Women's rights

[Terminal Blue]

You seem to think you have some immense understanding of an underlying prejudice in our culture. When in fact you're just bitching about a colour.

No, see, I already responded to that and explained why I'm not. Either you don't understand, or you're just being perverse.

If by 'immense understanding' you mean 'has actually read something', then yes. Resorting to thinly veiled anti-intellectualism to cover the fact you've not actually done any reading for your bullshit is not productive to anyone.

Also..

There can only be what the artist intended. I don't buy into the work becoming more than the sum of it's parts.

Christ.. It's like reader response theory never happened in here.

A lot of people were accusing the artist of being intentionally misogynistic, I think you're the only one to say it may have been accidental. (not sure)

Where the fuck did you read a declaration of intent? I don't think anyone has implied any degree of intent.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

A lot of people were accusing the artist of being intentionally misogynistic, I think you're the only one to say it may have been accidental. (not sure)

I don't know if "a lot of people" did. I specifically did, and I was wrong to do it. I write a lot of these forum posts from work, when I have a few minutes to spare, and they're not always incredibly well thought out, and I'll be the first to admit I can get a little excited and hyperbolic. I don't know the first thing about the artist, and my impugning that they were misogynistic because of a single cartoon was libelous and unfair in the extreme.

I notice you suggest that if people go out looking for something, they're going to find it, and I agree 100%. I've often said that if your goal is to be offended...if your personal confirmation biases suggest that something is true...you're going to find all the evidence in the world to support it without looking very hard. Whether you choose to believe me or not, though, I don't actually go out looking for misogynistic undertones in everything I see. I've spent a lot of time on your side of the argument and I'm aware of the merit in it. All I can say is that my reaction to that cartoon wasn't "Shit, let's see what we can glean from this...AHA! A pink sheep...now what else...", it was "Oh you've got to be kidding me". And I DO believe that the feminist movement probably hides some closet misandrists, in the same way the men's rights movements probably hides a lot of closet misogynists. And I guess that's what I saw when I looked at that cartoon. A sort of hateful, fearful slant on radical feminism by some bitter artist who feels that every angry woman is after their metaphorical balls. But who knows, I may be misinterpreting it. If someone told me a bunch of forum goers freaked out about a cartoon because a sheep was pink, I'd probably laugh at them too (although in all honesty it was the bloody scrotum that pushed it over the edge for me).

Whatever the case, it seems you were arguing for protecting the artists reputation from slanderous accusations of unleashed sexism, and I was trying to defend Evilthecat's right to have a reaction to what (I felt) was a clearly hilariously stupid cartoon, and we spent a lot of time talking past each other and bickering about semantics, and I was a bit of a dick. You're quoting Melchett, you're an art enthusiast, you're undoubtedly a good bloke. I'm sorry about the shenanigans from the other day. That's on me.

 

[Terminal Blue]

I was done reading your crap around page 4.

I really can't be bothered with you.

Read: 'I'm wilfully ignorant and respond poorly to criticism'

 

[Terminal Blue]

Read: I'm trying my best to ignore your narrow minded arse and found much better critics in atleast 3 other people in this thread which I had no trouble responding to and admitting areas I was at fault in.

Dude.. I haven't posted in this thread for two fucking days.

You've projected a whole bunch of shit onto me in my absence which I never said. Are you surprised I turn around to you and tell you you haven't understood me?

You don't get a prize for being right when you put words into other people's mouths. You saw me respond to fair points, had your point been fair you would have got the same response.

You're what I'm avoiding.

I understand, and for what it's worth I'm sorry. The last two posts at least were not constructive.

Point dropped, if that's what you want, but if you didn't want me to respond why did you comment on a post I made after I clearly stated that I couldn't continue the discussion. Did you not think I would get back to you?

 

[Terminal Blue]

Let's just part ways civilly.

I can agree to that.

I've clearly done something wrong, I wouldn't have an inbox full of replies trying to explain the idiom to me if I hadn't. Frankly, I dug myself pretty deep in the first few pages and you're probably not the only person I owe an apology to.

The irony is that I never call myself a feminist in real life, not even when involved in feminist activism. I have my own problems with feminism, but I still love gender theory, and too often anti-feminism just seems to be a thinly veiled attempt to shut down any criticism of existing gender norms (except in some completely nebulous fashion which assumes that men and women are equally capable of creating, changing or enforcing those norms) or any analysis which incorporates gender. For obvious reasons I find that really problematic.

