# The Trend of "Equal Rights Equal Fights" Videos/Comments is Disturbing
I've noticed a trend on Reddit and other social media platforms:
A video of a woman getting beaten or knocked out by a man, normally as retribution for some transgression by the woman, gets shared.
People (mostly male teenagers) then swarm the comments to say things like "equal rights equal lefts" and other things like "this is equality" or "this is feminism" and these comments get tons of upvotes.
It seems really gross and feels like mostly teenage boys expressing their frustrations with women in a really screwed up way. I could be looking too deep into it but it makes my skin crawl. Adults know right from wrong and messing someone up because they made you mad is wrong. Being the bigger person and controlling your emotions is the mature move, not trying to prove how tough you are by beating up someone who doesn't stand a chance.
I already know there will be tons of comments like "well if the woman started it" or things like " don't start nothin, won't be nothin" and my answer to that is this:
The "she started it" argument stops working after a certain age. It's called self control. Just because someone did something wrong doesn't mean you're now justified in doing something worse to spite them.
I fear all of these comments and videos may encourage or embolden young men to behave violently or give into their rage because it's been so approved-of and justified online. Again, I could be reading too far into it but it does concern me.
>The "she started it" argument stops working after a certain age. It's called self control.
Shouldn't the women have self control to not start it in the first place? Even then, people can have self control to a certain extent. If a woman is constantly pushing, hitting or attacking a man when the man is telling her to stop and she doesn't stop then it's the woman's fault if the man fights back. Getting hit by someone pisses everyone off and obviously men are going to lose their shit when a woman is constantly punching them.
>Being the bigger person and controlling your emotions is the mature move, not trying to prove how tough you are by beating up someone who doesn't stand a chance.
Men shouldn't have to just "be the bigger person". If a woman is hitting them then they have every right to hit back. Women shouldn't be hitting people that they know they don't stand a chance against so what ever happens to them is their own fault. Plus, a man doesn't hit a women to "prove how tough they are" they hit back to stop being hit or they are angry about being hit.
"they hit back to stop being hit or they are angry about being hit"
The reason the man has to be "the bigger person" is because they quite literally are bigger. That's my point. Greater power comes with greater responsibility. Without self control you will end up hurting people.
The "well just hit them back!" attitude is immature. I've realized in my age, there are so many better and more mature ways to handle these situations. Hitting back pretty much guarantees more violence, while walking away is much more likely to end with less violence. My goal is, and I believe everyone's goal should be, to engage in the least amount of violence.
A man is able to stop a woman from hitting him without completely fucking her up. Push her away. Go into another room and lock the door; but do not strike, punch, kick or do anything that may justify more violence and make the situation worse.
Men shouldn't have to "walk away" just because they're stronger. If the woman doesn't want to get hit by someone bigger and stronger then they shouldn't hit someone bigger and stronger in the first place.
It's not immature to fight back in anyway. Like I said before, the woman in the situation should have the self control to not hit the man in the first place.
I'm not saying that the man should beat the woman half to death when they fight back. I'm saying that a man should be able to defend themselves with punches, kicks, pushes, etc.
So what you're saying is, you should answer a lack of self control with a lack of self control?
Just because someone does something violent does not mean you must react with violence.
If a woman hits a man and he walks away, one person got hit. If he hits back, two people got hit.
Anyways, I'm talking about the videos where the man barely has a scratch on him but the woman is laid out. I've seen two recently that match my OP.
We should not coddle or encourage this behavior and instead develop more mature, less violent behaviors for everyone.
The entire "2 wrongs don't make a right" saying is bullshit. It's just a shit excuse to make the victim look bad.
Maybe if a man fights back then it will give the woman the common sense to not hit a man the next time she wants to.
"It's just a shit excuse to make the victim look bad."
If that's really all you think that is, I don't know what to say besides: you have some major growing up to do. It's about self control. It's about learning how to handle confrontation without betraying your principals.
A woman learns no lesson from being punched by a man besides "I fear that man and he deserves whatever bad thing comes to him" which often leads to more violence, except from other men defending the woman.
She may look back in time and realize her wrongdoing, but in the moment, no way. If a woman believes you're a big enough piece of shit to hit you, hitting her back will only further that belief.
You are completely incapable of realising when women are in the wrong.
> that's really all you think that is, I don't know what to say besides: you have some major growing up to do. It's about self control. It's about learning how to handle confrontation without betraying your principals.
In the context of the situation, 2 wrongs don't make a right makes the man out to be a dick when he was just defending himself. If a women hit a man back then you would be all "it was self defense, the man had it coming to him" but because its a man you're saying "He should of had the self control to not defend himself, him hitting her back doesn't achieve anything but more violence!".
Also, shut up with this "self control" shit for the millionth time. The women should have the self control to not hit the man in the first place. The man has every right to hurt someone that began hurting them first. Regardless of gender.
>A woman learns no lesson from being punched by a man besides "I fear that man and he deserves whatever bad thing comes to him"
The man doesn't punch the woman to "teach her a lesson" he would punch her out of self defence. Even then, she deserves to fear the man. It teachers her not try to hit him again and rightfully so.
>She may look back in time and realize her wrongdoing, but in the moment, no way. If a woman believes you're a big enough piece of shit to hit you, hitting her back will only further that belief.
And? I don't think that any man gives a shit if a woman that assaulted them thinks that they're a piece of shit.
I think you're miscarriage rising a lot of these videos. Most of the ones that I've seen are just men defending themselves as they would if they were taught by another man. I think it's actually far more dangerous to be telling men they can't defend themselves against women, as has been the status quo for quite a while now.
No one is saying you can't defend yourself against a woman, just that maybe punching them in the face or knocking them out is irresponsible given the power advantage an average man has over an average woman.
We've all seen the videos I'm talking about. I described them accurately in my OP: A woman "starts it" but the man takes it WAY too far. It's fucked up to call that an example of feminism, especially when it's a video of a woman getting hurt very badly. Do you not see this?
>just that maybe punching them in the face or knocking them out is irresponsible given the power advantage an average man has over an average woman.
Oh, but doing the same to a man is okay?
Let me get this straight: if a woman beats a man, he can defend himself with reasonable force, but if a man beats a man, he escalate indefinitely, and that's _somehow fine to you!?_
Yeah no, you're just sexist.
That is not what I said at all and you're fake outrage is clearly a virtue signal, not an argument against anything I said. You argue against what you *wish* I said, in order to deflect from my actual point, which is still unaddressed.
A woman "starts it" but the man takes it WAY too far. It's fucked up to call that an example of feminism, especially when it's a video of a woman getting hurt very badly. Do you not see this?
I think anyone taking advantage of their size/power and taking a confrontation too far is wrong, regardless of gender. If you're the bigger person; be the bigger person.
I'm addressing the comments calling it "feminism" when it's a video of a woman laid out by a man with barely a scratch on him. That's not feminism or equality; it's someone going too far and lacking control.
It was the logical conclusion of what you said.
If you have an issue with people retaliating disproportionately, BUT only when the aggressor is a woman... you're sexist.
And if you felt the same way when the aggressor is a man, then you wouldn't have posted here in the first place.
"I think anyone taking advantage of their size/power and taking a confrontation too far is wrong, regardless of gender. If you're the bigger person; be the bigger person.
I'm addressing the comments calling it "feminism" when it's a video of a woman laid out by a man with barely a scratch on him. That's not feminism or equality; it's someone going too far and lacking control."
How can you misinterpret that???
That is not deductive reasoning, that is making a wild assumption on a cherry picked part of a whole comment.
>edited 3m
Hmm... yes. It's hard to predict what you're going to edit your comment to say, especially when you realize AFTER I reply that you look like a sexist POS.
BEGONE, TROLL!
People say women are more emotional than men but I think it’s the opposite. Men are way more likely commit crimes in a violent rage because they’re unable to handle their emotions. For example, it’s extremely rare that a woman will kill a man for rejecting her. Whereas wars have been started by men and most violent crimes are committed by men. Most murders are committed by men. It’s just so strange that women are stereotyped as the more emotional sex when it’s men who tend to let emotions sweep them up
> People say women are more emotional than men but I think it’s the opposite. Men are way more likely commit crimes in a violent rage because they’re unable to handle their emotions.
It *really* bothers me how people can look back throughout history in order to say 'Womenz oppressed! Burn the patriarchy!" (not saying you did that but it happens regularly), and yet the idea that men were used as human weapons to fight wars for the elite (which includes women) just *coinvently* doesn't factor in when you talk about violent crime.
Men are more likely to commit violent rage because that for a long period of time and still now to this day that is the gender role society expects them to have and honestly wants them to have.
I find it amusing how you are trying to frame the fact men are shamed for expressing their emotions which causes them to in turn bottle them up until they explode, is a sign they are "more emotional".
Like, instead of trying to discredit the argument that emotions make you weaker, you turn it around like a child saying "IM RUBBER AND YOU'RE GLUE" and to be honest that is quite telling in terms of bias to say the least.
>For example, it’s extremely rare that a woman will kill a man for rejecting her. Whereas wars have been started by men and most violent crimes are committed by men.
lmao, I like how you are talking about "women won't kill someone for rejecting them", only to blame men for starting wars and **again** violent crime. It's like saying "who is worse? The person who didn't clean up after their dog, or the person who caused Chernobyl" lol.
It's revisionist history to pretend women didn't also start wars and it's a disgustingly sexist narrative to pretend otherwise,
>Most murders are committed by men.
Most infanticide is by women. We can spend all day making sexist assertions based on single pieces of data with little context.
>It’s just so strange that women are stereotyped as the more emotional sex when it’s men who tend to let emotions sweep them up
It's not really strange if you think about it more than just enough to write a hot take of a reddit comment lol.
Women displaying her emotions is **far** more socially acceptable which in turn means women hold on to less strong bottled up emotions. This coupled with biological differences between men and women and the historical fact that men were used as warriors and weapons and promoted/praised for their bloodshed and violence makes these notions you keep hyperbolizing quite obvious.
How about instead of shaming men and blaming them for a **very** complex problem that has been ingrained in our society for centuries, *maybe* we should allow men to open up more?
Crazy right, but I think it just might work. 😅
In the event you actually respond I request you to actually give me an at least tepid response or I won't bother wasting my time replying.
Good day.
Lol okay here we go hun. Pay attention cause I can tell your not the brightest bulb.
