'd like to know where I said gender bias was okay? The whole point is woman usually don't report when their spouses abuse them. Anyone who's had a friend or a family member in that situation will tell they usually hide from it.

And men have trouble reporting too. You never said gender bias was ok but you were denying my claim that men get attacked by their partners just as often. There are two reports that say otherwise and the one explains some of the issues behind the reports. The people that took these data were verbally attacked by feminists, Abuse against husbands increased, and one woman received death threats against her and her family. This is the issue with feminists, they viciously attack any data that disagrees with them rather than trying to counter argue.

Now you're being silly, must I list every single instance? you asked for evidence I gave it to you. The argument was sexism exists in politics, the rally was evidence to support it. You can shut your eyes to it, all you want but it doesn't change the fact that it exists.

Sure it exists, but I'm not sure why you think people with sexist signs at rallies are going to affect how a woman votes. There is always going to be sexism because people are stupid. That sexism however does not affect a woman's ability to vote.

And yes you do need to be specific in your arguments. Like I said listing an event is not going to cut it. You do not need to list all the details but you need more than just the elections were sexist you need to explain why.

Many signs along with many people screaming "Go back to the kitchen." maybe you'll drop this point now?

Yeah that is sexism. But voting is done by secret ballot, so you can't even claim that these people threatened women to vote their way. In fact this protest may even hurt the protesters because it would rally more women behind the cause. You have yet to explain how this keeps women out of power.

I am in no way trying to claim sexism doesn't exist. That would just be stupid. I am claiming women have the power to put women into politics. And you are trying to claim this isn't true because there is still sexism.

I feel we're just arguing semantics at this point, woman are more likely to be abused by their spouse, dates, or close family members.

When compared to other acts of violence yes violence against women happen more often in the home. However, when compared to men are getting abused in the home just as often as women, according to my previous sources.

While men are more prone to random acts (people who aren't close to them.) The biggest problem is while most men do get abused, woman are getting abused in situations they really shouldn't be getting abused in.

No one should ever be abused. No place is a good place for someone to be violent and injure another person. How is that even an argument? Are you claiming getting randomly assaulted on the street is ok as long as you don't know the person? You seem to think that violence against men is not a problem.

If feminists wanted to push for an end to violence or even just an end to domestic abuse I would be all for it, but they only push for an end to wife abuse. They completely ignore the fact that men are getting attacked.

 

[Aesir]

Again does not apply to the argument. No where did I claim women are not victims of ****. I will full admit women are more often the victims of **** than men. I am still talking about violence between partners and nothing more. You keep claiming I'm dense yet you bring up a point that doesn't have much meaning at all.

Okay look at paragraph I quoted I mentioned **** but I also put in bold "injury" which does coincide with my argument, I figured you would have noticed this my fault for not being clear.

**** is very torturous largely because you're getting smacked around while it happens. It loosely applies to my point my fault for that I guess. However I did bold injuries and woman do get injured.

This is what I was arguing against in the first place then you give me **** statistics. If someone struggles while you are trying to restrain them it is very likely that they will get hurt. Do you have statistics that show all women who reported domestic abuse were seriously injured or slapped around? And don't give me more **** stats because that is an entirely different event from just violence. You are assuming that all women that report have serious injuries you need to have grounds for your assumptions.

I gave you a **** statistic because when you're ***** you're getting smacked around, I thought you would have made the correlation but oh well.

Again you can avoid beating someone up simply by just walking away or restraining them. Unless that woman is something crazy injuries would be insignificant. (this is from personal experience, I'm pretty sure statistics don't exist on it, but if you want them I'll look for it.)

However:

30.2% of woman needed medical care after a physical assault. (men were at a higher percent. 7 points higher I believe.)

While men are more likely to be abused woman are getting abused by people who shouldn't be abusing them that's the problem.

anyway source has some good stuff for you too.