So this is a convoluted apology for overreacting. I should have been less offensive, and I should have taken more time to explain myself instead of being snarky about what other people were saying. I'm not sure it would have made a huge difference in this case, but I should have had the integrity to try, and I apologise for being a bit of a dick about it.

 

[SillyBear]

What, you've never laughed at a nut shot?

Right, because silly slapstick humour that 99% of the time only results in short term pain is exactly the same as horrendous bodily mutilation that leaves you scared for life. Laughing at one is exactly the same as laughing at the other.

I once laughed when my son slipped over on the ice rink and went sliding all the way to the other side of the rink. I guess that means I also am a supporter of child abuse, because I laughed at one, that must mean I love both!

Men abuse, attack and harm each other all the time

What? So the fuck what? How does this excuse laughing at mutilation? I don't give a shit who did this to the man, it's innapropriate to laugh at it and it is only excused because he is a male. If this was a female in the position, all these hosts would be sacked and the show would be off the air in a second. No doubt.

what you're doing now is projecting that onto women as if somehow men didn't delight in harming each other long before women were given a social voice.

Right, great logic here buddy.

Okay, so men give each other "nutshots". Therefore men also cut each other's dicks off. Therefore they delight in doing so. Therefore it is fine to laugh at it.

Jesus christ, you're daft.

This is something men's rights movements completely miss, that in between the fag bashing, sissy bashing, violent competition for hegemonic rights and constant attacks on each other's manhood, maybe some of it rubs off onto society. It's not an anti-male rhetoric, it's border policing around the meaning of masculinity and you do it yourself.

How is any of this relevant at all? I guess the black rights movement of the 1960s was pointless too because a small percentage of black males were "fag bashers"?

Yeah? That's pretty much what you are saying. You are saying that because a small portion of the male population take part in awful, violent actions that means I am therefore forbidden in my efforts to make sure males have a voice in domestic violence.

You don't think feminism, as a body of theory which (usually) views gender norms as mutable and constructed and looks for ways to change them, has nothing useful to add to this issue?

Ugh, here we go again. Where the fuck did I even mention feminism? I'm a supporter of feminism, in fact I am a member of local feminist groups in my community. But I'm also a supporter of making sure male victims of domestic abuse get treated like human fucking beings.

And that's the difference between you and me. You see nothing wrong with a group of females laughing at a man be horrendously mutilated, yet you would scorn and criticise any men who would do the same to a female.

I don't give a shit that a small portion of men attack other men. I also don't give a shit that a small portion of women are evil bitches. Both of those facts mean very little when we are talking about universal rights.

Over 40% of spousal abuse cases are woman on man.

Women are more likely to commit serious bodily harm to their spouses than men are

And guess what? In my country, there are seven and a half thousand shelters for female victims of domestic abuse. That's fantastic and it is something we deal with very well.

Wanna guess how many male shelters there are? Sixty. And most of them don't deal with domestic abuse.

I know that violence against women is more common, I know that it is a bigger problem. But at least we are addressing this. People are helping. Men are being left in the fucking dark and no one cares. When someone expresses concern, somone like you comes along with anti-male bullshit and tries to beat them down.

And yes, this shit you are spouting is anti-male. You're trying to claim that men don't deserve help or concern or support during domestic abuse because of a tiny portion of men bash homosexuals to death.

Great logic.

This is by far and away the worst post I have ever seen you make on this forum. You're normally incredibly astute and on the money. Not here.

More links for you to read:

http://www.patientedu.org/aspx/HealthELibrary/HealthETopic.aspx?cid=M0907d

http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/content/42/15/31.2.full

http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/reprint/97/5/941

--

Human beings can be aggressive. This shouldn't be an issue of men vs women, it should be an issue of showing compassion and a strong support network to all victims. So far, only the women are getting that. And it needs to change. I hate nothing more than see someone like you come in and try to keep things the way they are.

 

[Sandwichboy]

That is not even remotely what he's saying. Read it again.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Right, because silly slapstick humour that 99% of the time only results in short term pain is exactly the same as horrendous bodily mutilation that leaves you scared for life. Laughing at one is exactly the same as laughing at the other.

Not what I said.

What? So the fuck what? How does this excuse laughing at mutilation? I don't give a shit who did this to the man, it's innapropriate to laugh at it and it is only excused because he is a male. If this was a female in the position, all these hosts would be sacked and the show would be off the air in a second. No doubt.

Not what I said.

Okay, so men give each other "nutshots". Therefore men also cut each other's dicks off. Therefore they delight in doing so. Therefore it is fine to laugh at it.

