[0603] Puff
└ posted on Thursday, 31 July 2014, by Novil
- Husband: What’s up, honey? You’re looking worried.
- Dorothy Cambridge: Oh, it’s nothing. I just had a talk with the mother of one of my male students.
- Dorothy Cambridge: She made some bizarre threats, but that’s about it.
- Husband: Don’t let the haters get you down!
- Dorothy Cambridge: Now I’m in the right mood to finish my blog post about how gender equality can only be achieved by castrating all boys and drilling a hole into them.
- Husband: Go ahead!
- Dorothy Cambridge: Hmm, where’s my laptop?
- Husband: Honey, shall I make you a sandwich?
![[0603] Puff](/comics/2014-07-31-0603-puff.png "[0603] Puff")
Well..Ye Thuza did warn her…..
@ Invisible Dancing Bottom:
My guess would be somewhere along the lines of;
“The job is not quite finished yet.. There is still that totally useless appendix to get rid off.”
I think the real question is where are these so called “Holes” being drilled?
Wait if all boys are to be castraded then where will the future generetaions come from?
And because of these kind of people feminism is hated. That woman isn’t actually a feminist, I don’t know the word in English but in Spanish is “hembrista” and is a woman or a person who thinks that woman are superior than men a men are trash and most of them use equality as an excuse. (sorry for bad English btw)
@ Kroiden:
Well I was thinking that’s kinda what she wants. She hates males so I though this would be an improvement in her mind. Oh well it won’t matter anyway in a couple strips.
Now another question for you guys
Heaven or Hell for Cambridge?????????
I mean you can’t call feminist bad people. But what do you think?
@ Invenblocker:
Extremist morons never think about that. But with morons running things, why would you want future generations?
@ Invisible Dancing Bottom:
Well I think she likes mangina more than Shemales. She seems to think (and I am in no way trying to be sexist or start a comment war.) that the female anatomy is perfect and the male anatomy is the one with issues. So taking away a mans well um PINGAS! would probably do more damage and Support her insane plot than promoting females with male body parts.
Also Switchy????
@ Rakeesh:
Uh… no. Not in the slightest. Maybe actually read anything written or said by any of them before talking out of your ass.
@ r2d2go:
its not an attack on feminism is an attack on people who miss use it and turn in into an anti man movement instead of what it is which is an sexual equality movement. you do have to remember there are unfortunately people that ruin the movement by being very extreme in their views to the point where they are being just as sexist as the men back in the 70s when the movement was formed
@ Rakeesh:
How about looking at the media coverage of AVfM and its activities? And then looking at the documented proof that that coverage is bullshit?
And as far as schools go, that is one of the most ignorant statements about Men’s Rights that I’ve heard in a long time, and believe me, I’ve heard a lot of idiocy in that regard. Why not read The War on Boys? It details how feminists used the fact that boys and girls were struggling in schools to pressure school districts into adopting policies that benefitted them… to the expense of boys. Wonder why the male graduation and college entrance rates are lower? There you go.
And let’s not forget that there are plenty of laws that discriminate against men, for example the fact that, by law, rape requires penetration (making those that rape by forced envelopment not rapists and victims of that not rape victims). On page 2 of the comments, I pointed to why this is seriously bullshit, so feel free to go there for that source. These laws, by the way, were encouraged by feminists.
Also encouraged by feminists are laws based on the Duluth Model. Predominant/primary aggressor laws are otherwise known as “arrest the man” laws, and they often lead to male victims of abuse being arrested as abusers. How many women’s shelters in your area receive government funding? How many men’s? This in spite of the fact that women are the majority abusers, and as the seriousness of the abuse increases, they gain a larger share.
So no. Men don’t have the same rights as women, and there are actually specific laws that discriminate against men. Laws that have been encouraged by feminists. Feminists say that they’re for equality, but mind what people do, not what they say, for actions will betray a lie. The actions of the feminist movement betrays that as a lie.
@ NotASpy:
Given the way these comments are handled, you’ll have to reference that. I don’t remember which conversation you were in and who you are, sorry.
@ NotASpy:
Wait. There’s a lot here, and some of it is even worth discussing. But let me see if I am following you correctly. Did you mean to say that women are the majority of domestic violence perpetrators?
@ Rakeesh:
Oh, and because everyone always brings up the wage gap, it’s been shown that there are about two dozen differences in the way men and women conduct themselves when seeking employment and on the job, including men working more hours, being more willing to relocate, and being more likely to try to negotiate pay (to name just three), all of which have men making more. None of which are a result of actual discrimination against women, however.
Meanwhile, there are women trying to get government-funded programs that teach women how to negotiate pay, a skill men are expected to learn on their own. This is the core problem with where power lies in the feminist movement: They don’t consider women to be grown-ass adults. Instead of telling women that salary negotiation is a thing that they should be doing and to learn how to do it, they want government programs to coddle them and tell them that it’s not their fault for not negotiating, because how were they supposed to know how? And that’s not the only issue where feminists have done this. Look at Koss’ research. She actually made the implicit claim that three quarters of female rape victims don’t know that they’ve been raped. That’s where the “one in five” statistic originates, FYI. She put a lot of bullshit into making the statistic that high. This “research” is held in the highest of esteem by feminism’s leaders, who view the women they lead as incapable of taking care of themselves or even being reasoning human beings.
Well, sandraandwoo, it’s been fun. But you’ve changed. I’ve been hoping for the whimsical, slightly twisted humour I’d come to know and love. But all you give me is crude caricatures and MRA butthurt.
I went through all this with Cerebus, and I just can’t face it again. So I guess that this is goodbye…
he’s gonna walk in that room, realize shes gone. then he’s gonna run outside & throw his hands in the air & yell “I”M FREE!! I’M FINALLY FREE!!” and a chorus of angels will sound trumpets in response.
then he’ll go running down the street laughing like a madman…
@ Invisible Dancing Bottom:
Heaven or Hell?
None of them.
Ye Thuza probably stuffed her in a shipping crate and sent her to Saudi Arabia, a place that just may need some extreme measures in creating more equality among the sexes.