And men have trouble reporting too. You never said gender bias was ok but you were denying my claim that men get attacked by their partners just as often. There are two reports that say otherwise and the one explains some of the issues behind the reports. The people that took these data were verbally attacked by feminists, Abuse against husbands increased, and one woman received death threats against her and her family. This is the issue with feminists, they viciously attack any data that disagrees with them rather than trying to counter argue.

Bolded: You need to quote/cite your reasoning for this.

Also I never denied men were abused.

Sure it exists, but I'm not sure why you think people with sexist signs at rallies are going to affect how a woman votes. There is always going to be sexism because people are stupid. That sexism however does not affect a woman's ability to vote.

for a subservient wife? sure it is. Or a woman who isn't very feminist to begin with. In the world of politics if you can slander your opponent successfully you win. Sexist slander has proven to be very effective.

And yes you do need to be specific in your arguments. Like I said listing an event is not going to cut it. You do not need to list all the details but you need more than just the elections were sexist you need to explain why.

Listing an event should cut it, it's evidence citing sexism, how about all the crap MSNBC throws at us?

Yeah that is sexism. But voting is done by secret ballot, so you can't even claim that these people threatened women to vote their way. In fact this protest may even hurt the protesters because it would rally more women behind the cause. You have yet to explain how this keeps women out of power.

I am in no way trying to claim sexism doesn't exist. That would just be stupid. I am claiming women have the power to put women into politics. And you are trying to claim this isn't true because there is still sexism.

Again woman have as much power as men I should have countered this point a while ago but oh well.

There's one major problem with your position; We don't vote through popular vote we vote through the electoral college,(popular vote is the only way your argument can work btw.) so unless a state has vastly more female voters then male voters it's irrelevant. Also quick note you fail to realize that the female caucus is split. They may all be females but they're certainly not all liberals or conservatives.

When compared to other acts of violence yes violence against women happen more often in the home. However, when compared to men are getting abused in the home just as often as women, according to my previous sources.

"4. Women are at greater risk of
partner violence than men. The
survey found that women were significantly
more likely than men to report
being ***** and physically assaulted
by a current or former intimate partner,
whether the timeframe considered was
the person’s lifetime or the 12 months
preceding the survey. Moreover, women
who were ***** or physically assaulted
by a current or former intimate partner
were significantly more likely to sustain
injuries than men who were *****
or physically assaulted by a current or
former intimate partner. Given these
findings, intimate partner violence
should be considered first and foremost
a crime against women."

"5. Violence against women is
predominantly partner violence.
Data from the survey confirm previous
reports that violence against women
is predominantly intimate partner
violence. Of the women who reported
being ***** and/or physically assaulted
since the age of 18, three-quarters (76
percent) were victimized by a current
or former husband, cohabiting partner,
date, or boyfriend. Given these findings,
violence-against-women intervention
strategies should focus on the risks
posed to women by current and former
husbands, cohabiting partners, dates,
and boyfriends."


Source page 12

No one should ever be abused. No place is a good place for someone to be violent and injure another person. How is that even an argument? Are you claiming getting randomly assaulted on the street is ok as long as you don't know the person? You seem to think that violence against men is not a problem.

No now you're putting words into my mouth.

If feminists wanted to push for an end to violence or even just an end to domestic abuse I would be all for it, but they only push for an end to wife abuse. They completely ignore the fact that men are getting attacked.

Again you're grouping all feminist with that small majority of psychos. But I'll humor this for a moment, domestic abuse will never end in fact violence it's self will never end. Feminists are woman thus they have a vested interest in stopping violence against their own sex. Really it's not that hard of a concept. People advocate for things they have an interest in.

I'm a huge advocate for health care reform why? I may believe that health care is a basic human right but I also like to know if I get sick I'm not going to have to chose to pay an obscene amount of money or die. I have a vested interest in healt care.

Ralph Nader attacked the auto industry because he had a vested interest in it, his friend died in an automobile accident made by GM.

Again people fight injustice because of vested interests no one is completely altruistic.

 

[BFDD]

Okay look at paragraph I quoted I mentioned **** but I also put in bold "injury" which does coincide with my argument, I figured you would have noticed this my fault for not being clear.