Not what I said.

How is any of this relevant at all? I guess the black rights movement of the 1960s was pointless too because a small percentage of black males were "fag bashers"?

Not what I said.

Yeah? That's pretty much what you are saying.

No it's not.

You are saying that because a small portion of the male population take part in awful, violent actions that means I am therefore forbidden in my efforts to make sure males have a voice in domestic violence.

No, not what I'm saying at all.

And that's the difference between you and me. You see nothing wrong with a group of females laughing at a man be horrendously mutilated, yet you would scorn and criticise any men who would do the same to a female.

Not what I said.

I'll tell you what I actually did say when I calm down, in the meantime.. Seriously. Am I this hard to understand?

 

[Sandwichboy]

Seriously. Am I this hard to understand?

When posting while fired up over us poor mens having our rights trampled on, I guess so. Y'know, if the recent feminism related threads are any indication...

While I can't speak for evilthecat, I certainly share his frustration with a lot of the mens rights right's groups and how quickly and depressingly they can become misguided or worse. As I already pointed out, [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.311793.12630381] WE are the problem. Not feminism, not feminist groups not supporting us, not some feminist run media that is actively downplaying female/male violence in some attempt to gain more sympathy and financial support, US. We reinforce our own criminally damaging stereotypes of masculinity every day, and until that changes we will continue to see these depressing statistics. Which is why every time I see these mens rights websites that are full of painfully biased statistics that are quite clearly actively attacking feminism as if it's either the cause of their problems, or at the very least preventing their problems from being addressed in the form of financial and government support, I want to strangle a kitten.

Let me make sure I'm crystal clear about this...I agree with you, sillybear, that violence against men is not taken seriously enough, and needs to stop just as badly as violence against women does. But you're looking at it from the wrong angle.

 

[Terminal Blue]

snip

I posted a huge post and the site ate it, so here's the massively stripped down version which I hope nonetheless explains my position on this issue a little better.

Gender is not a level playing field. There are certain positions within the gender system which are socially valued, not necessarily achievable positions but ideals which people can strive to embody and are accorded positive value and authority for doing so. Masculinity is one such position, and contemporary masculinity theory usually uses the term 'hegemonic masculinity' (drawing from Connell) to describe this. People demonstrate hegemonic masculinity through subordinating other expressions of masculinity, it is a hierarchical competition which can be highly situational but which usually entails a degree of institutional abuse.

There is no such thing as hegemonic femininity. There is no form of femininity which denotes a degree of authority independent of the need for a powerful male subject who can be bargained with or seduced. Increasingly there are women in positions of power, strength, intelligence or authority, but they must negotiate their femininity in relation to that position, it is not a positive asset they can employ except through appealing to the presumed social authority of men in that arena.

What is often lost in men's rights rhetoric about society unfairly favouring women is the extreme difficulty women face in these positions, and the impossibility of promoting a viable 'feminine' position as authoritive. It is not sufficient to suggest that the reason women are subject to greater social protection than men is because they have political power to demand it. On a macrosocial level, they don't. They probably won't for a very long time, the fact that beating up women is less socially acceptable than beating up men is not a feminist intervention, there isn't some historical golden age where men and women punched each other in the face with no accounting for gender.

The vast majority of violence in our society, segregated by gender, is perpetrated by men against men. That doesn't make cross-gender violence insignificant, but it is a very small minority of overall violence. Why does this happen? Is it because women have rigged society to regard violence against men as acceptable, or could it be because men achieve social legitimacy and considerable social reward both from enacting violence on each other and in being seen as able to handle themselves in the face of violence? Are men seen as acceptable targets for violence because women see them as useless and disposable, or because displaying fear in the face of violence or expecting help is not seen as masculine, and if that is the case.. who is benefiting from it? Could it be that men who are considered able to handle themselves might be benefiting from their masculinity in this regard, or might actually achieve social reward and legitimacy because of it?

Where's I lose patience with the men's rights movement is that instead of asking what might be wrong with masculinity as it stands, instead of asking how we might enable men to appear weak, to be in that position of needing help and needing support that women are so often presented as being in by default, there's just a completely empty rhetoric of superficial equality. Oh, we have X number of shelters for women and only Y number of shelters for men, that's unfair (let's not even stop consider what the demand is for those shelters or whether men themselves would use them), let's not bother to ask deep questions about how masculinity might be preventing men from seeking this help which we want to divert money from overtaxed women's services to provide for them, it's women's fault! It's an anti-male rhetoric which has nothing whatsoever to do with how men behave to each other or treat each other or benefit socially from each other and from women.