@ Luke:
He knows her better than we do
NotASpy wrote:
I don’t know about laws, but definitely with some official government policies. I had a neighbor who worked in recruiting for the State Bureau of Investigation. The minimum physical requirements for a field agent are significantly lower for women than they are for men. So much for “equality”.
Rob wrote:
The only butthurt I’ve seen around here is people whining for the arc to be censured, throwing around “MRA” as an insult (simultaneously displaying both ignorance and hypocrisy), parroting the term “straw man” in a grossly failed effort to sound clever, and announcing that they are leaving instead of just leaving.
@ Rakeesh:
In a word? Yes. Look at the SAVE’s “Partner Abuse Worldwide” page. The statistics often trotted out that claim that women are more likely victims of domestic abuse or violence use flawed methodology intended to show those results, either by looking at arrest statistics (ignoring the effect of predominant aggressor laws and the fact that men underreport violence and abuse), only asking women about it, defining it via the Duluth model (where men are only aggressors and women are only victims), or even asking about violence in general and not partner violence (and the questions are “anyone, man or woman, so it’s not an epidemic of men hitting women).
So before you cite those studies, why not actually look at them?
As far as the conversation I referenced goes, just look at page 2, search for “NotASpy” without the quotes. It was in response to someone directing people to the Feminism 101 blog.
@ Rakeesh:
Oh, and because it’s here and it’s on my mind and it’s a perfect example of societal bias against men, search for “50 most disgusting responses to Toronto’s male rape victim” (with the quotes) and tell me when Twitter’s ever responded to a female rape victim like that.
Also the idea that 15% of the homeless in Iran being women is seen as a tragedy. Apparently, if the number of homeless remained the same, but it was men, it wouldn’t be a problem. FYI, the same happens here in the US, with men actually making up the vast majority of the homeless and yet there being extreme bias in aid towards women, including via official government policies.
@ NotASpy:
Oh, and since I brought up Iran, one of the common rallying cries from feminism is how women are forced to wear this particular clothing that supposedly covers their bodies entirely when they’re going out etc etc.
Run an image search for “Iranian women rousari” (without the quotes). The rousari is that item of clothing, btw. And, from those images, you can tell that it’s no more oppressive than men wearing pants or women wearing shirts here in the US… or men wearing turbans in Sikh culture. This is just one example of the misinformation spread by those feminists in power. There’s actually quite a lot of this about Iran, and one argument that a woman sent into Women Against Feminism was a claim that men are actually worse off in Iran than women.
@ NotASpy:
I brought up AVfM’s activities, but I failed to bring up the issue of MRAs being treated essentially as terrorists and having people attributed to the movement that had nothing to do with it at all (see: Elliot Rodger). Sorry for flooding this with replies, but that was a serious error on my part, as that really is an important aspect of the media bias (who went to feminist sites that outright and openly lied about it for their “source” instead of actually going to AVfM).
@ BarashinMokushi:
…..
i hate you for that
TomLak wrote:
Worse than that: Women are actually somewhat more likely to vote than men, meaning that all the politicians currently in power are selected by a voter base that is mildly majority female. Women aren’t in politics because women don’t want to be represented by them. If women as a block voted for someone, that someone is going to win.
Grah wrote:
I lost what little respect for Shakesville I had back when McEwan wrote that post that argued that if she could find a way to shoehorn any criticism about Hillary Clinton into any negative stereotype of women, then that criticism was inherently misogynistic and would not be tolerated. Someone pointed out that she was effectively arguing that no criticism of Hillary Clinton was permitted because you could fit any criticism into that box if you tried, and got a lot of hate for it.
As for SPLC, they didn’t used to be that way, but you know… I also find it hilarious that SPLC accepted quite a lot of donations from RadFemHub (a site which actually had published articles about (for example) “actively” reducing men to 10% of the population to be used as breeding stock) and never considered them a hate group (gee, I wonder why?).
NotASpy wrote:
You have to be careful with Elam. His older stuff tends to be really aggressive to the point that it sours the message, as well as some satirical bits that get quoted over and over as serious positions held. My personal favorite of that latter category was the satirical article that suggested that if a woman is violent towards you, you should respond with as much violence in return as you are capable.
The Misandry in Psychology series is pretty good though.
Rakeesh wrote:
Ugh, I really broke my quotes, didn’t I?
Looks like I put a blockquote tag instead of a /blockquote tag after “I’ll be surprised.” and “he’s broken.” Any chance a mod could fix that for me?
@ NotASpy:
Eh. You’re a hack. A decently informed hack, it’s true, in a sense, but still a hack.
Here’s how I know: you start off with the assumption that any institution which reports a result you don’t like is using poor methodology, are just stupid and negligent, or are outright lying. You can go to the CDC if you like-that bastion of fraud and feminism, right, the CDC known for politically motivated coverups-and look for some numbers. You can make the absurd assumption that the lack of battered men’s shelters *must be* a sign of some sort of gyn-conspiracy, that the only reason this lack exists is because of conspiracy. You can gloss over the fact that when it comes to violent crime, men are far more as a group more violent to each other and to women than women are to other women and to other men.
We can talk about different standards for various government agencies, it’s true. Let’s not even ask ourselves a question like ‘which is better? 100K cops who can all do x physical effort, or 200K cops who can on average do x-30% physical effort’ as a minimum standard? As though the only factor in a field agent’s job was how much they could lift or carry, and how hard they could throw a punch.
You *could* talk about the actual problems involved with the way domestic violence is handled in this country, and that yes there is frequently a mandated suspicion of males in the way the initial police encounter is handled, and that this is a sign that there needs to be systematic reform. You could talk about that in some way that doesn’t make you look a fool by utterly glossing over the *reason* we have arrived at that way of dealing with things. It wasn’t because one day the goddamn feminist bitches took over and decided down with all men. It’s because for generations, it was *damn near impossible* to get law enforcement or the courts to do anything at all about any kind of domestic violence short of the very worst sort of beatings and rapes.