**** is very torturous largely because you're getting smacked around while it happens. It loosely applies to my point my fault for that I guess. However I did bold injuries and woman do get injured.

Ok women get hurt while being *****. I understand that. Still does not have anything to do with what we are talking about. **** has nothing to do with men getting blamed for self defense.

Again you can avoid beating someone up simply by just walking away or restraining them. Unless that woman is something crazy injuries would be insignificant. (this is from personal experience, I'm pretty sure statistics don't exist on it, but if you want them I'll look for it.)

If you remember this argument came up because you were discrediting my child custody stats because the men could be scum bags. So I suggested that men could be blamed for abuse even if they were just defending themselves. If you look at my previous sources that I listed women are a lot more likely to use a weapon than men. If a woman comes at a man with a knife he cannot just walk away. If he tries to restrain the woman injuries could occur. Statistics are gathered by phone survey so there is no way to determine the extent of the injuries or if the man just restrain the woman and she called it abuse.

My point in all of this is that all statistics make assumptions. You cannot discredit my child custody stats by simply saying the guy could be a scum bag. You have to have evidence to suggest that there is a reason to believe this is true. You are calling my statistics bad because you assume it was a bad survey, but claim your stats are good because my assumptions aren't as good as yours even though I have provided sources to prove your stats wrong. Do you see the issue with this?

While men are more likely to be abused woman are getting abused by people who shouldn't be abusing them that's the problem.

anyway source has some good stuff for you too.

So some people should be abusing people? I am of the opinion that no one should attack anyone ever. Maybe thats just me. Please note that your source does have a bias it is specifically researching violence against women. I already listed a source that explains the issues with that survey. Try reading it.

Bolded: You need to quote/cite your reasoning for this.

SOURCE Starting on page 11 of the PDF (page is numbered 801) it lists the attacks.

This one is discrimination that is directly cited as being from a feminist group:

In an attempt to prevent her from
receiving tenure, every female faculty member at the University of
Delaware was lobbied by individuals calling on behalf of the women’s
rights movement.48

This one does not specifically list feminist ties its not much of a leap to believe the the feminists were behind it:

Yet,
while Steinmetz’s work received some support, the public attack
against Steinmetz and her family evidenced the public’s overwhelming
rejection of her work.46 Verbal threats were launched against her
and her children—at home and in public. Threatening phone calls
were made to Steinmetz and the sponsors of her speaking engagements
in order to prevent Steinmetz from further publicizing her
work. On one occasion, a bomb threat was called into an ACLU meeting
at which Steinmetz was scheduled to speak.47

Again woman have as much power as men I should have countered this point a while ago but oh well.

Yes women do have as much power as men thats what I have been trying to say.

Also quick note you fail to realize that the female caucus is split. They may all be females but they're certainly not all liberals or conservatives.

I do notice. But that splitting is not a result of male oppression. That is a result of a difference in opinion. Are you getting the point? Men are not keeping women out of politics.

Listing an event should cut it, it's evidence citing sexism

And I explained what was wrong with that statement already. You are lumping all men together when it was just a small group.

how about all the crap MSNBC throws at us?

And what about all that crap that happened in 1982. Again I cannot argue against anything that is not specific.

"4. Women are at greater risk of
partner violence than men. The
survey found that women were significantly
more likely than men to report
being ***** and physically assaulted
by a current or former intimate partner,
whether the timeframe considered was
the person’s lifetime or the 12 months
preceding the survey. Moreover, women
who were ***** or physically assaulted
by a current or former intimate partner
were significantly more likely to sustain
injuries than men who were *****
or physically assaulted by a current or
former intimate partner. Given these
findings, intimate partner violence
should be considered first and foremost
a crime against women."

"5. Violence against women is
predominantly partner violence.
Data from the survey confirm previous
reports that violence against women
is predominantly intimate partner
violence. Of the women who reported
being ***** and/or physically assaulted
since the age of 18, three-quarters (76
percent) were victimized by a current
or former husband, cohabiting partner,
date, or boyfriend. Given these findings,
violence-against-women intervention
strategies should focus on the risks
posed to women by current and former
husbands, cohabiting partners, dates,
and boyfriends."


