>
ECHIDNE of the Snakes has written an excellent post titled “Eight Anti-Woman Principles of The Most Extreme Types of MRAs.”
It goes through a number of standard MRA arguments and offers pretty persuasive rebuttals of most of them. Among the topics covered: life expectancies of men and women and why this actually isn’t a feminist plot; higher rate of on-the-job accidents for men and why this isn’t a feminist plot; the higher rate of male death in wars and why this too is not a feminist plot; male prisoners; homelessness; and stay-at-home dads. The post also comments on child custody and domestic violence, but without providing real rebuttals on those two issues.
I’m adding this link to my “further reading” post on general critiques of the MRM.
>The words "penal code" probably should have tipped you off to the fact that people were talking about and quoting law, genius.
>@M:"I'm for reducing violence between partners of all genders and don't need regressive ideas about one person's superiority over another to advocate that. The kinds of relationships you idealize sound like hell for *both* parties, Mr. Dias."Superiority, eh? So men should be cannon fodder on the battlefield, or stand in the way of danger to protect their families from violent threats, and the greater danger that they face in doing this is somehow in your view… inconsequential? Nothing?Walk a mile in a protector's shoes, M; are you equally obligated to protect a man as he is to protect you?
>And you think I'm in favor of male-only selective service or male-only combat…why? Feminists have argued for the abolition of these things for a long time. Also, I have a happy and equal partnership that is not premised on notions like yours, and yes, I have an equal responsibility to protect him as he does me. You are welcome to live according to very conservative ideas if you choose, but it is a *choice*. I have chosen a different philosophy.
>M"The words "penal code" probably should have tipped you off to the fact that people were talking about and quoting law, genius."Not at all. It’s a law. What evidence is that? This is laughable. That’s why I thought such people like David could have done better than this but I was wrong.It's like saying music piracy is against the law, but people still find loop holes around it. Such as DV, women have loop holes that don't work for men. That’s my whole point in my last 5 or so post in this thread.
>@M:You aren't suitable for combat roles compared to a man, and your legal exemption from that responsibility makes your being "in favor of" completely irrelevant because it's not going to change the law, and more importantly, your combat role involvement will not make men any safer.You also probably aren't as capable of fending off violent threats against your male partner as he is of protecting you from those same threats. The issue is your competence, and you are less physically competent than he is in being a protector. This is because you are a woman, and that's the way your body is made. It's nothing to be ashamed of; women can have extremely precious qualities that are worthy of protecting and are unique to women. You should be proud to be a woman, but don't presume to be the physical equal of men especially in the protective role. Your intentions are admirable, though.
>Okay Nick, so words like "penal code" or "criminal code" don't tip you off to the fact that the subject in question is a law? May I suggest that the reason you feel so terribly, terribly oppressed in this world is that you are perhaps not too bright? Meritocracy in all its forms will not smile on you, buddy.That entire discussion was about what is actually in the law, and Elizabeth even prefaced it with this helpful guide to understanding what was being discussed:"Mr. Dias, I am actually on the California Penal Code's website and the law does not reflect what you claim"I have been reading this site for a short time and have already seen you misunderstand the subject at hand a good dozen times. It's pretty perplexing. People were discussing the *contents of the law*, therefore the *contents of the law* are pretty relevant. John, considering that feminist organizations have filed amicus briefs with the Supreme Court supporting the abolition of the male-only draft, their and my being "in favor of" that abolition means more than just posturing. Major feminist organizations actually have sought to *change the law*, and the Supreme Court is a good place to do that.As far as the rest of that, what that has to do with it being necessary to have patriarchal family structures in the West in 2011, or to consider one's wife a "mere woman", well, you are welcome to your beliefs but they are simply your opinion of how a family should be structured. You are welcome to continue this conversation by explaining all the ways that, in your opinion, such a structure is necessary, but they will remain opinions–as my opinions are simply opinions–so it probably isn't worth either of our time.
>John, earlier you were complaining that it was an injustice that police would take into account the larger size of men (on average) when deciding whom to arrest in DV cases. Now you're saying that the larger size of men (on average) means that men should have authority in marriage.
>That is a n excellent point, David.
>@M:Competence is the issue, and a woman's competence in protecting men pales in comparison to a man's competence in protecting men and woman. You can see this illustrated in data on domestic violence victims; women are twice as likely as men to be injured. That's because they're more delicate, not because the injury-causing attack was any more forceful than it would have been by a male perpetrator on a male victim. Authority is justified by competence, your Supreme Court amicus briefs notwithstanding.Suffice it to say, I'll agree to disagree with you on this since as you say it's just a difference in personal values.
>@David Futrelle:"John, earlier you were complaining that it was an injustice that police would take into account the larger size of men (on average) when deciding whom to arrest in DV cases. Now you're saying that the larger size of men (on average) means that men should have authority in marriage."Before I expound on this, can you tell me what your point is? Are you saying that a man with patriarchal values must therefore deserve it if he is first physically victimized by his wife, and then is arrested? Or are you saying that patriarchal values necessarily lead to violence?