You could talk about how it’s not fair women get special training in how to negotiate for salaries-sometimes, in some areas and programs. But then you could have an *actual conversation* about that problem by pointing to the wage gap as something to consider, rather than abruptly pivoting away from it. See, the funny thing is, Fedora wearing MRAs such as yourself-yes, you’ve earned that perjorative, given your style of rhetoric-you can see the underlying assumptions *so close* to the surface when you’re talking to a group of mixed company. It’s so close. Why not just say it? There’s a wage gap because women don’t like to work as hard as men do, and when they do they don’t work as well. C’mon, man. I know you want to. It’s almost not even in between the lines of what you’re saying. Domestic violence being primarily a women’s problem? Hardly! They’re actually MORE violent, after all! Women don’t ahieve political office as often? Well, of course they don’t, they want to get pregnant!
See, you could actually care about the things you claim to care about without having such a transparent, misogynistic agenda. For example, underreporting of domestic violence when the victims are men. This is, actually, a serious and legitimate problem (hint: you can tell it’s a serious problem because it’s a form of domestic violence, which we as a society should care about regardless of the victims OR the perpetrators). You could say “look, there’s a problem with the methodology here that we need to address. Not because I know what the REAL answer is (how in the hell would you claim to know the real answer if good studies supposedly don’t exist, anyway?), but because this stuff is IMPORTANT, and so it’s important that our knowledge about it is as close to accurate as possible, and one big step is improving our methodology.”
Who knows? At the end of such a reform there might be a staggering surprise to discover that flies in the face of conventional wisdom. That is technically possible. But you haven’t actually done that yet, so don’t treat people like they’re stupid and skip past those steps, OK?
Well, that’s an end, miss. Anyway, I think Novil did good on this arc. It parodied to insane levels ( even to the point of blatant and self-evident humour) the full “moral self-rigtheousness” that societies and ideas can have over people. The moral of the story (pun intended) is that you need’nt to overload your points on how people behave themselves, and even forcing those on them (for example, using institutional enforcement on people) . It’s simple. It backfires in the long haul, and it becomes a “tiring, overbearing topic” to many men, and even women who would support mostly “egalitarism”. One interesting intake about this is how is institutional education considered a good field to enforce and “educate” on those ideas… when precisely, character and moral are mostly thaugth by the parents, the most close and examples of adults to a children. ¿shouldn’t we be teaching those adults, and let them decide? A school can provide a environment to study, learn needed skills, but it mostly fails to represent a measure of how society really works. In fact, in some areas incoaxes competitive and neutered behavior. A lot of this is reminiscent of the early past century, where common institutional schooling mostly tried to train future workers for factories and large bussiness enterprises ( office work). This included a rigid, piramidal, style of learning. Nowadays, we find this isn’t working exactly as needed. Some countries are learning and changing course over this. And most of those, explicitly tried to be neutral about enforcing egalitarianism on school rules. In fact, it’s becoming more of a debate ( between students and teachers, and even families, as it should be), than something a government or a school should enforce or “teach”. I like this way of doing things around this matter the most.
Shadrach, it’s very difficult to parse your post with the way it’s formatted. (If I tried to use quotes with this system, I likely would do no better.) So I’m basically replying to a few of the things I saw before my eyes started crossing.
The wage gap is *currently* in many fields relatively minor because of exactly the same kinds of efforts, governmentally and culturally, that you and others are objecting to now…and for the same kinds of reasons they were objected to twenty and fifty years ago. Isn’t that a bit telling? But even if the wage gap is ‘relatively minor’…sure, it’s easy to brush that off when it ain’t you. I’ll just be taking 5-15% of your paycheck, and don’t do a whole lot of complaining, would you? It’s relatively minor.
As for representation, well OK. If any given group does not immediately rise to their proportional level of power in a society then, we can safely assume it’s their fault, I guess? Black people. Check. Hispanics? Check. Asians? Checkarooni. It’s safe to set aside any problems about mistreatment or underrepresentation because they could’ve fixed it. You *can* hear the barely-subtext there, right? That subtext being ‘if they wanted to’. Look, you’ve at least made an effort to treat the discussion a bit seriously, but I’ll ask you flat out: in terms of what actually happens among human beings, do you take the boot off their neck and expect their great grandchildren to be peachy keen? You can sing an aria about bootstraps and work ethics and all of that till the cows come home, but that’s precisely the kind of historically ignorant talk that folks on the top of the pile sing when they started out a half mile closer to the top than people beneath them.
Put more plainly, women tend to vote for men more often than women for the same reasons men do: a) because there are vastly more men running for office and b) because until very recently, and still in many places today, it has been an implicit or even explicit assumption that women make poor leaders. Of course if you teach women it’s bad and objectionable to hold or seek power, if they are taught that when they’re children they tend to believe it as adults.
@ Rakeesh:
I don’t think you understand: When an individual, group, or institute publishes a study, they publish the methodology as well. You can study the methodology and see flaws. So, for example, if they use the Duluth Model as the basis of their methodology, it’s flawed. Examples of this include defining domestic abuse as a crime of men against women, asking only women, or requiring that the abuser be larger or stronger for it to be considered abuse. Other forms of flawed methodology use arrest rates. As mentioned before, arrests are biased towards men, including male abuse victims. As far as the CDC study goes, that has good methodology, but poor data. Statistically speaking, the women in the study were more likely than the average woman to report violence and the men were less likely, based on the demographics presented in the study itself.
Furthermore, Permutations of Ninjas, in the post I mentioned before, addressed another important sex difference in regards to trauma when it comes to asking about lifetime abuse (rather than abuse within the past year or some other limited timeframe): Men with documented cases of child sexual abuse are less likely to report it when asked than women with documented cases. To the tune of 25%. 16% of men with documented cases of child sexual abuse responded positively, whereas 64% of women did. The summary of data uses the lifetime data, not the 12 month data. TyphoonBlue, in a post linked by PoN, also addresses other issues with lifetime violence rates (such as a bias towards female abusers, even in the minds of the victim). The study presented also didn’t study reciprocal abuse. Studies show that most domestic violence is bidirectional, but the CDC didn’t bother to study that particular confounder.
Finally, and I cannot stress this enough, one study or survey does not provide proof. The reason why I directed you to SAVE’s page is because they have a metanalysis provided which shows that most studies show women as the majority abusers in relationships.