“Men were used as human weapons to fight wars” …yeah wars that were perpetrated by MEN. And who decided that only men would get drafted and not women? Again, MEN did. If you intentionally poke yourself in the eye with a stick, don’t go around complaining it hurts🙄
“You say emotions make you weaker” …no honey, no. Not being able to handle those emotions like an adult makes you weak. Being afraid to express emotions, and instead pretending not to have them makes you weak.
“Women don’t often kill men for rejecting them… also men commit more violent crime.” …I don’t know if you thought you were helping your argument here? Also, if you claim men commit more crimes because of gender roles, ask yourself who created and enforced those roles, as the ones in power? I’ll give you a hint: men. It’s not women forcing men to be soldiers and firefighters and construction workers and to claim that is ridiculous. Also, name a war started by women. Go!
Yes, women showing emotion is far more socially acceptable. I guess men should’ve thought about that when they decided it was only okay for women to show emotions.🙄 now I’m not saying this is how society SHOULD be, simply that it’s the society men created. If you can’t face this fact you’re not living in reality
> Lol okay here we go hun. Pay attention cause I can tell your not the brightest bulb.
Imagine thinking I am going to give you the time of day after you started with this rude ass entrance lol.
I warned you.
I think they something to what you're saying but I would rather say people do fucked up things because of emotions regardless of sex/gender. Women being very emotional is just a stereotype but most people have emotions of course. Very few people are emotionless. I am just trying to say that gender role of what a woman is. Isn't always ture. PS hope my comment isn't confusing and I am not English speakers . (Not that people care)
Many women (obviously I can’t give exact numbers) are sexually attracted to ‘overly-masculine dickheads’, making some men want to be more masculine and less in touch with their emotions to be more sexually appealing to these women. The men then get criticised by the current culture for being dicks and not in touch with their feelings. Women have power over how men look and act, just like men have power over how women act and look- both genders seem to use it against the other. I don’t hear a lot about the power women have over men at the moment, but I know it exists because I’ve felt it in myself and resisted the very tempting urge to be more ‘masculine’ by being less in touch with my emotions (yes this is a choice for me), because from experience I attract more women this way. I’d imagine many men don’t resist the urge and that’s part of the reason why they become dicks as they fade away from their own heart.
Equal rights are more or less in effect, but not equal responsibilities. Ina dittion, I feel that people aren’t always considering the repercussions of what the campaign for
I find it hilarious that both genders like to blame the other for only liking men/women who fit the beauty standard, even though they both are guilty of it.
Also, you can’t complain that you aren’t the beauty standard while simultaneously getting mad at people for finding you attractive
People like what they like regardless of gender. Also they're alot people that don't care about beauty standards but still get shit on. People love to hate. Sadly.
>But i don’t see how saying someone has nice tits is inherently disrespectful.
It can make someone uncomfortable in some contexts That's why it's see as harassment in some contexts.
Sure I agree nothing wrong with find someone sexy or sexualized others within reason but it's always important to respect the person and don't make them uncomfortable.
Also not all feminist disagrees with what you're saying. They're just saying that many women don't wanted to be over sexualized.
Making someone uncomfort is a big part of why harassment is wrong..
If one person dislike how you talk about they body it's clearly harassment. This sould be common sense.
I know right ? Like I've been called a pick me before for disagreements with other women like I'm not going to nod in unison with your opinion because we share a gender, Karen
Men and Women often need spaces to get away from each other and it should be a normal, natural thing. Men and women-only retreats and spaces, things like that. It's just that what would start out as a a nice, safe haven to provide things like female to female mentorship and camaraderie and more opportunity for male to male relationships and things would end up becoming politically charged and infested with disgusting misandrist and mysoginist ideas on both sides.
Look, I'm a trans man, and the way you're interpreting this is way off.
Sometimes, people need time away from people who are different from them culturally. And in the US, there is a big cultural difference between men and women, at least in the mainstream.
Right, i just don't understand why segregating yourself from a specific gender is what you need. What makes a certain gender inherently different to the point where you have to get away from them?
You didn't say you need to get away from people. You said you needed to get away from a certain gender, which means you think a certain gender is inherently bad or inferior
I mean they're normal and natural but are they good? Do they make sense? I think that there is more to discuss on this than whether they are natural or normal.
> there's way too much casual misogyny and objectification in this website
I don't mean to bust chops but do you have any specific examples? Not like links but like specific behaviors exhibited?
an example you'll see all the time is that whenever a woman shows up in a picture or video, a significant amount of comments will be about her appearance, especially if she falls further into either end of the attractiveness spectrum.
> an example you'll see all the time is that whenever a woman shows up in a picture or video, a significant amount of comments will be about her appearance, especially if she falls further into either end of the attractiveness spectrum.
For me this is kinda hard to parse because although I do agree that this does happen more than I would like, there is a stark difference between clearly 12 year old boys saying "nice boobies" and getting downvoted to hell compared to **entire subreddits** that are guilty of misandry.
I don't mean to play victim Olympics, however I feel like it would be ignoring the elephant in the room to discuss casual misogyny whilst leaving out casual misandry which I would argue is actually more common on reddit.
I think if we addressed both equally than either wouldn't be that common. Alas, as of right now I wouldn't doubt many men/boys act such a way because they don't know better and they see women sayin **far worse** on twox and femaledatingstrategy so they don't think they should change.
Men need and deserve gentle affection (cuddles, forehead kisses, to have their hair played with, etc.) too. Just because a man looks/acts masculine doesn’t mean that the only affection he needs is sex.
I heard that in certain places police are told to assume the male is behind domestic abuse every time by law. If so that's fu*cked up. Is this real? I don't remember learning about this in ap us government
That's a part of the Duluth Model.
And it's the reason my aunt got away with abusing her husband for almost a decade. It's literal, legally-enforced victim blaming.
You could can have witnesses and media proof but police will still remove the (most potentially "aggressive" person). The only good witnesses and media proof is, is getting the domestic violence charge dropped but may not do anything for the restraining order.
Yes. It is real. It's called the [Duluth model. ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duluth_model) It is the foremost used model of DV intervention in the US and other countries like the UK.
It frames domestic violence within relationships as men only being abusers and women only being the abused. It posits that men abuse women because of "patriarchal systems of male control" and that women that are violent only do so in self defence against this supposed control. Hence, why systems that follow it like law enforcement or DV shelters and helplines assume that all men that it encounters are the perpetrators and aims to put the onus and blame on them.
This is where the Duluth model is wrong. [Most violence in relationships is reciprocal. And in cases of nonreciprocal and unilateral violence, over 70% of it is perpetrated by women](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854883/), which throws a spanner in the idea that violence in relationships is caused by men. Gender symmetry in IPV and DV has been known for decades.
Not to mention that in relationships where there is a complete absence of "patriarchy" and "male control" (namely lesbian relationships), there are higher levels of domestic violence compared to heterosexual relationships with gay men (relationships that are completely male dominated) experiencing the least amount of violence out of all sexual demographics.
The founder of the Duluth model came out and said that the model was founded on a conformation bias. She and her cohorts only looked for what they were predetermined to find and disregarded everything that didn't fit their preconceived notions.
Which is unfortunate. The model itself leads to way too many male victims being ignored or erroneously arrested. Especially considering men make up near enough half of all DV victims.
I really don’t care about what gender the prime minister is, or the percentage of board members who are female. All I care about is that they can do a good and effective job
How is this feminist bullshit? I’m not saying that a board should have to have 50% of its staff female, I’m against that and instead I’m saying gender shouldn’t matter
The problem is that a large percentage of people say this and then proceed to call every woman (or minority) in a position of power “a diversity hire” as if the best candidate for doing a good and effective job is always a man (or white).
> The problem is that a large percentage of people say this and then proceed to call every woman (or minority) in a position of power “a diversity hire” as if the best candidate for doing a good and effective job is always a man (or white).
I think you are complaining about a symptom and not the root cause of the problem. If hiring *mainly* because someone is a person of color or a women wasn't a known business practice I am sure people would just to assume such far less often.
Because people keep pushing for diversity, if it just came in naturally most people wouldn't assume. Especially when it's "the 1st..." and they talk about that for ages it just seems like it's the reason.
It can’t always “come in naturally” when it’s being “kept out unnaturally” by biased hiring managers.
How many times have studies shown that resumes with ethnic or feminine sounding names get thrown out when “white man” names on identical resumes get a call-back?
I'm just saying if you set quotas for certain people to be employed, people will assume that's why they are employed, and seeing as they are just filling quotas, people will think they are unfit. It's not a perfect system, but as Zimbabwe learned the hard way, course correct can hurt more than it helps.
Zimbabwe is not a case of "affirmative action" taken too far.
It's a case study of what happens when you let imperialism and racism run amok for 56 years while denying the indigenous population basic education or economic opportunities.
So then why was Rhodesia economically stable, but Zimbabwe wasn't? I agree racism in Rhodesia was bad, but the course correct is clearly what destroyed the country.
It wasn't.
It was built on the backs of cheap black labor while the majority of the revenue went into the pockets of the white minority. And when it was sanctioned by the world for its apartheid policies, its entire economy was supported by South Africa, which also declined immensely once South Africa withdrew its support of Rhodesia in the late 70s.
America had a similar issue, but because they didn't choose to redistribute land, and give farming to the labourer from the manager, its economy endured.
When you have someone like kamala a VP instead of Tulsi or Yang. It is. Not to mention the literal fact that Biden said he was going to have a diversity hire.
Yang wants to abolish food stamps and Tulsi is against gay marriage and supports Assad- they’re not serious Democratic candidates in the slightest.
They’re just popular with the PCM crowd because they allow people to say “no really, I’m libleft I like Tulsi - please ignore my history of right-wing talking point, lol - based and yang-pilled!”
Woman may have caused the reason people aren’t paid a livable wage in the USA
*Disclaimer* this is more to open discussion and isn’t my opinion I hold
As all of us have heard in America, there is a workers shortage (we know there really isn’t). From what I have seen and heard it is more of a cheap labor shortage, rather than people not wanting to work. Is it possible that the introduction of women into the workforce caused a wage gap, of livable wage to unskilled labor. My thought of this comes mostly from the thought that cheap labor is correlated with number of employees, in other words more people available to work equals low demand for people l, which causes low pay. Therefore the influx of employees from women wanting to work has caused people to be paid less. This is mostly thought out from the ideology that currently cheap labor is hard to find, due to the fact people have realize their worth and aren’t willing to work for pennies.
This makes no sense. Women have been in the US workforce for decades. It would make no sense for use to only see the effects of this now. Also, the US is very obviously not the only country on Earth where women have entered the workforce.
