Categories
feminism MGTOW misandry misogyny MRA rape sex

Hating female sexuality: Is it normal?

You'll see why I used this picture in a minute.

So I recently ran across a site called “Is It Normal?” The idea behind it is simple, and kind of wonderful: people confess some possibly odd thing about themselves, and others tell them if it’s normal. Now, normally (as it were) I’m against the too-rigid enforcement of what is considered “normal” behavior, especially when it comes to sexuality and sex roles. But that’s not really what we’re talking about here. Ohhhh, no. We’re talking about grown men and women eating their own boogers; having sexual fantasies about zombies; feeling an urge to jump off of high places;  or wanting to be turned into a doll or manikin. (Hey, whatever floats your boat.)

Naturally, I did a search for “misogyny” just to see what turned up. Is that a normal thing to do? I don’t know, and I don’t care, but I did it and the search pulled up a couple of pretty interesting little discussions.

The one that really grabbed my attention was from a guy who said he hated female sexuality. Which may not be “normal,” though as readers of this blog know it’s not uncommon. But this guy is  no Christopher from Oregon, whose hatred of female sexuality is part of a package deal that includes hatred for pretty much everything female.

No, this guy hates female sexuality in part because, well, he thinks the male body is ugly and so assumes – or at least feels on a gut level —  that any woman having sex with a man is being coerced, bamboozled, or raped. Yep, we’re talking about a rich and toxic stew of misogyny and misandry here. Let’s let him explain:

I Hate Female Sexuality

What little mysogyny I have in me is directed at female sexuality. I can’t stand it that females are attracted to males, ever. I hate them a little for it, just feel it in my gut. I thought for a long time when I was younger that females were basically asexual, not interested in sex, and that romance for them was something far removed from physical love. It didn’t occur to me that anyone might find the male form attractive, and I always suspected males were using some form of deception or raping women in some way when they were with them. I don’t understand this hate and distrust for my own sex. It really bothers me.

I hate that I feel there’s something wrong with a female having an active sexuality when I know intellectually there’s not. I’m a passionate feminist and attracted to females myself. I don’t really understand this feeling.

I think maybe a small part of it is jealousy when I see a couple, and the rest mostly my wierd, incongruous hatred for the male sex.

I don’t think females are doing something wrong but that something wrong is being done to them when they engage in sexual activity, even consentual, with a male, and they’re allowing it to happen, are complicit in it. This is just a feeling I have and can’t shake. It’s not overwhelming, like I’m freaking out whenever I see a couple but it’s there a lot, subtle but persistent. I’m atheist and I’m not someone who belives sexual promiscuity is wrong or even undesirable in male or females. This is just a wierd, lingering emotional problem, like fear of the dark or something like that.

Is it normal?

So, yeah. For what it’s worth, only 14% of those reading this confession rated it normal.  But, as I said, I don’t think it’s uncommon. We grow up, after all, in a society that treats sexuality as a commodity that women possess, and that men try to “get” from women – by charming them into “giving it up,” by buying it directly or indirectly (by going to a prostitute or paying for dinner), or simply taking by force.

This way of thinking about sex is pretty deeply embedded in our culture; as regular readers of this blog know all too well, many MRAs, MGTOWers, and PUAs (especially) seem unable to conceive of sexuality in any other way. Neither does the questioner on Is It Normal (who goes by the name SamuraiPeeper), even though he’s a self-described feminist.

Like a lot of misogynistic ideas, this “women own sex, men must fight to get it” idea contains a heaping helping of misandry as well – suggesting that women basically don’t enjoy or desire sex with men because male bodies and male sexuality are inherently disgusting. It’s only a few small steps from this to SamuraiPeeper’s whole muddled mixture of desire and disgust, hatred and self-hatred.

The biggest difference between SamuraiPeeper and the MGTOWers and other misogynists I write about here is that he’s aware that his views are fucked up, and is trying actively to work through his issues. And he’s actually gotten some good responses to his query on Is It Normal?

PoisonFlowers suggests that some of his hatred and disgust probably stems from a fear of female sexuality:

Is it misogyny? I don’t think it’s as clear cut as that. Perhaps because the image you had of women (almost an idealised impression it seems) when you were younger has been destroyed (instead of having romance that is above sex, it turns out that women can be just as animalistic as men), you feel a sort of resentment and that mixes with the jealousy and then as you say “a weird, incongruous hatred for the male sex.” This then becomes a strong dislike for female sexuality.

Why do you have these feelings about men? Is it the people you’ve been surrounded with throughout your life and their behaviour/attitudes? Have you witnessed a man being abusive towards a woman at any point in your life? …

You say that you feel as though “something wrong is being done to them,” which could point to an urge in you to protect women, or perhaps it is more accurate to say to protect the _idea_ you have of women that stems from the concept you had when you were younger.

randomsensuality offers some similar observations:

It definitely sounds like you want to protect the idea of females as pure, with an almost divine stature. It also sounds like you have been taught or embraced the idea that penetrative sex is inherently degrading or immoral: therefore a woman who enjoys it is equally so.

Another bit on the matter is that many men do not find it attractive when women lead the hunt, as it were. They want to be the ones in control, in the pursuit of the sex and relationships. If a woman is as much “on the prowl” as he is, then he can’t say that it was a full conquest. He wants to know he’s been where others have failed to enter, that it took his prowess to crack the nut, setting him apart and making his mate a trophy and attribute to his stature.