Source page 12

I already mentioned the issues with that source and have a source that says otherwise.

No now you're putting words into my mouth.

Not really I'm taking what you said and drawing conclusions. You said woman are getting abused in situations they really shouldn't be getting abused in.. If you specifically mention that there are places where people shouldn't be abused It is not a big leap to say you feel there are situations that people should be abused.

Again you're grouping all feminist with that small majority of psychos.

Now if I wanted to argue semantics I could take your choice of using a small majority as meaning that the psychos are the majority but not by very much. But I think I will take the high road and assume you meant that there are very few psychos.

Here are some sources that suggest that there are more than a few.

SOURCE-Admittedly this is fox news so it is probably a heavy bias.
SOURCE
SOURCE-Again not great but has a list of quotes from top feminists that show how messed up the movement is.
SOURCE- one feminist lied about statistics and caused all kinds of trouble when they tried to make laws based on a lie
SOURCE-Feminist terrorist group.

The more I think about it the more I see similarities between feminism and religion. Except in this case rather than a few groups of the religions being lead by the radicals. The main movement is being lead by the radicals because any non-radicals are silenced and blacklisted. Which is exactly my issue with feminism. I have no problems with equal rights for all, in fact I encourage it. However, when radicals are in charge of the movement it becomes about reversing the discrimination not removing it.

 

[Aesir]

If you remember this argument came up because you were discrediting my child custody stats because the men could be scum bags. So I suggested that men could be blamed for abuse even if they were just defending themselves. If you look at my previous sources that I listed women are a lot more likely to use a weapon than men. If a woman comes at a man with a knife he cannot just walk away. If he tries to restrain the woman injuries could occur. Statistics are gathered by phone survey so there is no way to determine the extent of the injuries or if the man just restrain the woman and she called it abuse.

My point in all of this is that all statistics make assumptions. You cannot discredit my child custody stats by simply saying the guy could be a scum bag. You have to have evidence to suggest that there is a reason to believe this is true. You are calling my statistics bad because you assume it was a bad survey, but claim your stats are good because my assumptions aren't as good as yours even though I have provided sources to prove your stats wrong. Do you see the issue with this?

That's cool, I didn't post statistics on that subject though.

So some people should be abusing people? I am of the opinion that no one should attack anyone ever. Maybe thats just me. Please note that your source does have a bias it is specifically researching violence against women. I already listed a source that explains the issues with that survey. Try reading it.

The bolded part is getting really old, please stop that. I didn't say it was okay it's a problem yes. However there's certainly a problem with a woman being abused by her spouse. This is a problem feminism tries to answer.

Also you do realize all statistics hold some level of biased right? yours are biased mine are biased that's what statistics are. Also my sources compared male figures to female figures, so I'm failing to see how my sources are legitimate and yours are not.

SOURCE Starting on page 11 of the PDF (page is numbered 801) it lists the attacks.

This one is discrimination that is directly cited as being from a feminist group:


This one does not specifically list feminist ties its not much of a leap to believe the the feminists were behind it:

No it's not a leap, but it's not a fault with feminism only fault with psychos within the organization. No ones perfect.

Yes women do have as much power as men thats what I have been trying to say.

If that's what you were trying to say then what was the point of bringing it up? Because earlier it sounded like you implied woman held more power.

And I explained what was wrong with that statement already. You are lumping all men together when it was just a small group.

Nothing wrong with that statement because I'm not claiming it's all men. I'm say sexism is a powerful persuasion tool.

I already mentioned the issues with that source and have a source that says otherwise.

Yeah you claimed it was biased like every other statistic ever posted.

Not really I'm taking what you said and drawing conclusions. You said woman are getting abused in situations they really shouldn't be getting abused in.. If you specifically mention that there are places where people shouldn't be abused It is not a big leap to say you feel there are situations that people should be abused.