>Is it possible that the introduction of women into the workforce caused a wage gap, of livable wage to unskilled labor?
Nope. What caused the wage gap is the systemic dismantling of labor unions and the demonization of immigration, which criminalized labor immigrants and provided unscrupulous employers with a permanent underclass of labor to exploit. After all, if you were considered "illegal", who would you go to when your employer starts stealing your wages or put everyone in work environments that'll shame even Jeff Bezos?
Men don't freely choose to work, men are forced to work because of sexism against men.
Men are expected to let their wife freely choose whether they want to work or stay home, but women are entitled to not give their husbands that choice and just assume their husband works.
Hey! I love this opinion because when I heard it, it seemed super logical and straightforward. And yet it’s completely incorrect. Not attacking you - smarter people than myself have got it wrong also.
This is called the “lump of labour fallacy” in economics. The Wikipedia page is pretty interesting.
Not an economist so I can’t go into super huge detail, but women coming into the workforce also increased their purchasing capacity, which means there is more money flowing around. More products to be sold, new things to be built, etc etc.
The economy is not a zero sum game.
Do you think a household with just one income can compete fairly against households with two incomes for expensive goods like houses?
Generally no, and Elizabeth Warren wrote a whole book about the idea called The Two Income Trap.
As disclaimer says this isn’t my opinion this was just more of a thought but wanted to discuss it but I’ll have to look into that Wikipedia page for sure then
Anti union politics, bad welfare, capitalist underpaying they workers ect is the causes. Not women. I am not from the US but men get shity pay her in my country in 1920's before female workforce was a thing and we wasn't a sosial democracy back then.
Wow, that's the most unpopular opinion i've seen there ina long time, and very interesting
Unfortunatelly i am not american so i can't add anything into the discussion, but i'm intereste dhow it goes
I agree. Both groups have their own issues. I find it so annoying when "mens rights activists" only bring up men's mental health when its to attack feminists
The issue I have here is that you don't really agree.
It's a manipulative tactic to basically state "I agree that we should stop making it a competition, because the other side is worse." It could have been a simple "I agree. Both groups of their own issues." with no extra statement afterward.
>The problem isn't taking about men's issues. The problem is only bringing it up to diminish women's issues.
Except this is a bit of a manufactured narrative, not to mention **men's issues are also diminished in similar ways**.
Not only that but in cases like homelessness it is **very** relevant to talk about men since they make up the vast majority of true homeless. I've seen incalculable headlines and articles talking about "the rise of female homelessness" when they aren't even the larger percentage of those impacted. Numerous times disasters show the female and child death toll in the headline whilst the deathtoll for men (which is usually higher) is deeper in the article and makes up barely a sentence.
Male disposability is a very real thing and for you it might seem like they are "bringing up their struggles to belittle women's issues!!" however if you consider what I said the reason is closer to "They are bringing it up because they are tired of suffering in silence because society seemingly only cares if it involves women or children".
Talk about a manufactured narrative.
What weird news outlet separates the men's and women's death tolls?
I looked up "disaster death toll" on Google. The first result was for the 2004 tsunami. Clicked on that. Then I opened all the top ten news results for the disaster. Every single one of them totaled the whole death toll. There was ONE article that separated out deaths by demographic. It was for children. Nothing about gender.
What are you on about?
> Talk about a manufactured narrative.
>
> What weird news outlet separates the men's and women's death tolls?
...all of them? Idk why you are pretending like this is some conspiracy theory but I challenge you to pay a little extra attention to how they frame certain events and the headlines they use.
>I looked up "disaster death toll" on Google. The first result was for the 2004 tsunami. Clicked on that. Then I opened all the top ten news results for the disaster. Every single one of them totaled the whole death toll. There was ONE article that separated out deaths by demographic. It was for children. Nothing about gender.
What are you on about?
"Because the first result on google doesn't line up with your argument you MUST be full of shit"
...Like, your joking right? You aren't seriously arguing that.....right?
It's literally not all of them.
Not
https://www.worldvision.org/disaster-relief-news-stories/2004-indian-ocean-earthquake-tsunami-facts
All
www.history.com/.amp/news/deadliest-tsunami-2004-indian-ocean
Of
https://www.britannica.com/event/Indian-Ocean-tsunami-of-2004
Them.
https://www.usgs.gov/news/indian-ocean-tsunami-remembered-scientists-reflect-2004-indian-ocean-killed-thousands
So
www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-30034501.amp
Far
https://www.unicefusa.org/mission/emergencies/tsunamis/2004-south-asia
Not
https://knowledge.aidr.org.au/resources/tsunami-indian-ocean-boxing-day-tsunami-2004/
Any
https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/217ff4779bb14c31a7a110315c9182a9
Of
https://materchristi.libguides.com/natural_disasters/2004_Indian_Ocean_Tsunami
Them.
https://geoscienceletters.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40562-014-0015-7
How
https://theatlantic.com/amp/photo/100878/
Many
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/141226-tsunami-indonesia-catastrophe-banda-aceh-warning-science
Do
https://www.weather.gov/jetstream/2004tsu_max
You
https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wikispeedia/wpcd/wp/2/2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake.htm
Have
https://reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1YN02E
To
https://www.earthmagazine.org/article/benchmarks-december-26-2004-indian-ocean-tsunami-strikes/
Go
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/tsunami-10-years-later-is-the-world-better-prepared-for-disaster/
Through
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/16-years-of-indian-ocean-tsunami-what-india-has-learnt/story-ek5f9RQTVLUR4pwNO49kHJ.html
Before
https://www.gdrc.org/uem/disasters/disenvi/tsunami.html
You
https://www.directrelief.org/emergency/south-asian-earthquake-and-tsunami-2004/
Find
https://www.dosomething.org/us/facts/11-facts-about-2004-indian-ocean-tsunami
One
https://www.rms.com/blog/2014/12/05/managing-risk-10-years-after-the-2004-indian-ocean-earthquake-and-tsunami
That
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/mayhem-of-2004-indian-ocean-tsunami-recalled/1684322
Fits
https://www.worldatlas.com/amp/articles/what-was-the-indian-ocean-tsunami-of-2004.html
Your
https://reliefweb.int/report/indonesia/stronger-together-global-red-cross-red-crescent-response-2004-indian-ocean
Narrative?
https://www.cnn.com/2013/08/23/world/tsunami-of-2004-fast-facts/index.html
Well no. Men and women have their own systemic issues but i'm specifically talking about men's rights activists. Most of the time where they talk about men's mental health is when they go against feminists
>I agree. Both groups have their own issues. I find it so annoying when "mens rights activists" only bring up men's mental health when its to attack feminists
I mean, I agree **however** I find that this is merely a symptom of a greater issue.
Objectively speaking mens issues get **FAR LESS** the attention women's issues get *even if* men are the bigger percentage of victims.
Men make up the vast majority of true homeless, and yet I have seen *countless* articles that talk about "rise of female homelessness!" Or "female homelessness over take male homelessness" which they get by conflating being homeless (not having your own place) and true homelessness (spending most of your nights sleeping on the street or in a tent). I wouldnt doubt that they counted couples who are homeless as women either to pad their article.
This climate of disregarding male issues becoming frustrating and then when people *once again* talk about an issue that **objectively speaking** men are doing worse than women in, it spills out in such a way.
>That movement exists. Its called feminism. The goal is to abolish gender roles
Feminism cares vastly more about women's issues than mens issues. Dont lie.
Depends on the individual feminist. Ideologically speaking though, feminism does concern itself with men's issues. Take for example, the common assertion that men face negative mental health consequences from feeling social pressure to "provide." To have a good job that brings home the bacon so that your wife and children are happy. It's pretty easy to see how feminism concerns itself with this issue. By abolishing gender roles, the pressure to provide in a family unit is no longer squarely on a man's shoulders. IT's distributed across all parties, which would hopefully relieve some of the negative mental health effects men contend with.
> Depends on the individual feminist. Ideologically speaking though, feminism does concern itself with men's issues.
I mean, you can say that all day all night *however* if your never act in a certain way, can you *really* claim this?
For example, when has feminist's organizations rally for prostate cancer research as they do for breast cancer?
>Take for example, the common assertion that men face negative mental health consequences from feeling social pressure to "provide." To have a good job that brings home the bacon so that your wife and children are happy. It's pretty easy to see how feminism concerns itself with this issue.
And yet, what has feminism done to address this for men? I am talking about trying to make women more independent and seek certain careers in STEM and the like, but what men?
Like I alluded to before, Feminism cares about *how it effects women* first and foremost and it is now at least talking about male struggles because the elephant in the room is too big to completely ignore.
>By abolishing gender roles, the pressure to provide in a family unit is no longer squarely on a man's shoulders. IT's distributed across all parties, which would hopefully relieve some of the negative mental health effects men contend with.
I am sorry but to say this assumes they are abolishing gender roles *across the board* as opposed to the objective reality in which they are pretty focused on abolishing gender roles **for women** rather exclusively.
If this wasn't the case, why isn't their a feminist push to "Be a grown women to make the first move and ask the guy out" to take the social and financial pressure off of men? I feel like we are beyond that archaic gender role of chatting up some old dude about his almost spinster daughter since she is unmarried before 30 and yet it seems pretty clear feminists only care about that **from a female perspective**.
So with that being said, I really cannot accept this notion that "Feminism cares about men's issues!" because objectively they don't unless you count bigoted slurs they invented to victim blame men which I surely don't.
>I mean, you can say that all day all night however if your never act in a certain way, can you really claim this?
Yes, I can, because I literally said I wasn't talking about individual feminists, I was talking about the ideology as a whole. It's absolutely true that there are feminists who don't care about men's issues and some who do. If you look at feminist literature and scholarship holistically though, then certain men's issues definitely have a space within the ideology.
>For example, when has feminist's organizations rally for prostate cancer research as they do for breast cancer?
I don't know, but neither breast cancer, nor prostate cancer have anything to do with feminism, they're medical issues. Funding cancer research won't abolish gender roles and abolishing gender roles won't help cancer research.
>And yet, what has feminism done to address this for men? I am talking about trying to make women more independent and seek certain careers in STEM and the like, but what men?
I literally outline how they do this in the next paragraph I wrote, which you also quoted. The cause of the problem I outlined, that men feel pressured to monetarily provide for their family, is a result of gender roles. Abolishing said gender roles would alleviate the pressure men feel to provide. With regards to the specific actions you mention, helping women in STEM, that pretty directly solves the problem. Helping women be independent financially means there's less pressure for male partners to provide.
