Differing reactions to men & women getting abused

[NovaKart]

That's not what disadvantaged means, and I very hotly contest the suggestion that Black women get off light from police harassment. However, if it were true, it would still be understood through an intersectional lens..

Did I even use that word?

Black women have somehow managed to far out score black men in education and I seriously doubt black women face as much police harassment as black men. One has to ask if black men have such a big advantage because of their gender.

 

[timtofly]

Well it's held by materialists that people in different material relations experience things differently, and that this shapes their worldview. Thus, we as men cannot understand women's experiences, we as whites cannot understand the experiences of POCs, etc, because their material relation to others and themselves is different from ours. To rectify this, we must learn from them about those experiences, so that we can make informed decisions based upon them.



As I have already explained, mine are informed by, and largely come from, women and specifically feminists. And, as I have already explained, the problem only extends to issues surrounding feminism and the like, and when speaking to women about it. I don't lecture women about feminism, I listen to them talk about it, and I talk with them about it... Hell. I've already typed this exact thing in the last hour, in this very thread. Go read it yourself. If you won't even read my posts, then don't bother responding.

For heavens sake, I read it twice and completely understand that you are in a war and shooting at the people here in cfc. Winning the battle would be getting every one here to say you are correct and they are wrong. Is that wise though?

Yes. All men. Men constitute a political class. They run society, they dominate society. They enjoy privileges and advantages that women do not, by virtue of that control. We call this structure the patriarchy. That's why I am a class traitor. I am a man who benefits from this structure simply by existing, and simply by it existing, but I don't want to, and I think this is wrong, so I seek to destroy it.

Good luck with destroying it in your own family and those people you bump into, and perhaps if you would not create walls online, fellow posters may see your points instead of the irony of the situation. I am not saying that you created the war that you have joined. It has existed for millennia. You are not even wrong for taking on the burden, and you have my support in the struggle. IRL I realize the importance of it as well. We can only hope that guiding our offspring will not carry on the class notion, neither will it be ignored, but it has to stop if there is ever to be peace on earth.

 

[metatron]

@Crezth
I am not arguing that culturally constructed gender roles play no role in inter-gender-violence. Nor am I arguing that it wasn't fruitful to focus on violence against women as a distinct phenomena.
All I am arguing is that if gender roles didn't exist we shouldn't have a ratio of 1:1 of inter-gender violence, because constructed social roles simply are not the only relevant factor in inter-gender-violence. But only then would it make sense to say that our aim should be that the ratio is 1:1.
As it is, IMO our aim should simply be that there is less violence. Whereas one fruitful measure can be to focus on violence fueled by gender roles. But not to get a ratio of 1:1, but to decrease absolute violence.

Yeah... in theory that makes sense. Kinda.
But in reality partner violence has very little to do with the nature-ish causes you're refering to. It's mostly a thing about the pathology of individual perpetrators and specifically their perception of entitlement to and justification for their behavior. I.e. a socio-cultural thing.

I'm saying this as - hopefully - your favorite CFC "nature apologist".
Kidding. Pardon me.

I think you're underestimating the effort and work that feminists have put into grabbing the mic the past five decades. The reason we're even talking about domestic abuse in the first place goes back to this. Though this is really an exceptional example of what I'm talking about re: this issue being used to frame an anti-feminist agenda. "See? Feminists don't even talk about this!" and so on. Well, it's just not true.

The perception of males not suffering domestic abuse is as much anathema to the ideals of feminism as the notion that women must suffer abuse. They are inextricably linked and I don't know how you can think otherwise.

As i said: There's a difference between the tenets of feminism in academia and the half-baked "feminism" in popular media.
I don't have to misunderstand or underestimate anything, nor do i have to have an anti-feminist agenda.

It's like when people ask "Why aren't more women becoming doctors? Are women stupider than men?"

Spoiler :

Note that men outnumber women in that cohort of the general population in the first place. The proportion could actually be extremely close to 51.3 - 48.7, considering sex ratio at birth X years earlier, slightly higher male mortality in childhood and adolescense etc.

