Thread: What is Misandry?

That was excellent Karl. I especially like the part where you call out to people to simply quit accepting misandry as the status quo.

Aye, cheers, bud - but this is just a testing thing at the moment... it's just a copy (in html, instead of bb codes) of this article; http://antimisandry.com/?q=node/4

Homer's got a Wii!! Damn, I still can't afford one.

'K, peeps, I've gotta take issue with some stuff.

1) Taking quotes from radical 60's/70's era feminists, and claiming it represents the whole movement, is silly.

2) Feminists HATE most pop-culture depictions of characters, male and female. The stupid, lazy boyfriend? Not cool. I certainly wouldn't date the 'stupid, lazy boyfriend'. The over-emotional girlfriend? Also not cool. Being depicted as a 'bad mother/person' if you place career over family (think Devil Wears Prada) to the point where that's a marker of being a bad mother? Not cool again. Feminists are anti-stereotype, of both men and women

3) Violence Against Women Act was in response to studies such as the one available here:
Notable quotes:
"From their data, we can say that in 1998, women experienced at least 900,000 violent offences at the hands of an intimate, and men were victims of at least 160,000 violent crimes by an intimate partner."

"Women make up 3/4 of the victims of homicide by an intimate partner. Actually, 33% of all women murdered (of course, only cases which are solved are included) are murdered by an intimate partner. Women make up about 85% of the victims of non-lethal domestic violence. In all, women are victims of intimate partner violence at a rate about 5 times that of males."

VAWA addresses a significant problem suffered by a specific group. Frankly, you'd be hard pressed to find a feminist who would oppose a 'Violence Against Men Act', though.

4) For serious? Your required registration question is 'Does feminism seem anti-male?' with an answer of 'No' meaning no registration? Wow, dudes. Talk about encouraging honest discussion.

5) To the extent that y'all are angry about gender bias that harms men, we're with you 100%. To the extent you're mad that male privilege is being eroded, we're not.

Did you follow a link from a recent editorial?

1) Taking quotes from radical 60's/70's era feminists, and claiming it represents the whole movement, is silly.

Strange that, but isn't Valerie Solanas and Andrea Dworkin (and a host of other rad-fems) 'required reading' in many womens studies (Political propaganda and deception masquerading as "scholarship") and social science courses?

These radical feminists aren't held up as an example of where feminism went horribly wrong in academia, but as role models to be glorified and revelled in. It's these very graduates who then go into prominent and influential positions in politics and the media, and take this poisoned mindset with them (Hillary Clinton and Harriet Harman as two examples).

So, I'd say these quotes are very relevant!

Furthermore, there's plenty of contemporary rabid man-hating quotes by prominent feminists that have continued from the 60's/70's era to the present day, unabated .

Originally Posted by jalmondale

3) Violence Against Women Act was in response to studies such as the one available here:

What study exactly? Provide links also.

Women make up about 85% of the victims of non-lethal domestic violence. In all, women are victims of intimate partner violence at a rate about 5 times that of males."

This is biased nonsense! All the empirical evidence shows otherwise.

One example being, Martin Fiebert's 249 scholarly investigations: 194 empirical studies and 55 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 241,700.
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

Frankly, you'd be hard pressed to find a feminist who would oppose a 'Violence Against Men Act', though.

5) To the extent that y'all are angry about gender bias that harms men, we're with you 100%. To the extent you're mad that male privilege is being eroded, we're not.

Obviously history wasn't your strongest subject, otherwise you'd realize, now as then, historically only a tiny elite had any real privilege (both men and women), the working class majority (both men and women) certainly had no privilege. And, within that working-class group it was women who enjoyed more privilege (read Belfort Bax writings from the early 1900's).

One thing is absolutely certain! It's women today who are the privileged. Excessively so! And, it's not at the expense of any mythical male privilege. No. It's at the expense of the basic rights of men!

Also, before rampaging around the forum blasting at everything in sight, why not spend some time reading some threads first, before calmly participating in the discussion? Oh, and citing credible and peer reviewed data would also help in proceedings.