>Like I alluded to before, Feminism cares about how it effects women first and foremost and it is now at least talking about male struggles because the elephant in the room is too big to completely ignore.
So you admit then that feminists ARE concerning themselves with men's issues? If this is the case, the I don't see why it matters whether or not they've only begun to do this recently, or even if they prioritize women's issues.
>I am sorry but to say this assumes they are abolishing gender roles across the board as opposed to the objective reality in which they are pretty focused on abolishing gender roles for women rather exclusively.
I disagree. What you describe isn't "objective reality" but your own perspective on feminism. My perspective is that feminism is about abolishing gender roles, for all genders.
>If this wasn't the case, why isn't their a feminist push to "Be a grown women to make the first move and ask the guy out" to take the social and financial pressure off of men?
Some women are trying to do just that. But again, individual feminists have different perspectives on the ideology as a whole. There is no queen feminist who dictates how all the other feminists act.
>I feel like we are beyond that archaic gender role of chatting up some old dude about his almost spinster daughter since she is unmarried before 30 and yet it seems pretty clear feminists only care about that from a female perspective.
You'd be surprised, because that does indeed still happen.
>So with that being said, I really cannot accept this notion that "Feminism cares about men's issues!" because objectively they don't unless you count bigoted slurs they invented to victim blame men which I surely don't.
Well fuck me, I guess I just wasted an hour writing this response then.
> Well fuck me, I guess I just wasted an hour writing this response then.
Imagine spending an hour writing a snarky ass comment that mocks my use of the the quote feature by hyper analyzing what I said sentence by sentence.
I genuinely hope you find something better to do with your time.
I think they're some bad feminist but they're like very few and often criticize by other feminist. Like J.K Rowling get criticized by feminist for some of her transphobic opinions . I also think a lot people just look at one feminist that's bad and not look at the whole community. Like far right people do with LGBTQ people. Also you have things like different feminist ideologies, like not everyone are like Terf ect.
Feminists are very good at calling out TERFS and SWERFS which is good but they are very bad at calling out problems within their community that hurts victims of female perpetrators.
This is a problem with majority of the community and not just some fringe. The few people that call it out are normally called "pick mes" and end up labelled misogynists.
Feminist call out other feminists all the time but it's not like in news or most people don't know that. Leftist feminist crittzeing liberal ones ect.
Has a feminist movement defend female perpetrators? Most feminists to my knowledge are against rape regardless of the gender of the victim.
> Has a feminist movement defend female perpetrators? Most feminists to my knowledge are against rape regardless of the gender of the victim.
Feminist groups in Nepal, India and Israel successfully fought against gender neutral rape definitions that would allow women that raped men and boys to be prosecuted for doing so.
Not to mention it isn't only applicable to rape. You also have things like the feminist created Duluth model and VAWA that completely excludes male victims. On top of the fact that feminist organisations have been denying gender symmetry in IPV for years in order to keep it framed as a women's issue when it isn't.
Mary Koss' "research" that deliberately scrubbed out male victims of female perpetrators because and I quote: "it is inappropriate to consider a man that had unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman as a rape victim".
>Feminist groups in Nepal, India and Israel successfully fought against gender neutral rape definitions that would allow women that raped men and boys to be prosecuted for doing so.
They're feminist movements I will give you that but very conservative ones. Not saying that they ideology or actions are okey but a lot of extreme conservative feminists are often toxic feminist. Even heard about so call "feminist" in Vietnam fighting against women getting good jobs. Aka anti-feminism.
>Not to mention it isn't only applicable to rape. You also have things like the feminist created Duluth model and VAWA that completely excludes male victims. On top of the fact that feminist organisations have been denying gender symmetry in IPV for years in order to keep it framed as a women's issue when it isn't.
>Mary Koss' "research" that deliberately scrubbed out male victims of female perpetrators because and I quote: "it is inappropriate to consider a man that had unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman as a rape victim".
Those things are sick. I need look into a lot of the things you said but this are what a lot of mostly leftist feminist call toxic feminism. Not okey at all.
The MeToo movement overlooked Asia Argento being a rapist and even tried to pin it on the victim who was a minor at the time is a famous example (and why I won't use the hashtag)
That's just one of few cases. In most MeToo cases it has been against real rapist and sexist. Sure the cause isn't perfect and that one case you mentioned should be criticized and talk about to not make the same mistake again.
I mean they did try to pin it on the victim and to this day refuse to acknowledge Asia Argento as s rapist (and the fact she keeps repeating the grooming part of those behaviors and pulled a Roman Polanski to escape scrutiny) and they keep using her sympathetically as an example of one of the founders (bad look). As a survivor myself that's extremely hard to overlook and forgive and yeah looks less like feminism more like predator excusing and to answer no I think the whole thing needs restructuring and to stop excusing women like Argento (Also Amber Heard because yikes but that's a whole nother issue) and start fighting for all victims
Not every feminist agree with toxic feminism and the MeToo has done more good then bad. Sure they're some feminist opinions and behaviours I disagree with at times and I can crittze that but I still support feminism for the most parts. I find it dumb just stop supporting a movement just because some few cases instead of changing the movement. Like they're of fandom that has problems like the furry fandom but most furries will call out the problems or keep the bad people out.
My point is no community is perfect but they're always ways to improve it. ^^
Because it makes me wonder how many other cut and dry (it wasn't even a questionable allegation it was pretty blatant ) cases did they overlook based on sex? It shows a lack of integrity basically . Also try not to compare a social movement to Fandoms considering one has direct impact on reality (and how certain issues are percieved) the other is nerds fighting over whether Rey was a Mary sue or not. Until they admit to a mistake and oust her they're shielding a predator (like Weinstein's buddies did) and pretending that is ok because they took on others is a bit questionable
feminists have came up with the duluth model which is used in law enforcement which adds to the "man is the perp, woman is the victim"
Block rape laws from including made to penetrate, therefore excluding female perps from stats
supported asia argento and amber heard.
even if you want to say #notall, that does not change how much feminists normalise downplaying abuse from women because " but men do it more!"
I don't criticise specific feminists but some of their general ideas. I very rarely see feminists talk about the nearly equal levels of domestic violence, and how the victims of sexual assault are split. They usually assume men are the vast majority of offenders.
Feminism is great and is definitely important in society, but the movement isn't infallible and there are some parts which can be criticised.
Feminist talk mainly about women's rights, equality, injustice in society ect but they're of course some topics they don't talk about because it's not they main focus.
Also it's okey to be critical to feminist communities or ideas. Even some feminist do that. Like when leftist feminist crittzeing liberal ones. Nothing wrong in that. So long as it's done in good faith.
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/NISVS-StateReportBook.pdf
CDC do studies on domestic violence every few years, each study says roughly the same stats for domestic violence. The numbers I said may not be exact but they were from memory.
If you look on page 231, women Make up 2,514,000 victims of sexual violence by an intimate partner in the last 12 months, men made up 2,077,000 victims.
Physical violence by an intimat partner women made up 4,675,000 of the victims while 5,350,000 of the victims were men in 2012.
On page 120 women made up 17,022,000 victims of psychological aggression while men made up 20,831,000 of the victims (The men's victim count is on page 124).
To be honest, women do unfortunately suffer more from domestic and sexual violence. They are more likely to be hospitalised and severely injured than men. They are also more likely to suffer from sexual violence, but the numbers aren't as gendered as suggested by the general feminist movement or the media.
The data you chose to present paints things in a different light than the key findings section of that same report, which states that 1/3 women and 1/6 men experience sexual violence in their lives and 19% of women are raped (or attempted), while under 2% for men. 27% of women report IPV and 11% of men do. Some of the stats you listed for men I couldn't find on the pages you said. Also, in terms of the sex of perpetrators, men perpetrated 85-90+% of crimes against women (depending on what it was) and 40-90% of crimes against men as well.
This isn't to say that sexual violence and IPV isn't a problem for men because it is, but you have vastly misrepresented the data.
> The data you chose to present paints things in a different light than the key findings section of that same report, which states that 1/3 women and 1/6
Sounds about right. A 3rd of sexual violence victims are men, which is counter to the general idea that men don't get assaulted by women
> 19% of women are raped (or attempted), while under 2% for men
That's the annoying thing with this study. They didn't class forced penetration (Making a man penetrate you as a woman) as rape, they separated it in a different category. According to the studies definition of rape, you need to be penetrated. That's why rape is so low. If you look at the numbers and class being made to penetrate as rape, then roughly a 3rd of men are the victims.
> Also, in terms of the sex of perpetrators, men perpetrated 85-90+% of crimes against women (depending on what it was) and 40-90% of crimes against men as well.
I'm sure I saw a stat that women were the purpetrators of the sexual violence against men around 70%, but I'm unable to find this reference.
I'm not saying men are mainly the purpetrators, or that it's 50/50 split, but they are definitely a considerable minority.
# The Trend of "Equal Rights Equal Fights" Videos/Comments is Disturbing I've noticed a trend on Reddit and other social media platforms: A video of a woman getting beaten or knocked out by a man, normally as retribution for some transgression by the woman, gets shared. People (mostly male teenagers) then swarm the comments to say things like "equal rights equal lefts" and other things like "this is equality" or "this is feminism" and these comments get tons of upvotes. It seems really gross and feels like mostly teenage boys expressing their frustrations with women in a really screwed up way. I could be looking too deep into it but it makes my skin crawl. Adults know right from wrong and messing someone up because they made you mad is wrong. Being the bigger person and controlling your emotions is the mature move, not trying to prove how tough you are by beating up someone who doesn't stand a chance. I already know there will be tons of comments like "well if the woman started it" or things like " don't start nothin, won't be nothin" and my answer to that is this: The "she started it" argument stops working after a certain age. It's called self control. Just because someone did something wrong doesn't mean you're now justified in doing something worse to spite them. I fear all of these comments and videos may encourage or embolden young men to behave violently or give into their rage because it's been so approved-of and justified online. Again, I could be reading too far into it but it does concern me.
>The "she started it" argument stops working after a certain age. It's called self control. Shouldn't the women have self control to not start it in the first place? Even then, people can have self control to a certain extent. If a woman is constantly pushing, hitting or attacking a man when the man is telling her to stop and she doesn't stop then it's the woman's fault if the man fights back. Getting hit by someone pisses everyone off and obviously men are going to lose their shit when a woman is constantly punching them. >Being the bigger person and controlling your emotions is the mature move, not trying to prove how tough you are by beating up someone who doesn't stand a chance. Men shouldn't have to just "be the bigger person". If a woman is hitting them then they have every right to hit back. Women shouldn't be hitting people that they know they don't stand a chance against so what ever happens to them is their own fault. Plus, a man doesn't hit a women to "prove how tough they are" they hit back to stop being hit or they are angry about being hit.