Well I never did mention they should be, though I guess I can see where you're coming from but to me it just seems like of a distraction and trying to paint me like someone who thinks abuse is cool.

Now if I wanted to argue semantics I could take your choice of using a small majority as meaning that the psychos are the majority but not by very much. But I think I will take the high road and assume you meant that there are very few psychos.

Here are some sources that suggest that there are more than a few.

SOURCE-Admittedly this is fox news so it is probably a heavy bias.
SOURCE
SOURCE-Again not great but has a list of quotes from top feminists that show how messed up the movement is.
SOURCE- one feminist lied about statistics and caused all kinds of trouble when they tried to make laws based on a lie
SOURCE-Feminist terrorist group.

The more I think about it the more I see similarities between feminism and religion. Except in this case rather than a few groups of the religions being lead by the radicals. The main movement is being lead by the radicals because any non-radicals are silenced and blacklisted. Which is exactly my issue with feminism. I have no problems with equal rights for all, in fact I encourage it. However, when radicals are in charge of the movement it becomes about reversing the discrimination not removing it.

Ahh the real reason I responded to this. (hence why all the points above are just well really bad.)

1st well it's fox news. moving on...

2nd You probably could have posted just this and made a stronger case actually.

3rd is a huge face palm, "All men are rapists and that's all they are" -- Marilyn French, Author, "The Women's Room" right here they're engaging in lies. That quote was taking from her book, the character named Val should be credited to saying that. The book is a work of fiction and not some political manifesto.

After reading a lot of these it seems most of them come from woman pre-dating women rights. Not only are most of these woman now dead but it was a time where woman were oppressed, oppression generally brings out the worst in people.

4th. You already refuted this, it's one feminist.

5th. This is like posting a link of Hamas and saying Islam is evil.

 

[BFDD]

However there's certainly a problem with a woman being abused by her spouse.

And a problem with a women abusing her spouse a problem that feminism tries to hide.

Because earlier it sounded like you implied woman held more power.

Women as a group have slightly more voting power. I never meant to imply they had more power than men. So if we agree that women have just as much power then there is no problem with women in politics even if there are a few morons that are still sexist.

Yeah you claimed it was biased like every other statistic ever posted.

My source specifically mentions the bias with the stats that say women are more abused than men and works to fix them.

Well I never did mention they should be, though I guess I can see where you're coming from but to me it just seems like of a distraction and trying to paint me like someone who thinks abuse is cool.

No, I was trying to make a point that people are all upset about women getting attacked at home but no one seems to care that men are also getting attacked. There is a lot of people who fight to end violence against women, but why not just stop domestic abuse? Even if women are getting abused more than men, is it that much more difficult to just say stop all domestic abuse?

4th. You already refuted this, it's one feminist.

Except that those lies from one feminist caused an uproar and a push for legal action.

2nd You probably could have posted just this and made a stronger case actually.

If you notice in that one it is the higher ups in the movement that are doing the censorship. It may just be a few radicals, but those radicals are at the top and driving the movement. Silencing and blacklisting their own members shows that they are just out for power not for equality. If feminism was really that important of a cause and the issues they raise were really that bad wouldn't it make more sense just to find evidence to show any of their opponents were wrong rather than attack them? Censorship is not used by someone who knows they are right it is used by someone who is afraid that they could be wrong.

 

[Aesir]

And a problem with a women abusing her spouse a problem that feminism tries to hide.

My source specifically mentions the bias with the stats that say women are more abused than men and works to fix them.

So because your source says all other sources are bias that's good enough for you?

No, I was trying to make a point that people are all upset about women getting attacked at home but no one seems to care that men are also getting attacked. There is a lot of people who fight to end violence against women, but why not just stop domestic abuse? Even if women are getting abused more than men, is it that much more difficult to just say stop all domestic abuse?

Really it's best to start out small, besides it's a lot easier to rally woman behind a feminist cause then it is to round men around a masculinist cause, largely because we've never really in a minority situation before. (unless you're of a male minority, ya dig me?)