1) Dworkin is considered influential in the development of feminism, she's not considered the pinnacle of what feminist writing is. And she's not the one quoted in the article. Further, never having taken a women's studies, course, I wouldn't know what's required reading. Imagine that, huh? Someone who believes and works for equal rights, and hasn't even been indoctrinated! However, I'm going to go with wikipedia as a pretty mainstream definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism.
First sentence: "Feminism is a political discourse aimed at equal rights and legal protection for women."

2) Glad we agree here =)

3) Sorry, forgot to copy the link:
http://www.findcounseling.com/journa...tatistics.html

This is for pretty strict definitions of violence and abuse, and is based of reported crimes. There's discussion of the problems of underreporting and the definitions used at the link.

"this is biased nonsense! All the empirical evidence shows otherwise."

False, as the above shows. The above study was conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics in 2000, and is based largely off of reports from the FBI. Doesn't get a lot more empirical than that.

Further, the studies you cite are nowhere near as precise. For instance, one studies the rate at which men vs. women commit violence (rather than who is targeted, which would be the point of a Violence *Against* Women Act). I'm not going through them all, but 12 of the first 17 studies were only studying *self-reported* rates of *initiating* aggressive behavior. It's also not clear that there was a standard definition of abusive behavior across or even with these studies.

For instance, another study you cite finds women are more aggressive by 2%, except that they "slap, kick, bite, punch and hit with an object", while the male partners "strangle, choke, or beat up". If you're looking for which cases get reported to the FBI, I'm betting on cases of strangling over ones of slapping. Another study shows women were more likely to be injured - in short, while self-reported rates of instigating violence were higher among women, they were also the ones more likely to wind up dead or injured.

Also, though you seem to find the idea amusing, I don't generally consider emoticons an argument for why women would be opposed to legislation to protect male battered partners.

5) Privilege, like many things, comes on a sliding scale. The most privileged have generally been the wealthy. That doesn't mean that within a socio-economic group, the relative privilege levels can't be analyzed (you obviously realize this, as you do it in the next sentence, after asserting that the poor had no privilege). Men have been more privileged than women across social groups by any reasonable measure of privilege (social status, economic opportunity, economic success, and educational opportunity, for instance)

Examples: History is littered with examples of societies where women were property, and certainly couldn't own their own. Very few (none that I can think of, but I haven't researched) have the same true of men. It's hard to claim that the household chattel is 'privileged'.
Haven't read Bax, don't have time - want to provide some summary of the conclusion, and what it's based off of? Because name-dropping isn't really an argument.

As for the modern day, there are several examples of how women lack privileges men do.
1) Earning power - there is still a substantial wage gap even in cases where women were doing the exact same job (see Lily Ledbetter).
2) Continuing sexism at all levels. Ex - Sotomayor being lectured on her temperment to her face and labelled 'not that smart' despite finishing at the top of her class at Princeton. Scalia received no such lecture on temperment, Joe Biden isn't called a lightweight for going to the University of Deleware. This conflates sexism and racism, but they are both clearly at play.

But I'm curious - what basic rights are violated? Could you give me some examples?

Also, I was under the impression that I was 'calmly participating in the discussion', in the threads specifically for feminists visiting the site. I guess exclamation points and animated emoticons make for calm discussion around these parts... (and how exactly does one 'rampage' on a moderated internet forum? I'm having trouble conjuring an image.)

Originally Posted by jalmondale

1) Dworkin is considered influential in the development of feminism, she's not considered the pinnacle of what feminist writing is. And she's not the one quoted in the article. Further, never having taken a women's studies, course, I wouldn't know what's required reading. Imagine that, huh? Someone who believes and works for equal rights, and hasn't even been indoctrinated! However, I'm going to go with wikipedia as a pretty mainstream definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism.
First sentence: "Feminism is a political discourse aimed at equal rights and legal protection for women."