Unfortunately - and somewhat inexplicably - this virtual exact proportion seems to have been a passing phenomenon:
https://www.aamc.org/download/277026/data/aibvol12_no1.pdf

This would be an interesting thing to research and talk about if we weren't preoccupied with Quacker's supposed fascism and Cheezy's supposed right-about-everything-ness.

What I find disturbing about domestic violence (whether perpetrated by men on women or vice versa) is that victims very often don't simply walk away and have nothing further to do with their abusers.

I don't think anyone should tolerate violence against them. Just don't live in the same house after the very first instance of anything like it.

Misattribution of arousal. People confuse rage with "romantic passion".

Here's a scene: Two partners in a relationship. They have a fight. One argues, somewhat agitated. The other stays calm. The former asserts that the latter "doesn't care" because calmness.

You may have witnessed the scene in real life. Anyway, it's virtually in every damn last romantic drama or romantic comedy.

Aslo: Arguably some stockholm syndrome derivative.
Depending on the circumstances also economic necessity.

 

[Gori the Grey]

That is explicitly not what Cheezy has argued. Disagree with him if you must, be at least try to disagree with the position he is actually presenting.y.

California train bias thread, post 256. His disqualifies himself too but quickly requalifies himself. But not the rest of us schlubs.

Anyway, I think I know how to operate from here on out.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Aslo: Arguably some stockholm syndrove derivative.

I was actually going to mention that before I saw you post it. It's an interesting idea, that they might be related in some fashion.

 

[Old Hippy]

oooppps
double post

 

[Old Hippy]

Originally Posted by Loppan Torkel
:-/ that one back-fired..

I laughed and spat coffee all over my lap top, so no
__________________

It's not about "respect". It's nothing so moralistic. The reasoning is, oppression exists, and the oppressed understand their experiences better than those who merely witness their oppression. Women understand the experience of being women in a sexist society better than men do. Black people understand the experience of being black in a racist society better than white people do. The same doesn't work in reverse: there is little about being a white person that would be alien to a black person, because white people are the cultural default. With gender it's a little trickier, I think, because masculinity carries certain ideals in a way that whiteness doesn't (it's been noted that gender simultaneous functions as a bipolar and a unipolar system, depending on context), but the difference in experience is still in favour of women.

.

I agree with your points, BUT if you look at indigenous rights in Australia they aimed to get change ( to get counted in the Census and to enable the federal Government to make laws on their behalf) and rather than take the violent path (which had failed them since the Invasion) choose to bring Whites on board, leading to a Referendum and an overwhelming yes vote (90.77% of whites voted yes) to change the Constitution which led to change, that was in 1967. it still has along way to go and as a white Aussie it is very much MY issue, as well as are gay and femenist rights and issues, heck even cow rights if they go overseas and they are Aussie

 

[Narz]

Yes. All men. Men constitute a political class. They run society, they dominate society.

Really? So the homeless guys I see on the street everyday who rich women on their way to work "run society".

They enjoy privileges and advantages that women do not, by virtue of that control. We call this structure the patriarchy. That's why I am a class traitor. I am a man who benefits from this structure simply by existing, and simply by it existing, but I don't want to, and I think this is wrong, so I seek to destroy it.

How are you going to destroy it? What will you replace it with?

Couldn't we talk about promoting the evolution of society into a better state?

That's not as melodramatic & requires a lot more work.

 

[Narz]

I wonder why we even talk about a "white man's" opinion of feminism?

I really dislike being lumped in with all white people.

Do people feel that non-white men are more open to feminism, which I think is quite unlikely?

I think Jay-Z is a feminist. He's also a famous victim of female violence.

 

[Narz]

That's lovely. It's also meaningless. What does it have to do with me and how I identify? Nothing.

It has nothing to do with you. Which I guess in your mind means it's meaningless.