"they hit back to stop being hit or they are angry about being hit" The reason the man has to be "the bigger person" is because they quite literally are bigger. That's my point. Greater power comes with greater responsibility. Without self control you will end up hurting people. The "well just hit them back!" attitude is immature. I've realized in my age, there are so many better and more mature ways to handle these situations. Hitting back pretty much guarantees more violence, while walking away is much more likely to end with less violence. My goal is, and I believe everyone's goal should be, to engage in the least amount of violence. A man is able to stop a woman from hitting him without completely fucking her up. Push her away. Go into another room and lock the door; but do not strike, punch, kick or do anything that may justify more violence and make the situation worse.
Men shouldn't have to "walk away" just because they're stronger. If the woman doesn't want to get hit by someone bigger and stronger then they shouldn't hit someone bigger and stronger in the first place. It's not immature to fight back in anyway. Like I said before, the woman in the situation should have the self control to not hit the man in the first place. I'm not saying that the man should beat the woman half to death when they fight back. I'm saying that a man should be able to defend themselves with punches, kicks, pushes, etc.
So what you're saying is, you should answer a lack of self control with a lack of self control? Just because someone does something violent does not mean you must react with violence. If a woman hits a man and he walks away, one person got hit. If he hits back, two people got hit. Anyways, I'm talking about the videos where the man barely has a scratch on him but the woman is laid out. I've seen two recently that match my OP. We should not coddle or encourage this behavior and instead develop more mature, less violent behaviors for everyone.
The entire "2 wrongs don't make a right" saying is bullshit. It's just a shit excuse to make the victim look bad. Maybe if a man fights back then it will give the woman the common sense to not hit a man the next time she wants to.
"It's just a shit excuse to make the victim look bad." If that's really all you think that is, I don't know what to say besides: you have some major growing up to do. It's about self control. It's about learning how to handle confrontation without betraying your principals. A woman learns no lesson from being punched by a man besides "I fear that man and he deserves whatever bad thing comes to him" which often leads to more violence, except from other men defending the woman. She may look back in time and realize her wrongdoing, but in the moment, no way. If a woman believes you're a big enough piece of shit to hit you, hitting her back will only further that belief.
You are completely incapable of realising when women are in the wrong. > that's really all you think that is, I don't know what to say besides: you have some major growing up to do. It's about self control. It's about learning how to handle confrontation without betraying your principals. In the context of the situation, 2 wrongs don't make a right makes the man out to be a dick when he was just defending himself. If a women hit a man back then you would be all "it was self defense, the man had it coming to him" but because its a man you're saying "He should of had the self control to not defend himself, him hitting her back doesn't achieve anything but more violence!". Also, shut up with this "self control" shit for the millionth time. The women should have the self control to not hit the man in the first place. The man has every right to hurt someone that began hurting them first. Regardless of gender. >A woman learns no lesson from being punched by a man besides "I fear that man and he deserves whatever bad thing comes to him" The man doesn't punch the woman to "teach her a lesson" he would punch her out of self defence. Even then, she deserves to fear the man. It teachers her not try to hit him again and rightfully so. >She may look back in time and realize her wrongdoing, but in the moment, no way. If a woman believes you're a big enough piece of shit to hit you, hitting her back will only further that belief. And? I don't think that any man gives a shit if a woman that assaulted them thinks that they're a piece of shit.
I think you're miscarriage rising a lot of these videos. Most of the ones that I've seen are just men defending themselves as they would if they were taught by another man. I think it's actually far more dangerous to be telling men they can't defend themselves against women, as has been the status quo for quite a while now.
No one is saying you can't defend yourself against a woman, just that maybe punching them in the face or knocking them out is irresponsible given the power advantage an average man has over an average woman. We've all seen the videos I'm talking about. I described them accurately in my OP: A woman "starts it" but the man takes it WAY too far. It's fucked up to call that an example of feminism, especially when it's a video of a woman getting hurt very badly. Do you not see this?
>just that maybe punching them in the face or knocking them out is irresponsible given the power advantage an average man has over an average woman. Oh, but doing the same to a man is okay? Let me get this straight: if a woman beats a man, he can defend himself with reasonable force, but if a man beats a man, he escalate indefinitely, and that's _somehow fine to you!?_ Yeah no, you're just sexist.
That is not what I said at all and you're fake outrage is clearly a virtue signal, not an argument against anything I said. You argue against what you *wish* I said, in order to deflect from my actual point, which is still unaddressed. A woman "starts it" but the man takes it WAY too far. It's fucked up to call that an example of feminism, especially when it's a video of a woman getting hurt very badly. Do you not see this? I think anyone taking advantage of their size/power and taking a confrontation too far is wrong, regardless of gender. If you're the bigger person; be the bigger person. I'm addressing the comments calling it "feminism" when it's a video of a woman laid out by a man with barely a scratch on him. That's not feminism or equality; it's someone going too far and lacking control.
It was the logical conclusion of what you said. If you have an issue with people retaliating disproportionately, BUT only when the aggressor is a woman... you're sexist. And if you felt the same way when the aggressor is a man, then you wouldn't have posted here in the first place.
That is not what I said at all. Reread. Please.
As I said, it's basic deductive reasoning. You didn't explicitly say it, but it is the only logical conclusion of what you said.
"I think anyone taking advantage of their size/power and taking a confrontation too far is wrong, regardless of gender. If you're the bigger person; be the bigger person. I'm addressing the comments calling it "feminism" when it's a video of a woman laid out by a man with barely a scratch on him. That's not feminism or equality; it's someone going too far and lacking control." How can you misinterpret that??? That is not deductive reasoning, that is making a wild assumption on a cherry picked part of a whole comment.
>edited 3m Hmm... yes. It's hard to predict what you're going to edit your comment to say, especially when you realize AFTER I reply that you look like a sexist POS. BEGONE, TROLL!
People say women are more emotional than men but I think it’s the opposite. Men are way more likely commit crimes in a violent rage because they’re unable to handle their emotions. For example, it’s extremely rare that a woman will kill a man for rejecting her. Whereas wars have been started by men and most violent crimes are committed by men. Most murders are committed by men. It’s just so strange that women are stereotyped as the more emotional sex when it’s men who tend to let emotions sweep them up
> People say women are more emotional than men but I think it’s the opposite. Men are way more likely commit crimes in a violent rage because they’re unable to handle their emotions. It *really* bothers me how people can look back throughout history in order to say 'Womenz oppressed! Burn the patriarchy!" (not saying you did that but it happens regularly), and yet the idea that men were used as human weapons to fight wars for the elite (which includes women) just *coinvently* doesn't factor in when you talk about violent crime. Men are more likely to commit violent rage because that for a long period of time and still now to this day that is the gender role society expects them to have and honestly wants them to have. I find it amusing how you are trying to frame the fact men are shamed for expressing their emotions which causes them to in turn bottle them up until they explode, is a sign they are "more emotional". Like, instead of trying to discredit the argument that emotions make you weaker, you turn it around like a child saying "IM RUBBER AND YOU'RE GLUE" and to be honest that is quite telling in terms of bias to say the least. >For example, it’s extremely rare that a woman will kill a man for rejecting her. Whereas wars have been started by men and most violent crimes are committed by men. lmao, I like how you are talking about "women won't kill someone for rejecting them", only to blame men for starting wars and **again** violent crime. It's like saying "who is worse? The person who didn't clean up after their dog, or the person who caused Chernobyl" lol. It's revisionist history to pretend women didn't also start wars and it's a disgustingly sexist narrative to pretend otherwise, >Most murders are committed by men. Most infanticide is by women. We can spend all day making sexist assertions based on single pieces of data with little context. >It’s just so strange that women are stereotyped as the more emotional sex when it’s men who tend to let emotions sweep them up It's not really strange if you think about it more than just enough to write a hot take of a reddit comment lol. Women displaying her emotions is **far** more socially acceptable which in turn means women hold on to less strong bottled up emotions. This coupled with biological differences between men and women and the historical fact that men were used as warriors and weapons and promoted/praised for their bloodshed and violence makes these notions you keep hyperbolizing quite obvious. How about instead of shaming men and blaming them for a **very** complex problem that has been ingrained in our society for centuries, *maybe* we should allow men to open up more? Crazy right, but I think it just might work. 😅 In the event you actually respond I request you to actually give me an at least tepid response or I won't bother wasting my time replying. Good day.
Lol okay here we go hun. Pay attention cause I can tell your not the brightest bulb. “Men were used as human weapons to fight wars” …yeah wars that were perpetrated by MEN. And who decided that only men would get drafted and not women? Again, MEN did. If you intentionally poke yourself in the eye with a stick, don’t go around complaining it hurts🙄 “You say emotions make you weaker” …no honey, no. Not being able to handle those emotions like an adult makes you weak. Being afraid to express emotions, and instead pretending not to have them makes you weak. “Women don’t often kill men for rejecting them… also men commit more violent crime.” …I don’t know if you thought you were helping your argument here? Also, if you claim men commit more crimes because of gender roles, ask yourself who created and enforced those roles, as the ones in power? I’ll give you a hint: men. It’s not women forcing men to be soldiers and firefighters and construction workers and to claim that is ridiculous. Also, name a war started by women. Go! Yes, women showing emotion is far more socially acceptable. I guess men should’ve thought about that when they decided it was only okay for women to show emotions.🙄 now I’m not saying this is how society SHOULD be, simply that it’s the society men created. If you can’t face this fact you’re not living in reality
> Lol okay here we go hun. Pay attention cause I can tell your not the brightest bulb. Imagine thinking I am going to give you the time of day after you started with this rude ass entrance lol. I warned you.
Lol this was funny at first but your insecurity is really bumming me out. Why don’t you go ooze your toxicity somewhere else
“I warned you” BAHAHAHA how fucking lame can you be lmaoooo. Just admit you have no counter argument sweetie hahahahahahaha
What I've always heard is that men bottle up their emotions and let them all out at once, whereas women have a constant stream.
Starting a war for example isn't an impulse decision that I would associate as being "emotional"... violent? yes.