2) Glad we agree here =)

3) Sorry, forgot to copy the link:
http://www.findcounseling.com/journa...tatistics.html

This is for pretty strict definitions of violence and abuse, and is based of reported crimes. There's discussion of the problems of underreporting and the definitions used at the link.

"this is biased nonsense! All the empirical evidence shows otherwise."

False, as the above shows. The above study was conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics in 2000, and is based largely off of reports from the FBI. Doesn't get a lot more empirical than that.

Further, the studies you cite are nowhere near as precise. For instance, one studies the rate at which men vs. women commit violence (rather than who is targeted, which would be the point of a Violence *Against* Women Act). I'm not going through them all, but 12 of the first 17 studies were only studying *self-reported* rates of *initiating* aggressive behavior. It's also not clear that there was a standard definition of abusive behavior across or even with these studies.

For instance, another study you cite finds women are more aggressive by 2%, except that they "slap, kick, bite, punch and hit with an object", while the male partners "strangle, choke, or beat up". If you're looking for which cases get reported to the FBI, I'm betting on cases of strangling over ones of slapping. Another study shows women were more likely to be injured - in short, while self-reported rates of instigating violence were higher among women, they were also the ones more likely to wind up dead or injured.

Also, though you seem to find the idea amusing, I don't generally consider emoticons an argument for why women would be opposed to legislation to protect male battered partners.

5) Privilege, like many things, comes on a sliding scale. The most privileged have generally been the wealthy. That doesn't mean that within a socio-economic group, the relative privilege levels can't be analyzed (you obviously realize this, as you do it in the next sentence, after asserting that the poor had no privilege). Men have been more privileged than women across social groups by any reasonable measure of privilege (social status, economic opportunity, economic success, and educational opportunity, for instance)

Examples: History is littered with examples of societies where women were property, and certainly couldn't own their own. Very few (none that I can think of, but I haven't researched) have the same true of men. It's hard to claim that the household chattel is 'privileged'.
Haven't read Bax, don't have time - want to provide some summary of the conclusion, and what it's based off of? Because name-dropping isn't really an argument.

As for the modern day, there are several examples of how women lack privileges men do.
1) Earning power - there is still a substantial wage gap even in cases where women were doing the exact same job (see Lily Ledbetter).
2) Continuing sexism at all levels. Ex - Sotomayor being lectured on her temperment to her face and labelled 'not that smart' despite finishing at the top of her class at Princeton. Scalia received no such lecture on temperment, Joe Biden isn't called a lightweight for going to the University of Deleware. This conflates sexism and racism, but they are both clearly at play.

But I'm curious - what basic rights are violated? Could you give me some examples?

Also, I was under the impression that I was 'calmly participating in the discussion', in the threads specifically for feminists visiting the site. I guess exclamation points and animated emoticons make for calm discussion around these parts... (and how exactly does one 'rampage' on a moderated internet forum? I'm having trouble conjuring an image.)

"" Someone who believes and works for equal rights, and hasn't even been indoctrinated""

sure you have been indocrinated - to a turn actually !!

anyone that says they have not been indocrinated by the feminit claptrap and then quotes the value to Andrea Dworkin the misandric slob has all the presence and credibility of a fart in a whirlwind to me

feminit wimyn think and communicate by slogans and cant

it is crystal clear by the feminit specious slogan you quote "equal rights" feminit wimyn read this as ascendancy to be shoehorned in by other slogan lines of dogma like affirmative action - preferential treament; quotas - arbitrary allocation of nice positions to wimyn and other whining subset social pressure lobbys; sexual harassment - the normal attraction of men to wimyn has been criminalised right accross the board

eg nowadays a man takes a wimyn out to dinner wines and dines her and she assents to accompny him back to a mutually convenient place where agreed sexual intercourse takes place - the next day the leos are pounding on his door with a rape charge because she was too inebriated to give legal consent she whines

read about the Duke Lacrosse outrage - the malicious feminit lies and conniving agin the innocent students