Being complicit in something does not entail creating it. Just because (certain) women laugh at violence against men or encourage it or buy into the idea that it's not a big deal doesn't mean they created that perception. In real terms, who benefits? Are women truly safe from violence just because the majority of violence is directed against men? Do women feel safer from violence than men? Both questions have obvious answers.

Social constructivist accounts of gender do have the power to change the world. Feminism, for all its flaws, is living proof. The second wave was not based on a demand that more money be spent on providing better stoves for housewives, it was based on asking why women should be consigned to that work at all. I know how hard it is to imagine how masculinity could function differently. If it was hard for so many women to imagine a world beyond the kitchen how hard is it going to be for us to give up the thing which has provided so much social authority, but if you ever want to claim that a woman was violent towards you and be taken seriously as a victim, then you need the right to appear as weak and vulnerable and incapable of dealing with that situation as you would if you happened to have been born with a vagina. That means renouncing all the positive things which ever came from not being seen as weak and vulnerable. The reason women are protected from violence both culturally and legally is because they live under that assumption all the time, and it's not always as easy as you seem to think.

I hope that wasn't offensive. I'm sorry, I tried, but I just seem to have a permanent foot in my mouth in this thread.

 

[hooksashands]

Hey guy, I'm sorry a girlfriend of yours acted like that. And I'm sorry that the society you live in frowns on you smacking her around in return. That's a raw deal for you I guess. I've been hit by women too, and incredibly enough the first thing that popped into my head wasn't how unfair it was that I couldn't batter her around for it. Guess that's just me.

And hey, I never said I turned a blind eye to anything. And I never called anyone a rapist in "that thread", either, I called it "groping" and "sexual molestation", which...by the english definitions of "groping" and "sexual molestation", and the information provided to us by the OP...it was. Maybe there were half a dozen other people in there with puffer fish avatars calling it rape (because apparently by Canadian Criminal Law, it was, which is a pretty stupidly fucking literal interpretation of that law, but alrighty folks), and you got confused. I don't know. And really, I'm sorry that you're apparently still seething days later because I suggested your hand waving of the molestation of a helpless human being might have been in poor taste. Maybe if you don't like the implications of that, you might reconsider being so flippant about fondling unconscious people who haven't given their consent. You seem to lose your shit over strangers on internet forums disagreeing with you, so clearly you've got some outrage to spare.

So, carry on with your crusade to pull the mask back on my supposed bristling misandry I guess. I'm sure you'll be back for another last word, although God knows it'll probably be in some unrelated thread a week from now after I've forgotten all about this shit. Again.

Aren't you the one trying their damnedest to appear sympathetic to women? All I've done is remind you that the door swings both ways and no amount of you calling my moral character into question is gonna divert from that fact, little straw man.

Nope, no confusion here. You specifically said that you minimize acts of violence against males in your mind. So not only are you turning a blind eye, but you are willfully ignorant to what the other side goes through. Another thing: I said you called anyone who didn't agree with your views in the thread a 'misogynist'. Pay attention. Does it really matter whether he's a rapist or molester? You were ready to have a crucifixion either way, ready to call anyone who didn't think like you a sexist, and ready to be a biased asshole all around. It's not so much that you disagree with me, it's that you make yourself out to be some kind of martyr figure for female kind. In your mind, you are the perfect alpha and I am the dumb animal who barely restrains himself from beating his spouse. That's your implication. Or rather, that's the one-dimensional insult you keep trying to peg me with. I never said what the groper guy did was right, I merely suggested that there were other dynamics to consider before we sent him straight to a jail cell.

Yea, I know you don't want to take any responsibility for the bullshit in your posts, so best just to pretend you forgot. . . even though you're the one who brought that thread up in the first place. Forgot my ass.

 

[Baconmonster723]

why statistically we're three times more likely to take our own lives than women are when suffering a serious crisis or depression.

Just a quick change to your stat. Men are three times more likely to succeed in committing suicide. Women actually attempt suicide almost twice as often as men do. As an individual who has had 3 family members and a couple close friends attempt suicide (thankfully none of them succeeded) and who personally suffers from depression. I would say the difference is important to note. Not meaning to discuss suicide in this thread that just caught my eye and I figured that putting this out there wouldn't hurt.


OT: Feminism isn't bad, misandry and misogyny are stupid, more people need to be aware of male domestic violence, domestic violence is bad, and the comic has divided us upon battle lines, I'll be Switzerland for this fight gents, carry on.