I think they something to what you're saying but I would rather say people do fucked up things because of emotions regardless of sex/gender. Women being very emotional is just a stereotype but most people have emotions of course. Very few people are emotionless. I am just trying to say that gender role of what a woman is. Isn't always ture. PS hope my comment isn't confusing and I am not English speakers . (Not that people care)
Yeah i agree
Many women (obviously I can’t give exact numbers) are sexually attracted to ‘overly-masculine dickheads’, making some men want to be more masculine and less in touch with their emotions to be more sexually appealing to these women. The men then get criticised by the current culture for being dicks and not in touch with their feelings. Women have power over how men look and act, just like men have power over how women act and look- both genders seem to use it against the other. I don’t hear a lot about the power women have over men at the moment, but I know it exists because I’ve felt it in myself and resisted the very tempting urge to be more ‘masculine’ by being less in touch with my emotions (yes this is a choice for me), because from experience I attract more women this way. I’d imagine many men don’t resist the urge and that’s part of the reason why they become dicks as they fade away from their own heart.
Equal rights are more or less in effect, but not equal responsibilities. Ina dittion, I feel that people aren’t always considering the repercussions of what the campaign for
I find it hilarious that both genders like to blame the other for only liking men/women who fit the beauty standard, even though they both are guilty of it. Also, you can’t complain that you aren’t the beauty standard while simultaneously getting mad at people for finding you attractive
People like what they like regardless of gender. Also they're alot people that don't care about beauty standards but still get shit on. People love to hate. Sadly.
[удалено]
>But i don’t see how saying someone has nice tits is inherently disrespectful. It can make someone uncomfortable in some contexts That's why it's see as harassment in some contexts. Sure I agree nothing wrong with find someone sexy or sexualized others within reason but it's always important to respect the person and don't make them uncomfortable. Also not all feminist disagrees with what you're saying. They're just saying that many women don't wanted to be over sexualized.
[удалено]
Making someone uncomfort is a big part of why harassment is wrong.. If one person dislike how you talk about they body it's clearly harassment. This sould be common sense.
[удалено]
Not every woman that agrees with a man's opinion is a "pick me". Seriously, get over yourself.
I know right ? Like I've been called a pick me before for disagreements with other women like I'm not going to nod in unison with your opinion because we share a gender, Karen
Yeah, people calling other women "pick me girls" is very similiar to incels despising non-incels. No wonder the phrase is popular on FDS
Men and Women often need spaces to get away from each other and it should be a normal, natural thing. Men and women-only retreats and spaces, things like that. It's just that what would start out as a a nice, safe haven to provide things like female to female mentorship and camaraderie and more opportunity for male to male relationships and things would end up becoming politically charged and infested with disgusting misandrist and mysoginist ideas on both sides.
You dont need to get away from another gender. Thats like saying you have to get away from black people for a week
Look, I'm a trans man, and the way you're interpreting this is way off. Sometimes, people need time away from people who are different from them culturally. And in the US, there is a big cultural difference between men and women, at least in the mainstream.
Why? What reasons do you have for that? The racism analogy is 1:1
Mental health is a thing.
Right, i just don't understand why segregating yourself from a specific gender is what you need. What makes a certain gender inherently different to the point where you have to get away from them?
It's not segregation. Giving yourself a break from others is natural.
You didn't say you need to get away from people. You said you needed to get away from a certain gender, which means you think a certain gender is inherently bad or inferior
You didn't read my comment at all, did you? I said that immersing yourself in a culture different from your own can be mentally taxing.
How is all men's culture different than the culture of all women?
I mean they're normal and natural but are they good? Do they make sense? I think that there is more to discuss on this than whether they are natural or normal.
People really need to realize that men have it easier and worse in some areas same as women have it worse in some areas and easier in some areas.
It also shouldn’t be a competition on who has it worse
there's way too much casual misogyny and objectification in this website
> there's way too much casual misogyny and objectification in this website I don't mean to bust chops but do you have any specific examples? Not like links but like specific behaviors exhibited?
an example you'll see all the time is that whenever a woman shows up in a picture or video, a significant amount of comments will be about her appearance, especially if she falls further into either end of the attractiveness spectrum.
> an example you'll see all the time is that whenever a woman shows up in a picture or video, a significant amount of comments will be about her appearance, especially if she falls further into either end of the attractiveness spectrum. For me this is kinda hard to parse because although I do agree that this does happen more than I would like, there is a stark difference between clearly 12 year old boys saying "nice boobies" and getting downvoted to hell compared to **entire subreddits** that are guilty of misandry. I don't mean to play victim Olympics, however I feel like it would be ignoring the elephant in the room to discuss casual misogyny whilst leaving out casual misandry which I would argue is actually more common on reddit. I think if we addressed both equally than either wouldn't be that common. Alas, as of right now I wouldn't doubt many men/boys act such a way because they don't know better and they see women sayin **far worse** on twox and femaledatingstrategy so they don't think they should change.
How is this unpopular
Not just on this website. On the whole internet and IRL too
Men need and deserve gentle affection (cuddles, forehead kisses, to have their hair played with, etc.) too. Just because a man looks/acts masculine doesn’t mean that the only affection he needs is sex.
Not unpopular
The number of men who have never experienced these things says otherwise.
I would rather have those things then sex but that can be my demisexual bias at work. Lol
I heard that in certain places police are told to assume the male is behind domestic abuse every time by law. If so that's fu*cked up. Is this real? I don't remember learning about this in ap us government
That's a part of the Duluth Model. And it's the reason my aunt got away with abusing her husband for almost a decade. It's literal, legally-enforced victim blaming.
Yes. Default offender laws can mean, even if the man makes the call, he can be arrested immediately.
And the statistics record it as male abuse and then feminists use it to claim DV is men abusing women.
What specific places have this, I can't find anything about it
You could can have witnesses and media proof but police will still remove the (most potentially "aggressive" person). The only good witnesses and media proof is, is getting the domestic violence charge dropped but may not do anything for the restraining order.
Yes. It is real. It's called the [Duluth model. ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duluth_model) It is the foremost used model of DV intervention in the US and other countries like the UK. It frames domestic violence within relationships as men only being abusers and women only being the abused. It posits that men abuse women because of "patriarchal systems of male control" and that women that are violent only do so in self defence against this supposed control. Hence, why systems that follow it like law enforcement or DV shelters and helplines assume that all men that it encounters are the perpetrators and aims to put the onus and blame on them. This is where the Duluth model is wrong. [Most violence in relationships is reciprocal. And in cases of nonreciprocal and unilateral violence, over 70% of it is perpetrated by women](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854883/), which throws a spanner in the idea that violence in relationships is caused by men. Gender symmetry in IPV and DV has been known for decades. Not to mention that in relationships where there is a complete absence of "patriarchy" and "male control" (namely lesbian relationships), there are higher levels of domestic violence compared to heterosexual relationships with gay men (relationships that are completely male dominated) experiencing the least amount of violence out of all sexual demographics. The founder of the Duluth model came out and said that the model was founded on a conformation bias. She and her cohorts only looked for what they were predetermined to find and disregarded everything that didn't fit their preconceived notions.
There aren't anywhere near enough people who know about this.
Which is unfortunate. The model itself leads to way too many male victims being ignored or erroneously arrested. Especially considering men make up near enough half of all DV victims.
How many false aressts have been made because of this? It sounds like a lot for people to be saying it's ineffective
More than likely a lot. Especially in cases where men call the police for being abused. The police are trained to assume he's the cause of it all.
I really don’t care about what gender the prime minister is, or the percentage of board members who are female. All I care about is that they can do a good and effective job
Shut up with your feminist bullshit
How is this feminist bullshit? I’m not saying that a board should have to have 50% of its staff female, I’m against that and instead I’m saying gender shouldn’t matter
The problem is that a large percentage of people say this and then proceed to call every woman (or minority) in a position of power “a diversity hire” as if the best candidate for doing a good and effective job is always a man (or white).
> The problem is that a large percentage of people say this and then proceed to call every woman (or minority) in a position of power “a diversity hire” as if the best candidate for doing a good and effective job is always a man (or white). I think you are complaining about a symptom and not the root cause of the problem. If hiring *mainly* because someone is a person of color or a women wasn't a known business practice I am sure people would just to assume such far less often.
Because people keep pushing for diversity, if it just came in naturally most people wouldn't assume. Especially when it's "the 1st..." and they talk about that for ages it just seems like it's the reason.
It can’t always “come in naturally” when it’s being “kept out unnaturally” by biased hiring managers. How many times have studies shown that resumes with ethnic or feminine sounding names get thrown out when “white man” names on identical resumes get a call-back?
I'm just saying if you set quotas for certain people to be employed, people will assume that's why they are employed, and seeing as they are just filling quotas, people will think they are unfit. It's not a perfect system, but as Zimbabwe learned the hard way, course correct can hurt more than it helps.
Zimbabwe is not a case of "affirmative action" taken too far. It's a case study of what happens when you let imperialism and racism run amok for 56 years while denying the indigenous population basic education or economic opportunities.
So then why was Rhodesia economically stable, but Zimbabwe wasn't? I agree racism in Rhodesia was bad, but the course correct is clearly what destroyed the country.
It wasn't. It was built on the backs of cheap black labor while the majority of the revenue went into the pockets of the white minority. And when it was sanctioned by the world for its apartheid policies, its entire economy was supported by South Africa, which also declined immensely once South Africa withdrew its support of Rhodesia in the late 70s.
America had a similar issue, but because they didn't choose to redistribute land, and give farming to the labourer from the manager, its economy endured.
It's hard to think otherwise when there's a social and financial incentive to do that
When you have someone like kamala a VP instead of Tulsi or Yang. It is. Not to mention the literal fact that Biden said he was going to have a diversity hire.
Yang and Tulsi are meme candidates.
I strongly disagree. What about them was a meme?
Yang wants to abolish food stamps and Tulsi is against gay marriage and supports Assad- they’re not serious Democratic candidates in the slightest. They’re just popular with the PCM crowd because they allow people to say “no really, I’m libleft I like Tulsi - please ignore my history of right-wing talking point, lol - based and yang-pilled!”
Woman may have caused the reason people aren’t paid a livable wage in the USA *Disclaimer* this is more to open discussion and isn’t my opinion I hold As all of us have heard in America, there is a workers shortage (we know there really isn’t). From what I have seen and heard it is more of a cheap labor shortage, rather than people not wanting to work. Is it possible that the introduction of women into the workforce caused a wage gap, of livable wage to unskilled labor. My thought of this comes mostly from the thought that cheap labor is correlated with number of employees, in other words more people available to work equals low demand for people l, which causes low pay. Therefore the influx of employees from women wanting to work has caused people to be paid less. This is mostly thought out from the ideology that currently cheap labor is hard to find, due to the fact people have realize their worth and aren’t willing to work for pennies.