feminits like you have a brain full of cant that youse order your thinking by which has nothing to do with reality and this reality is reflected in the skewed rulings your Family Court which bequeaths peonage on the heads of sincere fathers as we speak - even other mens children can be included under such orders the feminit courts are mindless star chambers imposing haute feminit dogma ad practise on the heads of innocent fathers

feminit wimyn are a nation of arrogant whining free loaders driven by base emotions as ingratitude, spite and avarice for unearned benefits from men folk

what beneficial earth changing inventions have wimyn ever invented

even you ability bear children is seen by feminit wimyn as an impost and accounts for the 50 000 000 since Roe n Wade

once prolific chattering feminit on this forum referred to abortion as induced birth and I mentioned to her the life extinguished has as much value to her a a turd - everything subsume to the slogan "right to choose about her body" others can meet her invoices

I can't express the joy I felt when they blew away the late term abortionist a few months ago

Originally Posted by jalmondale

However, I'm going to go with wikipedia as a pretty mainstream definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism.
First sentence: "Feminism is a political discourse aimed at equal rights and legal protection for women."

You're either naive or willfully ignorant. The dictionary definition of feminism has no correlation whatsoever regarding it's implementation in the real world.

2) Glad we agree here =)

Agree on what pray tell?

3) Sorry, forgot to copy the link:
http://www.findcounseling.com/journa...tatistics.html

This is all I got. Hmm, the page you're looking for can't be found.

False, as the above shows. The above study was conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics in 2000, and is based largely off of reports from the FBI. Doesn't get a lot more empirical than that.

It's not false. You've given one study (which I can't facilitate the link) by the U.S. Department of Justice Bureau, who are known to use flawed methodologies (much govt research is tainted by overbearing feminist influence. So it's hardly empirical is it?) vs 498 scholarly investigations, empirical studies and reviews and/or analyses (and growing) http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm .

Further, the studies you cite are nowhere near as precise.

Although some cited studies use different methodologies because of specialized areas of interest in domestic violence, cumulatively the data shows overwhelmingly that women commit at least as much violence, or even more. Though you only mention looking at the first 17 of 504, so I'm not suprised at you're convenient response.

Also, though you seem to find the idea amusing, I don't generally consider emoticons an argument for why women would be opposed to legislation to protect male battered partners.

You originally said why feminists would be opposed, not women. That's a different question.

Although the emoticon I posted (in my experience) might be reflective of how, not just feminism itself, but how many women would react to the idea of legislation for battered males (I can just hear the shaming comments of "wimp," and "be a man"). Even more telling on you're part is the inadvertent admission men don't have sufficient protective legislation currently, hence the need for some.

Here's what you actually said originally.

Frankly, you'd be hard pressed to find a feminist who would oppose a 'Violence Against Men Act', though.

I'd thoroughly disagree. The upper echelons of feminism are never going to concede any political power to men, let alone the billions of dollars that is the VAWA gravy train.

Men have been more privileged than women across social groups by any reasonable measure of privilege (social status, economic opportunity, economic success, and educational opportunity, for instance)

Privilege is a subjective term isn't it. Whilst economic and educational opportunity were more limited due to traditional roles within a functioning society (women benefitted directly from these proactive roles by male family members). They were not, as feminism vehemently contends, a patriarchal conspiracy to subjugate women. If this was so (and this is where female privilege becomes apparent), why were only men conscripted, do all the laborious and dangerous jobs, serve harsher sentences (for hundreds of years throughout Europe, during the medieval period, males would be routinely punished for the crimes of their womenfolk), the last on the life-rafts, etc?

Examples: History is littered with examples of societies where women were property, and certainly couldn't own their own.

Littered with examples? If we take slavery as the most extreme example, historically you'll find far more males then females as slaves.

You're wrong about women not being able to own their own property.

Married Women's Property Act: 1848, New York State. http://womenshistory.about.com/od/ma...rty_1848ny.htm

Married Women's Property Act 1882 (British Law). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Married...perty_Act_1882

Ironically unmarried women had property rights even earlier! And, let's not forget that the vast majority of men (the working class) didn't own property either, just the privilged male and female elite.