 

[Traitorfish]

I remember when CFC anti-feminists were just outright misogynist. I think I liked that better, because at least you argue with it. Now it's all whinging and word games, and what's the point of even engaging with that?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I remember when people read the words you posted and thought about them before responding.

Oh wait, no I don't.

What's the point indeed. This group is working very hard to make sure they don't understand simple sentences. That might lead to enough understanding to change someone's mind. But masculinity is on the line! Our identities as men! We can't threaten that with things like proof and logic.

 

[Borachio]

That's not as melodramatic & requires a lot more work.

It's certainly not as melodramatic, but I'm not sure it requires more work.

A subtle player might proceed strategically and tease the truth out of his opposition bit by bit, mightn't s/he? Thereby getting them to do most of the work.

Adopting a hectoring, lecturing tone is going to give you more work in the short term and is likely to be fruitless, imo.

Of course, one might be inclined to abandon the melodramatic project comparatively quickly - so in that sense it could be less work.

 

[Traitorfish]

I remember when people read the words you posted and thought about them before responding.

Oh wait, no I don't.

What's the point indeed. This group is working very hard to make sure they don't understand simple sentences. That might lead to enough understanding to change someone's mind. But masculinity is on the line! Our identities as men! We can't threaten that with things like proof and logic.

It has to be said, there's some exhausting about a thread which goes "guys, if we just spent less time talking and more time lis-" "Whadda you mean I'm not aloud to talk!?!" It's like, proving your point and trampling all over it at the same time.

 

[Light Cleric]

You know, Cheezy, if in every single thread across multiple topics, the only person who every "understands" your posts is another radical in TF...maybe there's somewhat of a communication problem on your end and not with literally everyone who disagrees with you?

It gets really boring when I ask you direct, simple questions and you repeatedly bail out with that empty old excuse when it gets too hard to do something besides dismiss people who even somewhat disagree with you. I don't seem to have this problem when I read feminist stuff by other people like Owen around here on CFC, it's pretty much just you. I suppose that's my fault somehow, though. I'll go figure out how so I can spare you the pain of having to look at any flaws of your own.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Why not? That's how the oppressor operates.

Because the material is complex.
That becomes clear to me every time there is a discussion which involves feminism. Many things are to be considered and many different people are able to bring up many different point of views.
I don't know what your second sentence means.

I remember when CFC anti-feminists were just outright misogynist. I think I liked that better, because at least you argue with it. Now it's all whinging and word games, and what's the point of even engaging with that?

To me you just sound bitter that you don't get your self-righteous antagonism you apparently are lurking for.

It has to be said, there's some exhausting about a thread which goes "guys, if we just spent less time talking and more time lis-" "Whadda you mean I'm not aloud to talk!?!" It's like, proving your point and trampling all over it at the same time.

You just try to be clever for the sake of it at this point, aren't you? Being allowed to talk is naturally a part of listening.

 

[metatron]

I used to not be a feminist. I used to be rather similar to the people here, who are so vehemently against every aspect of feminism, and so unashamed of their own masculine privilege. I used to be like those MRAs, even a little like that murderer, alone and blaming women for my troubles, believing in chivalry and my own deservedness of women for being a good gentleman. And yet today I am none of those things. I didn't get that way by standing in an echo chamber, my friend. I still listen to what these people say here, but I already know what they're thinking and I don't need to consider much or be made to understand what they're saying, because I used to think them myself. I do understand. I just don't agree.

On the other hand, it's highly unlikely that any one of them used to be a feminist or feminist ally, or used to be woman [although in all fairness, we have had a few trans posters in the past]. Perhaps it might be beneficial for these white men to consider the idea that, as white men, they don't already know everything and have the answer to everything.

Yes. I was raised a Christian, neoconservative, American nationalist. Sometimes the older forumers here like to dig up my very early posts and have a few laughs about it.

And i was raised a cynical submarine lutheran/atheist, rabidly anti-fascist, feminist, postmaterialist, leftist upper middle class prick.
Though i have the good sense not to claim i was none of those things anymore.