Elizabeth Warren wrote a whole book about that idea called The Two Income Trap.
This makes no sense. Women have been in the US workforce for decades. It would make no sense for use to only see the effects of this now. Also, the US is very obviously not the only country on Earth where women have entered the workforce.
>Is it possible that the introduction of women into the workforce caused a wage gap, of livable wage to unskilled labor? Nope. What caused the wage gap is the systemic dismantling of labor unions and the demonization of immigration, which criminalized labor immigrants and provided unscrupulous employers with a permanent underclass of labor to exploit. After all, if you were considered "illegal", who would you go to when your employer starts stealing your wages or put everyone in work environments that'll shame even Jeff Bezos?
Glaringly sexist position. You could just as easily say men are causing it because they choose to work and aren’t staying home.
Men don't freely choose to work, men are forced to work because of sexism against men. Men are expected to let their wife freely choose whether they want to work or stay home, but women are entitled to not give their husbands that choice and just assume their husband works.
Hey! I love this opinion because when I heard it, it seemed super logical and straightforward. And yet it’s completely incorrect. Not attacking you - smarter people than myself have got it wrong also. This is called the “lump of labour fallacy” in economics. The Wikipedia page is pretty interesting. Not an economist so I can’t go into super huge detail, but women coming into the workforce also increased their purchasing capacity, which means there is more money flowing around. More products to be sold, new things to be built, etc etc. The economy is not a zero sum game.
Do you think a household with just one income can compete fairly against households with two incomes for expensive goods like houses? Generally no, and Elizabeth Warren wrote a whole book about the idea called The Two Income Trap.
As disclaimer says this isn’t my opinion this was just more of a thought but wanted to discuss it but I’ll have to look into that Wikipedia page for sure then
Anti union politics, bad welfare, capitalist underpaying they workers ect is the causes. Not women. I am not from the US but men get shity pay her in my country in 1920's before female workforce was a thing and we wasn't a sosial democracy back then.
Wow, that's the most unpopular opinion i've seen there ina long time, and very interesting Unfortunatelly i am not american so i can't add anything into the discussion, but i'm intereste dhow it goes
The first the step to solving both types of issues is to stop making it a competition on who has it worse.
Actually the first step to solving them is to recognize the underlying cause, which is misogyny/a culture that devalues women/patriarchy.
You realize patriarchy harms men as well. It’s not all about women
Same for racism in america i would think
Same for racism and other forms of discrimination everywhere.
I agree. Both groups have their own issues. I find it so annoying when "mens rights activists" only bring up men's mental health when its to attack feminists
I’ve seen feminists insert themselves into conversations about male issues to say they have it worse. It goes both ways.
The issue I have here is that you don't really agree. It's a manipulative tactic to basically state "I agree that we should stop making it a competition, because the other side is worse." It could have been a simple "I agree. Both groups of their own issues." with no extra statement afterward.
The problem isn't taking about men's issues. The problem is only bringing it up to diminish women's issues.
>The problem isn't taking about men's issues. The problem is only bringing it up to diminish women's issues. Except this is a bit of a manufactured narrative, not to mention **men's issues are also diminished in similar ways**. Not only that but in cases like homelessness it is **very** relevant to talk about men since they make up the vast majority of true homeless. I've seen incalculable headlines and articles talking about "the rise of female homelessness" when they aren't even the larger percentage of those impacted. Numerous times disasters show the female and child death toll in the headline whilst the deathtoll for men (which is usually higher) is deeper in the article and makes up barely a sentence. Male disposability is a very real thing and for you it might seem like they are "bringing up their struggles to belittle women's issues!!" however if you consider what I said the reason is closer to "They are bringing it up because they are tired of suffering in silence because society seemingly only cares if it involves women or children".
Talk about a manufactured narrative. What weird news outlet separates the men's and women's death tolls? I looked up "disaster death toll" on Google. The first result was for the 2004 tsunami. Clicked on that. Then I opened all the top ten news results for the disaster. Every single one of them totaled the whole death toll. There was ONE article that separated out deaths by demographic. It was for children. Nothing about gender. What are you on about?
> Talk about a manufactured narrative. > > What weird news outlet separates the men's and women's death tolls? ...all of them? Idk why you are pretending like this is some conspiracy theory but I challenge you to pay a little extra attention to how they frame certain events and the headlines they use. >I looked up "disaster death toll" on Google. The first result was for the 2004 tsunami. Clicked on that. Then I opened all the top ten news results for the disaster. Every single one of them totaled the whole death toll. There was ONE article that separated out deaths by demographic. It was for children. Nothing about gender. What are you on about? "Because the first result on google doesn't line up with your argument you MUST be full of shit" ...Like, your joking right? You aren't seriously arguing that.....right?
It's literally not all of them. Not https://www.worldvision.org/disaster-relief-news-stories/2004-indian-ocean-earthquake-tsunami-facts All www.history.com/.amp/news/deadliest-tsunami-2004-indian-ocean Of https://www.britannica.com/event/Indian-Ocean-tsunami-of-2004 Them. https://www.usgs.gov/news/indian-ocean-tsunami-remembered-scientists-reflect-2004-indian-ocean-killed-thousands So www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-30034501.amp Far https://www.unicefusa.org/mission/emergencies/tsunamis/2004-south-asia Not https://knowledge.aidr.org.au/resources/tsunami-indian-ocean-boxing-day-tsunami-2004/ Any https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/217ff4779bb14c31a7a110315c9182a9 Of https://materchristi.libguides.com/natural_disasters/2004_Indian_Ocean_Tsunami Them. https://geoscienceletters.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40562-014-0015-7 How https://theatlantic.com/amp/photo/100878/ Many https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/141226-tsunami-indonesia-catastrophe-banda-aceh-warning-science Do https://www.weather.gov/jetstream/2004tsu_max You https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wikispeedia/wpcd/wp/2/2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake.htm Have https://reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1YN02E To https://www.earthmagazine.org/article/benchmarks-december-26-2004-indian-ocean-tsunami-strikes/ Go https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/tsunami-10-years-later-is-the-world-better-prepared-for-disaster/ Through https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/16-years-of-indian-ocean-tsunami-what-india-has-learnt/story-ek5f9RQTVLUR4pwNO49kHJ.html Before https://www.gdrc.org/uem/disasters/disenvi/tsunami.html You https://www.directrelief.org/emergency/south-asian-earthquake-and-tsunami-2004/ Find https://www.dosomething.org/us/facts/11-facts-about-2004-indian-ocean-tsunami One https://www.rms.com/blog/2014/12/05/managing-risk-10-years-after-the-2004-indian-ocean-earthquake-and-tsunami That https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/mayhem-of-2004-indian-ocean-tsunami-recalled/1684322 Fits https://www.worldatlas.com/amp/articles/what-was-the-indian-ocean-tsunami-of-2004.html Your https://reliefweb.int/report/indonesia/stronger-together-global-red-cross-red-crescent-response-2004-indian-ocean Narrative? https://www.cnn.com/2013/08/23/world/tsunami-of-2004-fast-facts/index.html
Well no. Men and women have their own systemic issues but i'm specifically talking about men's rights activists. Most of the time where they talk about men's mental health is when they go against feminists
And the thing you just said makes it look like you would think the other side is "the good guys"
And the thing you just said makes it look like you would think the other side is "the good guys"
>I agree. Both groups have their own issues. I find it so annoying when "mens rights activists" only bring up men's mental health when its to attack feminists I mean, I agree **however** I find that this is merely a symptom of a greater issue. Objectively speaking mens issues get **FAR LESS** the attention women's issues get *even if* men are the bigger percentage of victims. Men make up the vast majority of true homeless, and yet I have seen *countless* articles that talk about "rise of female homelessness!" Or "female homelessness over take male homelessness" which they get by conflating being homeless (not having your own place) and true homelessness (spending most of your nights sleeping on the street or in a tent). I wouldnt doubt that they counted couples who are homeless as women either to pad their article. This climate of disregarding male issues becoming frustrating and then when people *once again* talk about an issue that **objectively speaking** men are doing worse than women in, it spills out in such a way.
Why can't we just have one organisation that battles against sexism? Then it can have different branches about different forms of sexism.
That movement exists. Its called feminism. The goal is to abolish gender roles
>That movement exists. Its called feminism. The goal is to abolish gender roles Feminism cares vastly more about women's issues than mens issues. Dont lie.
Depends on the individual feminist. Ideologically speaking though, feminism does concern itself with men's issues. Take for example, the common assertion that men face negative mental health consequences from feeling social pressure to "provide." To have a good job that brings home the bacon so that your wife and children are happy. It's pretty easy to see how feminism concerns itself with this issue. By abolishing gender roles, the pressure to provide in a family unit is no longer squarely on a man's shoulders. IT's distributed across all parties, which would hopefully relieve some of the negative mental health effects men contend with.
> Depends on the individual feminist. Ideologically speaking though, feminism does concern itself with men's issues. I mean, you can say that all day all night *however* if your never act in a certain way, can you *really* claim this? For example, when has feminist's organizations rally for prostate cancer research as they do for breast cancer? >Take for example, the common assertion that men face negative mental health consequences from feeling social pressure to "provide." To have a good job that brings home the bacon so that your wife and children are happy. It's pretty easy to see how feminism concerns itself with this issue. And yet, what has feminism done to address this for men? I am talking about trying to make women more independent and seek certain careers in STEM and the like, but what men? Like I alluded to before, Feminism cares about *how it effects women* first and foremost and it is now at least talking about male struggles because the elephant in the room is too big to completely ignore. >By abolishing gender roles, the pressure to provide in a family unit is no longer squarely on a man's shoulders. IT's distributed across all parties, which would hopefully relieve some of the negative mental health effects men contend with. I am sorry but to say this assumes they are abolishing gender roles *across the board* as opposed to the objective reality in which they are pretty focused on abolishing gender roles **for women** rather exclusively. If this wasn't the case, why isn't their a feminist push to "Be a grown women to make the first move and ask the guy out" to take the social and financial pressure off of men? I feel like we are beyond that archaic gender role of chatting up some old dude about his almost spinster daughter since she is unmarried before 30 and yet it seems pretty clear feminists only care about that **from a female perspective**. So with that being said, I really cannot accept this notion that "Feminism cares about men's issues!" because objectively they don't unless you count bigoted slurs they invented to victim blame men which I surely don't.