Very few (none that I can think of, but I haven't researched) have the same true of men.

You admit you haven't researched, yet still proceed on to wildly speculate?

It's hard to claim that the household chattel is 'privileged'.

Women as "property"? http://counterfem.blogspot.com/2008/...-property.html

Haven't read Bax, don't have time - want to provide some summary of the conclusion, and what it's based off of? Because name-dropping isn't really an argument.

Do you're own research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Belfort_Bax

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Fraud_of_Feminism

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Le...jection_of_Men

Ironic how Bax was a socialist.

As for the modern day, there are several examples of how women lack privileges men do.
1) Earning power - there is still a substantial wage gap even in cases where women were doing the exact same job (see Lily Ledbetter).

Oh dear, the "wage gap myth" resurfaces again like a hastily dumped corpse. This has become so thoroughly debunked now it's rather embarrasing that you're desperately regurgitating it here to an informed membership, rather than an audience of sheeple. Even a growing number of feminists, albeit mostly moderates, are now accepting this "reality." I'll put Warren Farrell (Why Men Earn More) http://www.warrenfarrell.net/ against Lily ledbetter any day.

It's painful for western feminists to realize they no longer have any genuine complaints left, so they keep recycling all the well rehearsed lies, comfortable in the knowledge that the general public is gullible to their emotional sensationalism.

2) Continuing sexism at all levels.

Firstly, feminists have become so accustomed to slapping a sexist sticker on any disagreeable male who deviates from proffering his allegiance to gynocentrism, nearly all such allegations are disproportionate and out of context.

However, if men applied the same' ever expanding paranoic definitions as to what constitutes sexism and chauvinism, we'd invariably see women not only as guilty, but far worse!

But I'm curious - what basic rights are violated? Could you give me some examples?

Gynocentric politicking via excessive feminist influence has seen men's child custody and divorce rights evaporate, no domestic violence protections, longevity gap through disparitive health and disease funding, disparity in sentencing from theft to murder, as a few (meaningful) examples.

I don't believe that you'll concede any valid points, as you have too many benefits and privileges to protect. The truth will conflict with this of course. This response is more for the undecided lurkers who can decide for themselves objectively.

@Jalmondale...

First of all my signature "Willkommen" to you, then I guess it is time to adress some of your points.

First of all if we talk about opression we can talk about indicators of opression. You brought up economics and it seems to me this is the only direction you were looking at past and present. Some food for thought for you, in the past was it a privilege to die in WW1 and WW2? Was it a privilege to die X years earlier? If you look at the very top, you will find men, but what if you look at the bottom? Almost exclusevile men, too. And those are more than the men on top.

Something about the wage gap these days, posted by me on feministing (interestingly no feminist was able to refute this data or even tried to)

- The average man works more hours than the average woman if you calculate a hourly wage gap it melts down to 16 cents
- Married black women outearn married white women (probably because they are married to black men who earn less than white men). Does a difference in earnings really indicate discrimination?
- Never-married women who had never had children earned 117% of the wages of never married men who had never had children.
- The part-time working wage gap is in women´s favour as well
- Women spend an average of 13 years out of the workforce for family caregiving. Over her lifetime, the average woman will spend 27 years in the workforce, compared to almost 40 years for the average man.
- Women of all educational levels from 21 to 30 living in New York City and working full time made 117 percent of men’s wages, and even more in Dallas, 120 percent. Nationwide, that group of women made much less: 89 percent of the average full-time pay for men. Women in their 20s also make more than men in Chicago, Boston, Minneapolis and a few other big cities.

-------------------------------------------

Oh and something from an interesting study:

The study, which examined 16,000 executives over 14 years, found that women at the top of the business world bring in a bit more than men and are promoted at the same rate, countering the popular notion that women earn less than men for the same work.


"That common perception is not borne out by this study," said Robert A. Miller, professor of economics and strategy and one of the authors. "If you're looking for evidence of gender discrimination in executive promotion and compensation, it's not happening there."


The study, "Are There Glass Ceilings for Female Executives?," was released last month by Carnegie Mellon's Tepper School of Business but hasn't been published yet.