And… yeah, it was actually feminists. Feminists, using the Duluth Model, pushed for mandatory arrests for domestic violence in some areas. This resulted in a massive increase in the number of women arrested and a small increase in the number of men arrested. In response, feminist groups lobbied for Predominant/Primary Aggressor policies, otherwise known as “arrest the man” policies. So… yeah. The reason why male victims of abuse get arrested is, in fact, because of feminist activities.
Maybe you don’t understand, but statistics in support of the wage gap don’t care about “mixed group.” It’s based off of the average. This is why it’s important to show that women, on average don’t negotiate their salaries, don’t work as many hours, are less likely to relocate, etc. Instead of accepting these statistics as confounding variables in the wage gap statistics, you instead dismiss them, go for the straw man (a straw man that can’t actually exist, if you bothered to learn anything about the “fedora-wearing MRA” straw man), and declare it done. All without actually having to deal with the actual statistics and how they cast doubt on the wage gap claims. Statistics show that it’s a result of women’s choices and not actual sexism against women? It doesn’t matter. Because you have personal attacks, a straw man, and a firm dismissal of any data that could possibly affect your pre-existing biases.
And maybe you’re not aware of this, but the topic of discussion is, in fact, how feminist policies have harmed men and how claims that they make of bias against women are bullshit. And I have, in fact, discussed issues facing men. For example, the fact that, when a man reported being gang raped by women, Twitter laughed at him. And yet, you ignore literally everything I posted not related to actual statistical differences between men and women and then label the actual statistics as sexist because… apparently, showing any difference between men and women is sexist, even if the scientific data proves it to be true.
Remember, people: Penises are social constructs!
Oh, right, by the way, because you bring up different workplace standards (something I wasn’t even going to bother touching, but changed my mind), you don’t seem to understand that there is a minimum effectiveness. If you have twice as many police officers chasing after a suspect, it doesn’t matter that both of them can run at 80% of the speed of said suspect, they aren’t going to catch him. Similarly, it doesn’t matter if a soldier can drag 80% of the weight of a fellow soldier, because if that fellow soldier is wounded, the other still won’t be able to drag him or her behind cover. Differing standards put lives at risk in jobs where physical standards are important (which, yes, includes dangerous jobs like construction). This is aside from where minimum physical standards apply that are just part of the job, mind you. Someone that can only lift 70% (your number) of the minimum male standard on a construction site won’t be able to do certain tasks. These physical standards exist because this is the minimum to actually get the job done. Furthermore, two people at 70% (again, your number) strength do not equal 140% effectiveness (FYI, they also cannot lift 140% in a single load, see: Physics), so even if you were willing to argue that someone that qualifies at 70% of the standard should get 70% of the pay (something I highly doubt) or half the pay (since you decided to go with 100k to 200k, completely ignoring the fact that that extra 100k costs money), you still wouldn’t be able to say that that extra 100k at 70% effectiveness is helpful. Setting the standard to 70%, for men or women, puts lives at risk and pays people for jobs that they can’t actually do.
You’ve systematically ignored all the policies and laws put in place through the efforts of feminist lobbies (sometimes even denying that they had anything to do with it, a blatant dismissal of the actual history of these policies and laws) and the misinformation surrounding feminist claims of hardships on women, even labelling the evidence of sexism in those policies and laws as sexist.
I think that the most blatant example is when you claim that, when a meta-analysis shows that women are the majority abusers, it’s sexist. Meanwhile, it’s not sexist to claim that men are the majority abusers, ignoring evidence to the contrary and focusing on a single study. You claim that showing women as majority abusers paints women as violent, and yet the reverse isn’t true for men? You also make the assumption that this is how I’m painting women, while ignoring the many other confounding variables associated with this, so that you assume that I’m sexist.
You wanna talk about violent crime? Maybe the fact that those statistics are based on conviction rate, and women are less likely to be arrested, less likely to be found guilty, and less likely to have to plead to an actual violent crime than men? No, you don’t want to discuss that. Would you like to discuss the fact that, when it comes to murder, women are more likely to commit murder by proxy or through poison, the latter of which is especially hard to prove in spousal murder cases? Would you like to discuss the fact that women commiting murder by proxy are rarely ever charged with a crime, and sometimes the person they coerce into commiting the murder will stay silent for years or possibly even their entire lives to protect them?
Nah. You don’t want to discuss that. That might throw a wrench into the whole “men are violent” thing, which is, apparently, not sexist.
You wanna talk about the way domestic violence is handled? How about the fact that the first woman to open a domestic violence shelter for women supports the MRM after having received death threats for her and her family from feminists for daring to suggest that most domestic violence is bidirectional, from her experiences in how the women in her shelter treated their children and seeing the evidence of violence against the men that came to her shelter looking for their wives? How about how the first man to open a men’s DV shelter was forced to close it because the government in his area, operating on the Duluth Model (again, something feminists have pushed), refused to fund it when they fund over 500 women’s shelters? Even using the most biased statistics, this is extremely disproportionate. How about talking about how he committed suicide over this and how he was treated as a male victim of domestic abuse? How about talking about how that might skew the numbers?
Would you like to discuss any of that? I’m guessing no.
@ NotASpy:
Oh, and side note: That 16% vs. 64%? As TyphoonBlue mentions, male victims of sexual abuse are twice as likely to commit suicide as female victims. Suppressing traumatic moments really, really isn’t dealing with them. So it’s not that the men are less impacted by abuse and that’s why they don’t recall it more. I shouldn’t need to mention this, since TyphoonBlue already did, but you don’t seem to be one for checking sources, so I feel that I must.
@ NotASpy:
NotaSpy,
” don’t think you understand: When an individual, group, or institute publishes a study, they publish the methodology as well. You can study the methodology and see flaws. So, for example, if they use the Duluth Model as the basis of their methodology, it’s flawed. Examples of this include defining domestic abuse as a crime of men against women, asking only women, or requiring that the abuser be larger or stronger for it to be considered abuse. Other forms of flawed methodology use arrest rates. As mentioned before, arrests are biased towards men, including male abuse victims. As far as the CDC study goes, that has good methodology, but poor data. Statistically speaking, the women in the study were more likely than the average woman to report violence and the men were less likely, based on the demographics presented in the study itself.”