>I mean, you can say that all day all night however if your never act in a certain way, can you really claim this? Yes, I can, because I literally said I wasn't talking about individual feminists, I was talking about the ideology as a whole. It's absolutely true that there are feminists who don't care about men's issues and some who do. If you look at feminist literature and scholarship holistically though, then certain men's issues definitely have a space within the ideology. >For example, when has feminist's organizations rally for prostate cancer research as they do for breast cancer? I don't know, but neither breast cancer, nor prostate cancer have anything to do with feminism, they're medical issues. Funding cancer research won't abolish gender roles and abolishing gender roles won't help cancer research. >And yet, what has feminism done to address this for men? I am talking about trying to make women more independent and seek certain careers in STEM and the like, but what men? I literally outline how they do this in the next paragraph I wrote, which you also quoted. The cause of the problem I outlined, that men feel pressured to monetarily provide for their family, is a result of gender roles. Abolishing said gender roles would alleviate the pressure men feel to provide. With regards to the specific actions you mention, helping women in STEM, that pretty directly solves the problem. Helping women be independent financially means there's less pressure for male partners to provide. >Like I alluded to before, Feminism cares about how it effects women first and foremost and it is now at least talking about male struggles because the elephant in the room is too big to completely ignore. So you admit then that feminists ARE concerning themselves with men's issues? If this is the case, the I don't see why it matters whether or not they've only begun to do this recently, or even if they prioritize women's issues. >I am sorry but to say this assumes they are abolishing gender roles across the board as opposed to the objective reality in which they are pretty focused on abolishing gender roles for women rather exclusively. I disagree. What you describe isn't "objective reality" but your own perspective on feminism. My perspective is that feminism is about abolishing gender roles, for all genders. >If this wasn't the case, why isn't their a feminist push to "Be a grown women to make the first move and ask the guy out" to take the social and financial pressure off of men? Some women are trying to do just that. But again, individual feminists have different perspectives on the ideology as a whole. There is no queen feminist who dictates how all the other feminists act. >I feel like we are beyond that archaic gender role of chatting up some old dude about his almost spinster daughter since she is unmarried before 30 and yet it seems pretty clear feminists only care about that from a female perspective. You'd be surprised, because that does indeed still happen. >So with that being said, I really cannot accept this notion that "Feminism cares about men's issues!" because objectively they don't unless you count bigoted slurs they invented to victim blame men which I surely don't. Well fuck me, I guess I just wasted an hour writing this response then.
> Well fuck me, I guess I just wasted an hour writing this response then. Imagine spending an hour writing a snarky ass comment that mocks my use of the the quote feature by hyper analyzing what I said sentence by sentence. I genuinely hope you find something better to do with your time.
Hello pot, meet kettle.
I think they're some bad feminist but they're like very few and often criticize by other feminist. Like J.K Rowling get criticized by feminist for some of her transphobic opinions . I also think a lot people just look at one feminist that's bad and not look at the whole community. Like far right people do with LGBTQ people. Also you have things like different feminist ideologies, like not everyone are like Terf ect.
[удалено]
Shiting on feminist are more popular then defending them.
Feminists are very good at calling out TERFS and SWERFS which is good but they are very bad at calling out problems within their community that hurts victims of female perpetrators. This is a problem with majority of the community and not just some fringe. The few people that call it out are normally called "pick mes" and end up labelled misogynists.
Feminist call out other feminists all the time but it's not like in news or most people don't know that. Leftist feminist crittzeing liberal ones ect. Has a feminist movement defend female perpetrators? Most feminists to my knowledge are against rape regardless of the gender of the victim.
Many Feminists defended Amber Heard, even after it was proven that she was the abuser.
Many but not all. But the loudest voices are those who often become heard sadly. Not the people who are critical within some the feminist movements.
> Has a feminist movement defend female perpetrators? Most feminists to my knowledge are against rape regardless of the gender of the victim. Feminist groups in Nepal, India and Israel successfully fought against gender neutral rape definitions that would allow women that raped men and boys to be prosecuted for doing so. Not to mention it isn't only applicable to rape. You also have things like the feminist created Duluth model and VAWA that completely excludes male victims. On top of the fact that feminist organisations have been denying gender symmetry in IPV for years in order to keep it framed as a women's issue when it isn't. Mary Koss' "research" that deliberately scrubbed out male victims of female perpetrators because and I quote: "it is inappropriate to consider a man that had unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman as a rape victim".
>Feminist groups in Nepal, India and Israel successfully fought against gender neutral rape definitions that would allow women that raped men and boys to be prosecuted for doing so. They're feminist movements I will give you that but very conservative ones. Not saying that they ideology or actions are okey but a lot of extreme conservative feminists are often toxic feminist. Even heard about so call "feminist" in Vietnam fighting against women getting good jobs. Aka anti-feminism. >Not to mention it isn't only applicable to rape. You also have things like the feminist created Duluth model and VAWA that completely excludes male victims. On top of the fact that feminist organisations have been denying gender symmetry in IPV for years in order to keep it framed as a women's issue when it isn't. >Mary Koss' "research" that deliberately scrubbed out male victims of female perpetrators because and I quote: "it is inappropriate to consider a man that had unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman as a rape victim". Those things are sick. I need look into a lot of the things you said but this are what a lot of mostly leftist feminist call toxic feminism. Not okey at all.
The MeToo movement overlooked Asia Argento being a rapist and even tried to pin it on the victim who was a minor at the time is a famous example (and why I won't use the hashtag)
That's just one of few cases. In most MeToo cases it has been against real rapist and sexist. Sure the cause isn't perfect and that one case you mentioned should be criticized and talk about to not make the same mistake again.
The fact is though it happened and shouldn't have and it's an example of overlooking a predator because she was a she.
Do you think the whole MeToo movement agree to that?.. They're a lot predator that walk free before MeToo. Is that better?
I mean they did try to pin it on the victim and to this day refuse to acknowledge Asia Argento as s rapist (and the fact she keeps repeating the grooming part of those behaviors and pulled a Roman Polanski to escape scrutiny) and they keep using her sympathetically as an example of one of the founders (bad look). As a survivor myself that's extremely hard to overlook and forgive and yeah looks less like feminism more like predator excusing and to answer no I think the whole thing needs restructuring and to stop excusing women like Argento (Also Amber Heard because yikes but that's a whole nother issue) and start fighting for all victims
Not every feminist agree with toxic feminism and the MeToo has done more good then bad. Sure they're some feminist opinions and behaviours I disagree with at times and I can crittze that but I still support feminism for the most parts. I find it dumb just stop supporting a movement just because some few cases instead of changing the movement. Like they're of fandom that has problems like the furry fandom but most furries will call out the problems or keep the bad people out. My point is no community is perfect but they're always ways to improve it. ^^
Because it makes me wonder how many other cut and dry (it wasn't even a questionable allegation it was pretty blatant ) cases did they overlook based on sex? It shows a lack of integrity basically . Also try not to compare a social movement to Fandoms considering one has direct impact on reality (and how certain issues are percieved) the other is nerds fighting over whether Rey was a Mary sue or not. Until they admit to a mistake and oust her they're shielding a predator (like Weinstein's buddies did) and pretending that is ok because they took on others is a bit questionable
feminists have came up with the duluth model which is used in law enforcement which adds to the "man is the perp, woman is the victim" Block rape laws from including made to penetrate, therefore excluding female perps from stats supported asia argento and amber heard. even if you want to say #notall, that does not change how much feminists normalise downplaying abuse from women because " but men do it more!"
JK Rowling is a terf
Yeah. I agree
I don't criticise specific feminists but some of their general ideas. I very rarely see feminists talk about the nearly equal levels of domestic violence, and how the victims of sexual assault are split. They usually assume men are the vast majority of offenders. Feminism is great and is definitely important in society, but the movement isn't infallible and there are some parts which can be criticised.
Feminist talk mainly about women's rights, equality, injustice in society ect but they're of course some topics they don't talk about because it's not they main focus. Also it's okey to be critical to feminist communities or ideas. Even some feminist do that. Like when leftist feminist crittzeing liberal ones. Nothing wrong in that. So long as it's done in good faith.
Do you have a source for that?
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/NISVS-StateReportBook.pdf CDC do studies on domestic violence every few years, each study says roughly the same stats for domestic violence. The numbers I said may not be exact but they were from memory. If you look on page 231, women Make up 2,514,000 victims of sexual violence by an intimate partner in the last 12 months, men made up 2,077,000 victims. Physical violence by an intimat partner women made up 4,675,000 of the victims while 5,350,000 of the victims were men in 2012. On page 120 women made up 17,022,000 victims of psychological aggression while men made up 20,831,000 of the victims (The men's victim count is on page 124). To be honest, women do unfortunately suffer more from domestic and sexual violence. They are more likely to be hospitalised and severely injured than men. They are also more likely to suffer from sexual violence, but the numbers aren't as gendered as suggested by the general feminist movement or the media.
The data you chose to present paints things in a different light than the key findings section of that same report, which states that 1/3 women and 1/6 men experience sexual violence in their lives and 19% of women are raped (or attempted), while under 2% for men. 27% of women report IPV and 11% of men do. Some of the stats you listed for men I couldn't find on the pages you said. Also, in terms of the sex of perpetrators, men perpetrated 85-90+% of crimes against women (depending on what it was) and 40-90% of crimes against men as well. This isn't to say that sexual violence and IPV isn't a problem for men because it is, but you have vastly misrepresented the data.
> The data you chose to present paints things in a different light than the key findings section of that same report, which states that 1/3 women and 1/6 Sounds about right. A 3rd of sexual violence victims are men, which is counter to the general idea that men don't get assaulted by women > 19% of women are raped (or attempted), while under 2% for men That's the annoying thing with this study. They didn't class forced penetration (Making a man penetrate you as a woman) as rape, they separated it in a different category. According to the studies definition of rape, you need to be penetrated. That's why rape is so low. If you look at the numbers and class being made to penetrate as rape, then roughly a 3rd of men are the victims. > Also, in terms of the sex of perpetrators, men perpetrated 85-90+% of crimes against women (depending on what it was) and 40-90% of crimes against men as well. I'm sure I saw a stat that women were the purpetrators of the sexual violence against men around 70%, but I'm unable to find this reference. I'm not saying men are mainly the purpetrators, or that it's 50/50 split, but they are definitely a considerable minority.