The largest empirical analysis of the top echelons of publicly traded companies determined that women earned about $100,000 more per year than men of the same age, educational background and experience.

"At any given level of the career hierarchy, women are paid slightly more than men with the same background, have slightly less income uncertainty and are promoted as quickly," it concludes. "We concluded that the gender pay gap and differences in job rank in this most lucrative occupation is explained by females leaving the market at higher rates than males."

Why they quit is harder to explain. Younger women opt out of the work force to have babies, but the average age for executives in the study was 53, beyond the child-bearing years.

Yet female executives still retire earlier than men and are more likely to switch careers. The CMU paper offers some possible reasons, including "more unpleasantries, indignities and tougher, unrewarding assignments" at work. The authors also suggest that women over time acquire "more nonmarket human capital" than men -- meaning connections outside the workplace -- that make retirement more attractive.

More recent studies reached similar conclusions. A report released last month by The Corporate Library, a research firm in Maine, said women corporate directors earn 15 percent more than male counterparts, although they are still outnumbered 8-1 by men on boards.

The CMU study compiled data representing 60 different job titles at more than 1,800 companies between 1992 and 2006. In addition to examining promotion rates, the researchers also analyzed total compensation, including benefits, bonuses, retirement packages and stock options in addition to salary. Overall, the study concluded that job turnover and tenure are better indicators of compensation than gender.

from here - http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08348/934974-28.stm

The difference in the wage gap can almost exclusively be explained by women being stay-at-home-mums. Imho more women are stay-at-home-mums because women almost always marry up and I believe being pregnant and probably breast feeding as a difference in experience leads to more women who want to stay at home.

And if you look at another direction, who is spending this money?

- 85% of consumer spendings by women
- 51% of wealth controlled by women

So we conclude, group A earns the money and works a decade longer than group B, while group B spends most of it. Which group do you want to be in?

----------------------------------------------

Then you were talking about domestic violence. Luckily this is a topic I studied a bit so I´ll be able to explain some of the myths and common misconceptions.

If you look at all data about domestic violence you will come to the conclusion that DV is gender-neutral (just look at the Fielbert list. There is so much evidence that just can not be denied, not even by you attacking one study). Anyhow when we look at official data suddenly men seem to be the perpetrators not the victim. This difference in reporting has been adressed by more than one study. Some of those are:

Family violence in Canada (2003):
37% of female victims of DV called the police only 15% of men did

Canadian General Social Survey (1999):
17% of male victims of DV seeked helped with "formal social agencies" compared to 48% of female victims

National family Violence Survey (1985):
Female victims are 9-time as likely to call the police and 5-time as likely to talk to a relative or friend than male victims

British Crime Survey (1996):
8% of male victims called the police compared to 22% of female victims

So if you ask for crime or look at police data you won´t find men, but if you ask for acts of violence, or for injuries, you can´t deny the equality of DV

Besides the fielbert list there was a very well made analysis about worldwide incidents of DV by a German researcher: Sebastian Schwithal - Weibliche Gewalt in Partnerschaften (Female violence in relationships) ISBN 3833431563

Some of his findings:

In an analysis of 42 studies that ask for minor violence he found out that 54.8% of the perpetruators in that studies were women while 50,7% of the victims were men.

In an analysis of 92 studies that ask for severe violence he found out that 53.0% of the perpetruators in that studies were women while 52.3% of the victims were men. In that analysis 23 studies gave information about the use of weapons. 57.5% of women admitted using weapons and 65.5% of men have been injured by weapons.

In an analysis of 70 studies that ask for injuries he found out that 57,4% of the perpetruators in that studies were men while 56,6% of the victims were also men.

In an analysis of more than 100 country specific studies he found out that 55,8% of the perpetruators in that studies were men while 58,7% of the victims were women.

In an analysis of more than 150 dating and domestic violence studies he found out that 51,8% of the perpetruators in that studies were men while 56,0% of the victims were women.