But, wait a second...
So you are telling me that earlier you were largely operating within the restricting framework of a virtually totalitarian worldview based on doctrinal rigidity, contrasting absolutes, intellectual authoritarianism, overestimation of universality and oblivion to international socio-cultural differences?
But now you've radically changed and are instead aggressively proselytising your specific totalitarian brand of feminism with its doctrinal rigidity, contrasting absolutes, intellectual authoritarianism, overestimation of universality and oblivion to international socio-cultural differences?
Your privilege acts as an original sin in reverse and the fight for feminism as your unending burden through which you can reach redemption?

Same mindset. New flag.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Same mindset. New flag.

I must admit since some time I have been thinking the same. Am glad though I shut up about it because I wouldn't have put it as well as you did.

 

[nc-1701]

Well, the discussion above combined points about both race and gender, hence the term "white men" appearing together.

However, it would be true that black man would experience more oppression than a white man, but less than a black woman, because he is privileged as a man, bun underprivileged as a POC. Discussions on the issues of race and gender should not stray very far from one another. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality

I think Novakart already made this point, but black women are in general doing much better than black men. At least in this part of the world, they go to (and graduate) college at much higher rates. Also they face comparatively little police violence from police which is what has really crushed the black male population. Preventing them from holding good jobs or going to college and thus leading them back towards crime as an only choice.

Which leads me back to a previous point/suggestion: the oppressed are just as likely, if not more, to be oppressors as the unoppressed.

Contrary to expectations.

(If I haven't made myself clear enough: black men tend to treat black women if anything worse than white men treat white women. Or is this a myth put about by the "white patriachy"? It could be.)

Isn't this exactly the reason judges/juries are supposed to be impartial and recuse themselves if they were a victim of a similar crime etc. The victims are actually the least qualified to find justice, a lot of the modern feminist theory being quoted in this thread explicitly contradicts this fact without justification.



I used to call myself a feminist, I think that I still am a feminist but I certainly wouldn't label myself as one anymore. In the mainstream culture feminism has grabbed a bunch of extremist views and tied them so closely to feminist it's hard to be a feminist without holding them or at least having others assume you do.
In our society there are a lot of places where we still need to advance rights for women. Reproductive health is probably the most obvious, recent pushes by Republican legislators against abortion etc. are disgusting. And while the reality of pay discrimination is that it's much smaller than is often claimed, it's still a problem that needs to be fixed. In a very related note the lack of women in STEM fields is a problem etc. (Ironically modern feminists tend to be overtly hostile to STEM).
However a lot of the things feminists have attached themselves too recently are very difficult issues to make that case with. A very standard example is violence and stranger violence in particular.
In every single country in the world men are far more likely to be victims of stranger violence than women are. But we always see stranger violence presented as a women's issue, especially with this inane trope about the '#womenexperiance' of holding your keys in your knuckles at night and how men will never understand their far. When men are explicitly in far more danger of stranger violence than women are. Also in more danger of violence in general, but by a lower margin and not in every country.
That only serves to put in greater perspective the different social reactions to violence against women and men. Which is something that bothers me greatly both as a "lite"-feminist and as a man. So to say looking at how our justice system discriminates against men and our society prioritizes female victims of violence over male, makes you explicitly misogynistic is not just wrong but disgusting. It betrays you as failing to truly be a feminist and as being trapped in an us-vs-them mindset. This is the problem with viewing the world through a filter based on identity, you trap everyone in an identity you built for them and the only method of discourse you have left is to scream privilege at all the identities you've classified as beings enemies until they give in.

Or you know they don't...

 

[Crezth]

Because the material is complex.
That becomes clear to me every time there is a discussion which involves feminism. Many things are to be considered and many different people are able to bring up many different point of views.

A little bit of false equivalency here. It must be said that not all points of view brought up are valid. Especially not ones that insist, for example, that knowing a woman for ten years somehow makes the entire concept of women as a demographic group, erm, materially irrelevant. Or something.