All of this is, again, calls for reform. Which is *almost* what you’re doing. Instead you’re saying that the studies are bad, because of feminists…something something…therefore it’s all bullcrap! Skipped a step in there. I mean, look. You take a snapshot of certain (quite relevant, yes) facts such as women being more likely to report domestic violence than men. Interesting and problematic, because it’s a sign that we value male victims less than female victims of that crime. But *how did it get that way*?
“Furthermore, Permutations of Ninjas, in the post I mentioned before, addressed another important sex difference in regards to trauma when it comes to asking about lifetime abuse (rather than abuse within the past year or some other limited timeframe): Men with documented cases of child sexual abuse are less likely to report it when asked than women with documented cases. To the tune of 25%. 16% of men with documented cases of child sexual abuse responded positively, whereas 64% of women did. The summary of data uses the lifetime data, not the 12 month data. TyphoonBlue, in a post linked by PoN, also addresses other issues with lifetime violence rates (such as a bias towards female abusers, even in the minds of the victim). The study presented also didn’t study reciprocal abuse. Studies show that most domestic violence is bidirectional, but the CDC didn’t bother to study that particular confounder.”
Pedophilia is a whole different, though related, aspect of sexually violent crimes. (You’re skipping over the part where you link to these studies that clearly indicate domestic violence is generally bidirectional, btw. Or else I have missed it in the comment format here.
“Finally, and I cannot stress this enough, one study or survey does not provide proof. The reason why I directed you to SAVE’s page is because they have a metanalysis provided which shows that most studies show women as the majority abusers in relationships.”
You talk an awful lot about studying methodology of studies whose results you don’t like. Or a more charitable outlook, don’t like because of bad methodology. I have the sneaking suspicion that your rigor is not as rigorous with the studies you do like.
“And… yeah, it was actually feminists. Feminists, using the Duluth Model, pushed for mandatory arrests for domestic violence in some areas. This resulted in a massive increase in the number of women arrested and a small increase in the number of men arrested. In response, feminist groups lobbied for Predominant/Primary Aggressor policies, otherwise known as “arrest the man” policies. So… yeah. The reason why male victims of abuse get arrested is, in fact, because of feminist activities.”
Well now wait a minute. A moment ago we were talking about how vast female underrepresentation isn’t a problem because if they wanted to, they could run things and anyway they vote for men. So the step you skipped here is ‘feminists convinced men…’ In any event, again you’re skipping out on the broader context. How did it get this way? What was going on in society that made such policies seem like a good idea…to men, I might add, who were the ones who actually enacted the policies? Were they just utterly curbstomped by feminists, helpless to resist?
“Maybe you don’t understand, but statistics in support of the wage gap don’t care about “mixed group.” It’s based off of the average. This is why it’s important to show that women, on average don’t negotiate their salaries, don’t work as many hours, are less likely to relocate, etc. Instead of accepting these statistics as confounding variables in the wage gap statistics, you instead dismiss them, go for the straw man (a straw man that can’t actually exist, if you bothered to learn anything about the “fedora-wearing MRA” straw man), and declare it done. All without actually having to deal with the actual statistics and how they cast doubt on the wage gap claims. Statistics show that it’s a result of women’s choices and not actual sexism against women? It doesn’t matter. Because you have personal attacks, a straw man, and a firm dismissal of any data that could possibly affect your pre-existing biases.”
*Again* you skip a step. Is it deliberate? You say out loud ‘women don’t negotiate for their salaries’ and don’t, apparently, stop to ask why. I guess…they just don’t like money as much as men do? Maybe they’re all commies, or are allergic to green? Why *is* it that they’re less likely to shift locations? These are questions with simple, obvious answers so I don’t know whether you’re just being obtuse or you really haven’t thought of them. What the actual statistics show is not that the wage gap isn’t a thing or isn’t a problem, but rather that it is (thankfully) much less of a thing than in the past, and is presently a complicated problem that can no longer be answered with ‘because men are sexist’.
“And maybe you’re not aware of this, but the topic of discussion is, in fact, how feminist policies have harmed men and how claims that they make of bias against women are bullshit. And I have, in fact, discussed issues facing men. For example, the fact that, when a man reported being gang raped by women, Twitter laughed at him. And yet, you ignore literally everything I posted not related to actual statistical differences between men and women and then label the actual statistics as sexist because… apparently, showing any difference between men and women is sexist, even if the scientific data proves it to be true.”
I never labeled the statistics as sexist, and it is frankly absurd to hold up a Twitter anecdote as though it were some sort of silver bullet. Particularly since I have said more than once that dismissiveness towards male victims of sexual violence is deeply problematic and a sign that systemic reform is needed. Now, you may have legit missed that because it’s easy here, but I’ve said this more than once.
“Oh, right, by the way, because you bring up different workplace standards (something I wasn’t even going to bother touching, but changed my mind), you don’t seem to understand that there is a minimum effectiveness. If you have twice as many police officers chasing after a suspect, it doesn’t matter that both of them can run at 80% of the speed of said suspect, they aren’t going to catch him. Similarly, it doesn’t matter if a soldier can drag 80% of the weight of a fellow soldier, because if that fellow soldier is wounded, the other still won’t be able to drag him or her behind cover. Differing standards put lives at risk in jobs where physical standards are important (which, yes, includes dangerous jobs like construction). This is aside from where minimum physical standards apply that are just part of the job, mind you. Someone that can only lift 70% (your number) of the minimum male standard on a construction site won’t be able to do certain tasks. These physical standards exist because this is the minimum to actually get the job done. Furthermore, two people at 70% (again, your number) strength do not equal 140% effectiveness (FYI, they also cannot lift 140% in a single load, see: Physics), so even if you were willing to argue that someone that qualifies at 70% of the standard should get 70% of the pay (something I highly doubt) or half the pay (since you decided to go with 100k to 200k, completely ignoring the fact that that extra 100k costs money), you still wouldn’t be able to say that that extra 100k at 70% effectiveness is helpful. Setting the standard to 70%, for men or women, puts lives at risk and pays people for jobs that they can’t actually do.”