Attention the numbers above don´t add up. Schwithal used different columns for violence perpetrated and violence suffered depending on what the study asked for. (Example when I say "In an analysis of 42 studies that ask for minor violence he found out that 54.8% of the perpetruators in that studies were women while 50,7% of the victims were men." There was a perpetrator column for men (45.2%) and one perpetrator column for women (54.8%) as well as a victim column for men (50.7%) and again one for women (49,3%). I was just giving you the high number for the victim and perpetrator column)

Included in that studies are not only CTS studies but official studies as well. And no matter in what way he looked at the more than 300 studies he cites, the difference is almost always equal.


----------------------------------------------

On to the indicators of opression of men compared to racism:

When we hear that white folk live longer than black folk it is accepted as sign of racism, yet the shorter life of men (white women > black women > white men > black men) is not accepted as opression.

When we hear black people have a higher mortality or suicide rate in all age groups we accept that as sign of racism. Yet when the same is true for men compared to women this is not seen as a sign of opression.

Crime rate is one of this indicators as well. It depends on the way where you have been brought up. Of course a son of an academic is less likely to comit a crime than a son of a single mother born in a trailerpark. So the higher crime rate of black people is obvious a sign of racism. And when men have a higher crime rate than women this is seen as a sign of female benevolence.

If we hear that black folks receive longer sentences for the same crime it is accepted as sign of racism yet when men receive longer sentences for the same crime, feminist frame this as benevolent sexism against women. (imagine I would frame the longer sentences of black folk as benevolent racism against white people). Same is true for people with death penalties. Black men on top white women on the bottom.

If we hear black people are doing worse in schools as white people we accept this as sign of racism yet when the underperforming of boys is brought up (even though boys do as well as girls when schooled at home) boys are framed as less intelligent as girls.

Unemployment rate - Black men on top, white women on bottom

Drug addiction, alcohol abuse - Black men on top, white women on bottom

People living on the street - 85% men

The list goes on and on....and I haven´t even touched the divorce court yet. If men were able to keep women legally from seeing their children feminist would go on the barricades, yet when this happens the other way round there is just silence.

That is why I can´t take feminism seriously. It is mainly a group of privileged white women empowering privileged white women even more. So it seems to me. Did feminism do anything against the issues I mentioned above?

----------------------------------------------

This text usually is an eye opener when it comes to opression:

Injustice is ubiquitous in this world. Heaven knows there is enough of it in Canada that we do not have to look abroad to fill newspapers with alarming stories of discrimination and oppression. Still, we might learn something about how a blind eye is turned to injustice by considering the case of a relatively minor country--call it Country C--which, amazingly, ranks favourably in United Nations reports. Country C contains two groups, the majority Xs and the minority Ys. In spite of what the UN says, the standard social indicators suggest that the Ys are an oppressed minority. Among other things, oppressed people tend to experience poorer health, more violent victimization and aggression, discrimination in the administration of justice and in employment, and disadvantage in educational attainment. The following is a brief indication how the Ys fare in these respects, relative to the Xs.

The infant-mortality rate among Ys is higher than that among Xs. Ys are also more prone to alcoholism, drug abuse, and a host of psychological problems. Adding insult to injury, a highly disproportionate amount of public health-care money is spent on Xs. About twice as much medical-research money is spent on illnesses experienced almost exclusively by Xs, than on those experienced almost exclusively by Ys. In the final analysis, the life expectancy of Xs is seven years longer than that of Ys.

In Country C, Ys are a particularly brutalized group. Most violence committed by Ys is directed at Ys themselves; whereas most violence committed by Xs is also directed at Ys. Overall, Ys are twice as likely to be victims of violence, and three times as likely to be murdered, compared to Xs. Yet the mainstream media of Country C devote a hugely disproportionate amount of their coverage to the violent victimization of Xs, especially that perpetrated by Ys. Government commissions have been set up to look into the problem of violence against Xs, but not into the much larger problem of violence against Ys.