Except that those lies from one feminist caused an uproar and a push for legal action.

What are you going to do? bad apples they exist, the point is she's part of the minority.

If you notice in that one it is the higher ups in the movement that are doing the censorship. It may just be a few radicals, but those radicals are at the top and driving the movement. Silencing and blacklisting their own members shows that they are just out for power not for equality. If feminism was really that important of a cause and the issues they raise were really that bad wouldn't it make more sense just to find evidence to show any of their opponents were wrong rather than attack them? Censorship is not used by someone who knows they are right it is used by someone who is afraid that they could be wrong.

I think you should get more evidence for this because it's the most compelling thing I've seen you list so far actually.

I'm not saying you're wrong because you may as well be right, even if you are I don't think that'll make feminism bad. Your average every day feminist isn't engaging in self-exaltation.

 

[BFDD]

So because your source says all other sources are bias that's good enough for you?

It explains the issues and it also cites a large number of other sources. In one of the notes it mentions that over 100 studies have consistently found men and women to have engaged in domestic violence at equal rates. 100 studies finding consistent data is good enough for me.

Really it's best to start out small, besides it's a lot easier to rally woman behind a feminist cause then it is to round men around a masculinist cause, largely because we've never really in a minority situation before. (unless you're of a male minority, ya dig me?)

If they limit the cause to just helping women then they will get fewer men. If they try to end all domestic violence women still have a reason to join and will increase the number of men willing to join. The issue with just protesting against women getting abused is that it spreads the belief that women are beat up more than men. Whether or not that is true it ends up affecting legislation on the subject to favor women and often can cause a bias for police responding to a domestic abuse call. There are also few shelters that will accept battered men, many women's shelters turn away men even if they are in need of help. It has become completely one sided despite evidence that domestic violence could occur at equal rates for men and women.

I'm not saying you're wrong because you may as well be right, even if you are I don't think that'll make feminism bad. Your average every day feminist isn't engaging in self-exaltation.

If the feminist leaders stopped the censorship and actually were looking for equality then I would have no problem with feminism. Unfortunately the cause has been hijacked and turned into a power struggle rather than an equal rights movement.

Feminism should be a good thing, but the movement has turned into a religion run by fanatics.

 

[Crimson King]

Yes, the main problem with the whole 'Feminism' movement is the fact that they are not trying to get equal rights, but are trying to get equal rights WITH what they think they deserve as a female. One minute they may be campaigning for equal rights in the workplace, the next minute they may be yelling at someone because you called a girl fat. According to them, you don't call girls fat. BUT it is alright to do the same to males. Is this equal rights? No, this is just them trying to become superior.

Here's an old webcomic, but a decent representation of what I just said: http://easy-skankin.com/?c=c&id=16

Everyone point and laugh at Werekill for being booted for stupidity.

 

[Aorist]

If the feminist leaders stopped the censorship and actually were looking for equality then I would have no problem with feminism. Unfortunately the cause has been hijacked and turned into a power struggle rather than an equal rights movement.

Feminism should be a good thing, but the movement has turned into a religion run by fanatics.

Yeah, you keep on harping on about the insane feminist leaders. I'd like to see some evidence of their insanity beyond hearsay and fairly poor sources of militant feminists, some evidence it affects a large portion of feminists, y'know, stuff that backs up your claims properly, yeah?

Women as a group have slightly more voting power. I never meant to imply they had more power than men. So if we agree that women have just as much power then there is no problem with women in politics even if there are a few morons that are still sexist.

Yeah, and pretty much all they have to choose from are rich, white men. Hardly political power worth talking about.

And a problem with a women abusing her spouse a problem that feminism tries to hide.

They don't hide it. They merely talk about it less because it is less of a problem, and not their primary concern. In a similar way, feminists don't hide global warming, or the eel population of Australia.

That's just some preliminary stuff, right now my brain is so dead I think it might actually have taken on new life as a zombie. I'll be around tomorrow, probably.