Strangely, though, in spite of an analysis that on the surface is quite sensible, as we see more and more women entering the military, police forces, and firefighters, we don’t see systemic failures that we should be getting if what you were saying were valid.
“Nah. You don’t want to discuss that. That might throw a wrench into the whole “men are violent” thing, which is, apparently, not sexist.”
You’ve got to pick one. Is your objection that I am (supposedly) saying ‘men are violent’-to be clear, I’m not, and I’d love if you quoted me as saying or suggesting that. If so, then you can hardly then go about saying things such as women are the majority perpetrators in domestic violence…and be immunse from a charge of sexism. Unless you mean to say that statistically women simply are more violent than men.
@ Rakeesh:
Oh, and because it’s on my mind right now, what about Adele Mercier’s comments in response to how common it is for male prisoners in juvenile detention to be subject to rape by female guards? She classified statutory rape and other forms of rape as okay because the male prisoners “wanted sex” (ignoring power dynamics, whether or not that was actually true, and the concept of statutory rape all in one go). These comments have been spread throughout feminist groups as “right” and “true.”
Mary Koss secretly erased male rape victims. Adele Mercier and modern feminists have done it blatantly and publicly. Is it any wonder why Feministe and Feministing are losing followers and AVfM is gaining? When prominent feminists, such as Christina Hoff Sommers and Erin Pizzey receive death threats for speaking the truth, is it any wonder that they’d turn away from it? And every time some feminist blog links “Study Reveals Female Rape Victims Enjoyed the Experience,” claiming that it is in support of rape, some of their followers will read it and realize that the blog author is doing exactly the thing that Paul Elam says they do.
The reason why feminism is losing strength and Men’s Rights is gaining is because the lies, sexism, suppression, and ignorance that feminism has been practicing and disseminating is becoming more and more blatant and sites like AVfM have been calling them on it.
Rakeesh wrote:
Would you require a study by study analysis of the flaws in each before you would even consider (for example) that there have been a lot of studies done over the years that suggest that domestic violence isn’t particularly gendered, but that they get panned for political reasons. Notably, which studies will be given negative treatment follows lines of what results they arrive at, and this is something that absoltely can be blamed on feminism. Feminism and feminist theory has ingrained itself so thoroughly into the study of anything related to gender that whether or not the results of a study are agreeable from a feminist perspective is central to how well accepted they will be. To the point that a study that used women from DV shelters and men in prison as the sources for their sample received less criticism (and fewer death threats and bomb threats) for that than Gelles, Steinmetz, and Straus did for their studies in the 70s and 80s that were among the earliest to show that doemstic violence wasn’t particularly gendered.
The fact that the federal domestic violence law specifically allows funded programs to discriminate with respect to actual or perceived sex or gender, but also requires that any funded program serve women specifically couldn’t have anything to do with that, now could it?
Why set a standard if the standard isn’t necessary or at least beneficial? If you are saying that an unnecessary and too-high phyical standard is what is keeping women out of some positions, that why have the standard be that high in the first place? Why not lower it across the board, instead of giving women a separate, lower standard?
So, law enforcement didn’t want to get involved with “matters of the home” and such, and the way to fix that was to mandate arrest and punishment along gender lines? We arrived at that way of dealing with things because discussion of domestic violence has been couched in the concept of patriarchal dominance (the Duluth model is built upon this concept, for example), regardless of the degree to which that concept is actually accurate (plenty of studies suggest it isn’t, but they tend not to be well accepted *because* of that). The result is that male victims have no help available. They actually have worse than that — if they seek help for being a victim of domestic abuse, they will be arrested. Surely you can accept that that is a serious problem, and there’s no good reason it shouldn’t be fixed.
Sure thing, I’ll say it — women tend to target a different work-life balance than men (one that is probably much healthier than what is more typical for men, but as a society we only tend to care about men as far as they have utility so who can blame them?), and as a result tend to work less overtime and take more time off. About 80% also have children, which leads to career interruptions while in the same situation men tend to push to work more (laregly because their mate is pulling in less/no money for a time and childbirth/infancy is *expensive* so they need the money badly). I won’t argue that they don’t work as hard or as well, but they very certainly don’t work as long, and there are numbers to back that up.
About equally violent, actually. But that shouldn’t be a surprise to feminists. After all, women are people too, and being people aare just as capable of being terrible people as anyone else.
Wait, what? Who is saying this again? Women don’t achieve political office for the same reason I am unlikely to achieve political office — they don’t get the votes. The ironic part is that a majority of the voter base is women (because women are moer likely to vote), so women don’t get into office not because of some gender conspiracy, but because they can’t convince the electorate to vote for them, a small majority of which are women.
Hey, something we agree on. I’d bet we don’t agree on how to fix it though, since my solution involves not training cops to always arrest the man, because being arrested as a victim merely for having a penis is one of the reasons it is so underreported.
There have been a bunch of studies that suggest gender symmetry in domestic violence. They don’t get quoted by domestic violence agencies because they are not politically convenient.
rakeesh wrote:
Yeah, I found my problem, I left out two /s in the tags. I can repost that with the quotes fixed if you want.
You say that, but let me point out two things: One, there is law in place that bars sex discrimination with respect to pay (Equal Pay Act, later strengthened by the Lily Ledbetter Act which changed the time frame in which complaints could be lodged). Two, if you really could get away with paying women meaningfully less for the same amount and quality of work, do you know what corporations would do? They’d hire women whenever possible, to take advantage of being able to shave about 20% off of their largest expense. You’d have to be insane not to. But they don’t (despite being essentially sociopathic profit maximizers). What does that tell you? Perhaps that it’s not that simple?
According to the CONSAD report, it’s somewhere between taking 7% and giving you an extra 3%, depending on how the remaining factors that couldn’t be isolated from everything else overlap.
By the logic used to arrive at the raw wage gap, if I work 50 hours a week and you work 40 hours a week and we get time and a half after 40 hours and receive exactly the same base hourly rate then you make 72 cents to my dollar — discrimination! The actual overtime difference is less tan 10 hours, but it’s a huge part of the raw wage gap.