Ys are about nine times more likely than Xs to spend time in prison. Besides the harsher social conditions that tend to make violence a part of the Y culture, this difference is due in part to the fact that the law in Country C treats violent Xs differently from violent Ys. Ys are more likely than Xs to be investigated, charged, and convicted for similar crimes on similar evidence; Xs are more likely to be believed innocent, given favourable plea bargains, and awarded probation--even when participating together in the same crime with Ys. In violent conflicts between Xs and Ys, it is standard police procedure to haul the Ys off to jail even before establishing who was at fault or who was the aggressor. Perhaps most alarmingly of all, the law of Country C recognizes several excuses for Xs to kill Ys, with no parallels for Ys who kill Xs. In a large number of cases, Xs who kill Ys serve no time at all in prison.

Although a minority of the general population, Ys account for about 85 per cent of the homeless adults in Country C. It has been estimated that as many as half of these street people have been displaced from their homes by angry or violent Xs. Public money is spent on subsidized housing and shelters for needy Xs, much of it to the exclusion of equally needy Ys. (Public housing for Ys takes the form of jail cells.)

The education system, although officially integrated, nevertheless systematically favours the Xs. Especially in the early grades, when life-long attitudes toward scholastic achievement are formed, the distinctive needs and interests of Ys are ignored or trampled on. Few Ys have teacher training at the primary level, leaving young Ys without positive role models. As a result, the grades attained by Xs are, on average, higher than those attained by Ys throughout their school years; and Ys also have higher failure and drop-out rates than Xs at every level from primary school to university. In spite of this, attempts to ameliorate the educational disadvantages of the Ys by running Y-only schools staffed by Y teachers are deemed to be unconstitutional in Country C--though X-only schools and programs are permitted and even encouraged. Many millions of dollars of public money are spent on scholarships and other inducements aimed exclusively at increasing the participation rate of Xs at the country's universities, even though the participation rate of Xs is already significantly higher than that of Ys.

One academic study reported that if current educational trends continue, Ys will be completely eliminated from the job market by the year 2050. Meanwhile, Xs continue to enjoy legislated employment preferences and benefits in Country C, ranging from giving the position or promotion to an X whenever there is an approximate tie, to excluding Ys from even applying for certain important public-sector jobs. Manual labour and high-risk jobs remain the preserve of Ys: over 95 per cent of occupational deaths occur to Ys. (Of course, that is not an occupational opportunity the government of Country C wishes to equalize.) Not surprisingly, then, Ys own a disproportionately small share of the private wealth in Country C.

X-ists, who dominate media discussions of these issues in Country C, account for this array of facts by maintaining that Xs are innately superior to Ys--physically, morally, and intellectually. X-supremacist groups, supported mainly by public funds, claim that Xs are naturally more suited to govern, both in the public and private sectors, and openly yearn for a world ruled by Xs. Ys who dare to complain about the inequities in their society are trotted out as proof of the sniveling, inferior nature of Ys. The hate-mongering laws that exist in Country C do not proscribe hate mongering directed at Ys.

Perhaps you are wondering how such a deeply racist country as this could have fooled the United Nations for so long. A very good question, except that X and Y represent chromosomes, not races.

For instance, another study you cite finds women are more aggressive by 2%, except that they "slap, kick, bite, punch and hit with an object", while the male partners "strangle, choke, or beat up".

Btw it would be interesting to know from which study that was cited.

Ha, show them facts and they run away....so predictable....ah well

Originally Posted by Feckless

Ha, show them facts and they run away....so predictable....ah well

Yes Feck. We have the truth and facts on our side, something so utterly repellant to the institutional underhandedness that earmarks the slithering amorality of feminist machinations.

This isn't true of everything, but it seems a lot of human history is cyclical. It repeats over and over. Is there a cycle of masculism to feminism to masculism to feminism to masculism ad infinitum? You history buffs can shed some light on this. If there is a cycle of this how has society changed after each reversal? Has it EVER appeared that society came close to a balance? Ie halfway between the two in a place where no one is reviled or persecuted?

yes, its called the "eunuch cycle" it only has one wheel, and no gender!