>"You can see this illustrated in data on domestic violence victims; women are twice as likely as men to be injured. That's because they're more delicate, not because the injury-causing attack was any more forceful than it would have been by a male perpetrator on a male victim."Is this delicacy argument borne out by studies of partner violence among male homosexual couples? I would think the more obvious reason for the injury is not delicacy but the difference in body mass and upper body strength.
>"Before I expound on this, can you tell me what your point is? Are you saying that a man with patriarchal values must therefore deserve it if he is first physically victimized by his wife, and then is arrested? Or are you saying that patriarchal values necessarily lead to violence?"How is it not obvious from context what he is saying? There's a reason people keep responding to you guys with "Um."
>@M:Someone with the aggressive and abusive disposition that you have would certainly not be my ideal choice for a mate. I feel for your male partner. As far as "Um," consider yourself ignored.
>MI am not a mind reader, it seems that you are just taking a cheap shot to intimidate my intelligence while you know my true stance.I still haven’t got an answer as what David said really wasn't clear.I am aware what Penal means. However, I thought people like David were better than just saying some random law is supposed to be some proof. That's how I jumped to the conclusion that I thought this so called Penal code was some sort of statistic and not just some law indicating it's proof.So talk about not being bright, I think to indicate a law as proof is exactly not being bright. As it is to say that it's against the law to pay women less in doing the same jobs as men but feminists still think it magically happens
>Hahaha John I knew I was going to get that hackneyed line from one of you guys eventually. Considering that it never crossed my mind to wonder whether I could ever be your "mate," I would suggest it's actually not helpful and is, wait, what were you saying about "um"–juvenile?–to resort to such truly devastating cliche. Nick: Intimidate your intelligence, eh? That's quite a nonsense construction. Look, you don't have to be a mindreader to understand a discussion you are participating in, and to understand its context. No one is saying a random law is proof of anything save *what is in the law*, which is why someone posted it. You are just making yourself look less and less bright with these arguments.
>The bottom line is that males get seriously hurt too in DV. But to justify equal treatment for male victims who get fucked up, feminists seem to disagree as such shelters owned by VAWA that are ran by feminists don't want anything to do with male victims. Even that the feminist movement claims to be about gender equality.
>"No one is saying a random law is proof of anything save *what is in the law*, which is why someone posted it. You are just making yourself look less and less bright with these arguments." Haha, I am sure that's the case as you can't come up with a clear explanation on how bringing up the Penal Code defeats my earlier stance.
>Shelters are owned by federal laws now?Seriously for the good of your *own* movement you should step out of it. And I will repeat once again: it does you no favors to declare repeatedly what feminists want and what they believe and don't believe when you have no demonstrable knowledge of feminism.
>"Haha, I am sure that's the case as you can't come up with a clear explanation on how bringing up the Penal Code defeats my earlier stance."WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH
>nick — We were discussing what the DV laws were in various states. Elisabeth went and looked up the relevant part of the penal code of California. Since we were talking about the content of the laws, this was evidence. You quoted the law she quoted, and asked for evidence. Huh? I have no idea what you think we're talking about. john: "Are you saying that a man with patriarchal values must therefore deserve it if he is first physically victimized by his wife, and then is arrested? Or are you saying that patriarchal values necessarily lead to violence?" No, of course not, but I suspect you know that. I was asking why relative male-female size should matter in one case and not matter in the other, in your view. Also: if a woman is bigger than her husband, by your logic, shouldn't she be the "protector," the one with authority in the family, etc? I think that refusing to discuss something with someone because they use "um" is a bit childish. Especially if you've just called them "abusive" for being mildly sarcastic.
>Shelters are owned by federal laws now?Not saying you are wrong, but can you provide the facts?Secondly why doesn't VAWA support male DV victims? Why even call them selves VAWA when such a feminist organisation which is simply feminist should be about gender equality?"WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH"Wow that's a good argument
>Nick, I am not making any arguments, good or bad, because I do not argue about American laws with people who think a piece of legislation is an organization. It is patently clear that you have just swallowed a bunch of dogma and have not interrogated any of these issues or you would know the difference between legislation and people. Why do you feel so justified in denouncing all the things that feminism represents when you clearly know so little about it or even about your own cause? I do not debate with people who don't know anything about the subject. That means you actually learn what feminism fights for and not what others *say* it is (because feminism actually concerns men's rights and gender roles too); it also means you understand what your own damn movement means when it talks about VAWA.
>"Since we were talking about the content of the laws, this was evidence."How is it evidence? It's against the law to pirate music. It’s a law right? But there is still loop holes.
>My god, how are you not getting this? Seriously, how?a. The discussion was about the content of the lawb. Someone posted the content of the law as evidence of what the law contained.
>MI am not a MRA, I am simply anti feminist. I know very well that feminism puts men in second place in the guise of gender equality. I am not going to be a broken record to explain my reasons. Even just what I have said in the last 24 hours would give you an idea why.