Let me put it this way, why do you think they always compare total pay and not say hourly rates within the same industry for a given position and a given number of years of job experience? Because every time you take a step towards comparing apples to apples, the wage gap gets smaller and a smaller wage gap is less useful as a tool for manipulation.
a) Who is stopping women from running again? Oh, that’s right, no one is. (See Hillary Clinton, who I voted for in the primaries back when she was running against Obama, largely because she had much more political experience. I still think we’d have been better off with her as POTUS).
b) This falls back on a very simple position: If you can’t convince people you are the one to vote for, you aren’t going to hold office. I’m not going to hold office either, for much the same reason — I have multiple traits that people associate with being poor choices to vote for. For example, I am not Christian.
Who is teaching women that these days? How is it that all these things are allegedly pervasive cultural messages that everyone is inundated with and indoctrinated into, and yet I seem to keep missing them.
@ Invisible Dancing Bottom:
Hell. Forced to serve beer to loudmouth beer-bellied gun-carrying redneck sports fanatics who will call her ‘girlie.” As she rushes to serve them beer and mop up after them and offer chips and peanuts she’ll be all smiles and saying “Right away masters” while inside she’ll be screaming in horror and pain and humiliation for eternity!
Schadrach wrote:
That’s what I was wondering.
Children’s shows and movies when I was going up, if they brought up gender issues at all, always seemed to beat it over the audience’s head that girls were awesome and could do anything and that boys were dumb and brutish and had nothing better to do than be exclusionary of girls for no reason.
And just look at almost any commercial where there’s a married couple and one is a screw-up or is wrong about something and the other one is the sensible one. How often is the husband the sensible one? Almost never.
@ Schadrach:
I want to qualify a statement you made here about women being equally violent: The claim that there’s “gender symmetry” in domestic violence is polite, to say the least. The studies that follow any sort of decent methodology (that is, they ask both sexes the same questions and, ideally, match individuals in relationships) tend to show women as the majority abusers. That said, there are a number of confounding variables here, not the least of which is the lack of any support for male victims of abuse as well as societal pressures for men to “man up.”
And before anyone blames that on Patriarchy, “male tears” is a feminist attack on anything suggesting that men have issues at all, especially when it comes to things like domestic violence.
But yeah, surely it’s the Patriarchy that’s doing it.
I just want to know wether this is directed at feminists themselves or people who think feminists act like this.
Is it a parody or is it the author claiming that this is how feminists act?
I mean yeah a few do but that’s hardly a reason to assume all of them do just based on that.
I love Sandra and Woo and will continue to read it but this story arc was just kind of… Well it wasn’t one of the best I think, I mean it was a bit funny yeah but really it just seemed to be a bit mean spirited towards feminists.
And not every feminist is a tumblr SJW either i mean wow, they have a habit of going waaaaaay to far.
@ NotASpy:
Actually a large number of feminists DO acknowledge male problems but they do originate from the fact that women are seen as inferior so any man abused by a woman isn’t beleived because “like wow how could you let a GIRL beat you up.”
Most feminists acknowledge this and is often how a lot of male feminists end up getting into feminism in the first place. Because they DO want women to be considered equal to them.
The term “male tears” is almost exclusively used on tumblr. Where despite there good intentions tend to take things waaaaaay too far.
The problem is that feminism took one side of the problem, and neglected the other side. I´d call that was a knee-jerk, strong, reaction, justified at some point, and then it became increasingly stale, as it did become more and more mainstream. Some strong advocaters of (radical) feminism in the past are becoming a lot more sensible, and modulating their views, and to a certain degree, acknowledge that being vocal doesn´t mean to impose and battle everything. They´re realising that creating (unknowingly, perhaps?) a gender-based ideology has done more damage to his cause than male ginophobia could xD. I meant to say, that ideology became way too thin: it refuses to conciliate the male view of the world with its own (it never tries to understand why is like that, reprobates it, and doesn´t acknowledge if it has valid reasons for its actual form and reason of being), and instead, overthrow it. Too bad that the humanity at large consist of the two sides of the same coin, and both are needed.
There is difference, but “compensating” the difference only will make it more evident.
A anthropologist would indeed understand it: one of the oldest customs of human society his the gender-oriented labor, which is a way to maximise eficiency in the difficult environment of rural societies of old. We don´t know if it was a deliberate choice of those communities, but perhaps, it was most likely a result of biological tendencies: Males were the most effective to defend and procure survival to the group, while women could use and focus their skills in other areas. That arrangement became a solid custom to many, and therefore almost “law” of nature.
We now live in a world mainly shaped by the male side of the mind by the centuries, and I find good that women´s thinking and voice is becoming more recognizable in it now. But using those voices for confrontation… won´t work, as confrontation won´t build anything,
And I don´t think matriarchial societies will return to the top, or if it would be convenient to change to nowaday´s world. Instead, we need to juggle both the assets and shortcomings of each gender, acepting eachother in those areas whom one can shine best. It´s as clear as water in some aspects: put Tyson Gay and Carmelita Jeter in the same race (100 mts) and compare. They´re both good, but there´s a clear difference.
It´s in intellectual activities where women can mop the floor in many fields, and even outshine their male counter parts (think of Marie Curie…) but still, there are biological conditions which are hard to be oblivious: giving birth and children care, have been the “job” of women in many societies, and that custom won´t change at large since we haven´t transitioned from the classic nuclear family to a society in which children are responsability of the whole community, as per example, the aymaras (an amazonian tribe) do. This sociological step (perhaps evolution? it has happened in the past) would take a lot from a individualistic society based on the personal ego, in which even kids “are” like extensions of their parents (at least until they reach the adult age), but in exchange, it would liberate a lot of human energy (from both genders) to pursue many things. That´s something I hope that will happen, but I won´t see it. It will take many years, but it will happen, both for cultural and economic reasons (economics as in material resources, or progressive lack of thereof).
Cheers.
Ugh, sorry for my bad english…
Mr. Morningstar wrote:
Let me stop you right there. Are we talking about the same sort of feminists that frequently exclude most male victims from their studies as a matter of definition, then turn around and use those same studies to claim that women are the heavy majority of rape and abuse victims?
Because that damn sure does not sound like acknowledging that men are victimized at all, let alone what you are suggesting, and yet it is a very disturbingly common practice amongst feminists.
@ Mr. Morningstar:
Bull. Fucking. Shit.
It was feminists that pushed the Duluth Model, and still do. It was feminists that set the predominant aggressor laws into action, otherwise known as “arrest the man,” which has led to a massive amount of male victims of abuse being arrested. It was also feminists that pushed for government policies that fund women’s shelters for domestic violence, policies that also deny any funding for men’s shelters. And it was Mary Koss, a feminist, who not only misrepresented the actual number of female rape victims (3/4 of the “1 in 5” statistic actually flat-out told her that they hadn’t been raped, but she decided to count them anyway), but also decided that referring to incidents of female on male rape wouldn’t be proper, which also set the precedent that feminists and even government studies have used when it comes to male rape victims, which is to ignore them, in spite of the fact that, as I mentioned before, at least half of all rapes outside the prison system have male victims. It’s also feminists that, when confronted with the fact that there’s a massive amount of sexual abuse in juvenile detention from female guards, lauded Adele Mercier for saying that that doesn’t matter. Underage boys being molested by those that hold, essentially, absolute power over them. But it’s not rape.
Mind what people do, not what they say, for actions will betray a lie. The feminist movement doesn’t give a shit about this stuff and actively encourages discrimination against male victims. That is the origin of “male tears.” Tumblr feminists are just a hell of a lot more honest about it.
Ok, I know she is supposed to be a comical exaggeration of the bad kind of feminists, but is she actually planning to erase the human race?
Aaaaah. I get it. Notice the little *puff* sound effect, then go read the last comic.
@ Rakeesh:
Okay, I missed this post, but I am honestly just so done with your complete idiocy and your inability to look up studies and sources that I reference (while only ever spouting rhetoric and bullshit without citing a single actual source), so I’m just going to address two things here:
1. Women make up the majority voters and the feminist lobbying groups have no opposing voice, which gives them an extraordinary amount of power. Furthermore, studies show that both women and men are biased towards protecting women. This is aside from the fact that, hey, guess what? Politicians aren’t scientists. They don’t know a good study from a bad one, so when the Duluth Model came about with massive feminist support (including studies that “proved” it by using it as their methodology), there wasn’t anyone to say otherwise. When feminist groups release studies that they claim show that women are worse off when it comes to sexual harassment in colleges (in spite of the fact that the results of the study show men as the majority victims), there’s no one to tell the politicians that that study’s results are absolutely in conflict with the conclusion the study authors wrote.
2. I did not say that women in the military, police force, etc is a bad thing. Again, you’re straw manning. I said that lowering standards is a bad thing. Not every instance of women in the police force, fire fighters, etc is a result of lowered standards, and most women that qualified at the same standard as men seem to agree that lowered standards for women (or in general) is a stupid concept and a stupid practice. Furthermore, I never said it would lead to “catastrophic failure” (again, straw man). Rather, I pointed out that it puts lives at risk. We don’t know how many people have died or how many criminals have gotten away because of lower standards for women in some police departments. Nobody’s bothered to study it. Criminals get away sometimes, firefighters die in the line of duty… and often times, there is an impact, but it’s subtle enough that it’s not blatant. That subtleness doesn’t necessarily mean that there hasn’t been an impact, mind you, just that it’s not necessarily obvious that the lowered standards are the cause. And even if it only increases deaths by .5%, any death for the sake of a bullshit quota system is unacceptable. Standards are there for a reason, and if you’d get your head out of your ass, maybe you’d see that they exist for reasons that have nothing to do with excluding women.
@ Rakeesh:
And, just for fun:
“men are far more as a group more violent to each other and to women than women are to other women and to other men.”
Your claim. Yeah, you did say that men are more violent than women.
So now that that little derail is mostly done, I want to talk about something that really bothers me about feminism, and it’s related to the comic, so don’t worry.
I would bet, dollars to donuts, that that guy is one of those infamous “Nice Guys” that feminists are so quick to say make up the ranks of MRAs and PUAs (which they also say are the same thing… for some reason). This may be the most blatant bullshit anyone’s ever spread, and nobody questions it. The core of Nice Guy Syndrome, though, is cookie-seeking behavior. Basically, men that do and say things because they’ll get a pat on the head from certain groups of women. They also go out of their way to be as passive and submissive towards these women as possible, meaning that they’d never call feminists on bullshit (as MRAs do) or try to insult women to get them into bed… somehow (like PUAs do, though many PUAs are “former Nice Guys”).
Instead of calling Nice Guys on being Nice Guys, then, what we see is feminists actually rewarding this cookie-seeking behavior. It’s been my experience that “male feminists” are, in fact, Nice Guys. All the Nice Guys, male feminists, and white knights I’ve met have fit into all three groups at once, and it was painfully obvious to me, long before I ever actually did the research into gender issues (back when I thought that women were the majority victims of rape and domestic abuse and that the wage gap was real and all that), that women calling white knights to their aid every time they call misogyny or “rape culture” (whether it was accurate or not… usually the latter) were rewarding Nice Guys.
@ Woden:
@ NotASpy:
The feminists you speak of are radicals.
I am in no way claiming that feminists are always nice and genuinely just want equal rights for men and women.
But I am also not going to sit here and hear you generalize the women AND men feminists just because some have used the banner of feminism to negatively impact certain aspects of our society.
Have feminists done some things wrong? Yes, yes they have, I’m in no way trying to say that everything feminists have done has been for the better. Those who use feminism as a way to be above men are NOT feminists, and they can screech at me and tell me how dare I as much as they want.
Real feminists, not the ones you speak of, real feminists who just want to be taken seriously and have equal rights and opportunities to men, allow women to make employment choices that no one will say they are too feminine for it or it is mens work.
Real feminists do not wish to be above men but equal. They want feminity to be associated with strength and good not weak and cowardly.
Real feminists scorn any who say rape of any kind be it towards men, women and especially children is not rape.
I don’t know what “feminists” you have encountered but the ones I speak with are nothing but kind. And I wish you would speak with the real feminists and not those that claim to be.
@ Mr. Morningstar:
Well, maybe if these ‘real feminists’ would actually denounce and distance themselves from the radicals, then people wouldn’t lump them together.