Lets also not forget the angle of loathing the male form, which you say you can’t understand a woman being attracted to. If you are heterosexual male, this makes sense. Of course it’s easier to wrap your brain around lesbian sex, you like women, you understand innately attraction to women. Attraction to men, is scary for more than that reason though. If a woman is attracted to a man, then she could be attracted to any man the way a man can be attracted to any woman: this vision of the situation can induce pre-emptive jealousy and defensiveness.

Meanwhile, a 19-year-old girl calling herself so_damn_unpretty offers a blunter response – and one that might do the questioner as much good as the longer, more thoughtful responses:

I love men… and cock.. and sex… so i really cant relate.

In the end, that’s probably the most important takeaway here, as they like to say in the business world. Women – most women, anyway – genuinely like and enjoy sex as much as men. Sometimes more. When a guy “scores” with a woman — she is also “scoring” with him. Rigid gender roles that define man as the sexual pursuer and women as the sexual prize may make it hard to see this, but it’s true. Not only that, but women – heterosexual women, anyway – actually like and enjoy the male body.

Guys, know this: while you are watching sports, or playing video games, or playing with yourself, or knitting (or whatever your favorite hobby is), there are thousands of women writing, sharing, and reading slash fic about dudes (from various TV shows and movies and books) getting it on with each other. There are no women in these stories, at least not in the dirty parts. Just dudes, and their dude bodies, having dude sex with each other. Freud once asked: what do women want? And to that we have a partial answer: stories about Sam and Dean from Supernatural penetrating one another’s deepest  mysteries.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

491 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Schala
Schala
9 years ago

I searched for that exact string, and it’s traindodger, not me. So I don’t “make the same claim in my definition of male/female”.

Schala
Schala
9 years ago

A problem that certain groups face is being recognized as victims period.

Transgender and transsexual and the rest of the LGB, don’t get seen as victims by many. They get seen as “people who made wrong moral choices and need to be shunned back to goodness”, so it’s pretty hard to have them seen as deserving anti-discrimination statutes.

While women have been treated as defacto victims since the Victorian era. Wasn’t too hard to convince the dominant hierarchy to “protect the women”, it’s already part of the narrative.

traindodger
9 years ago

That’s not quoting other people.

I wrote that, not Schala. Also, I was not defining male and female behavior, as you put it. Rather, I was trying to determine what is stereotypically viewed as masculine or feminine.

Humans are essentially born with all of these traits in perfect balance. However, one’s parents or their peers attempt to beat a little masculinity or femininity out of you depending on your biological sex.

Besides, humans are so much more than just “masculine” or “feminine”. There are many more ways of expressing oneself and many more behavioral archetypes that we utilize for even the simplest of interactions.

Schala
Schala
9 years ago

“I’m not sure I expect the MRM ever to be advanced or mature. One reason for this is that there is basically no serious self-criticism of the violent rhetoric and misogyny within the movement. ”

It took 20 years for 3rd wave feminism to supplant the very overt misandry of its predecessor. The SCUM and the likes got criticized afterwards. Heck, even today The Transsexual Empire (by Janice Raymond, 1979) is still considered a good reading by some women’s studies course – and not always in a negative light either.

PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth
PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth
9 years ago

Even in the early days of the second wave feminist movement, and the middle and now, there are very few people in the feminist movement who approve of the nasty statements and attitudes of the extreme members of the feminist movements.

The reason you know more about the extremists is because they wrote sensational things, not because the average feminist thought that way.

So you do a disservice to claim that 2nd or 3rd wave feminists agree with these extremists-and you also ignore the vast majority of the online MRM (and yes, it is VAST) complete and total hatred of all women, most women or western women.

Instead of talking about how “hey, let us fund-raise to get this one guy in office, he has pledged to fight to get a domestic violence program that educates girls that “no hitting means no hitting, not just no hitting girls” the MRM movement spends what little effort they expend on activism to removing someone that they have no evidence is a bad lawyer-just one who messed up a jury trial.

Kratch
Kratch
9 years ago

David, I’ll start with a link to a VAWA funding rejection letter for Fathers for equal rights. Please note the reasons for rejection, in particular, the first and second reason: Also note this was dated 2002

http://www.menshealthnetwork.org/library/VAWArejectDallas1202.pdf

Then there is the Mankind Initiative in the UK, which gets no government funding, despite having become a charity in 2001.

http://www.mankind.org.uk/index.html

RADAR (don’t think they’re MRA’s, check their featured links) http://www.mediaradar.org/index.php

They have supported Domesctic Violence shelters, and aren’t gender biased http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARflyer-Millie-Almore-Shelter-Revitalization-Act.pdf

Men’s Health network was a co-sponsor on the national Conference of Family Violence. Way back in 1994

http://www.menshealthnetwork.org/library/DVAMADOJ1994.pdf

SAVE http://www.saveservices.org/accreditation/

I also know the Easton Alliance for the Prevention of Family Violence ran a men’s shelter here in Toronto back in 1993, that was before they disappeared. Here is an article discussing how they were constantly at odds for funds.

http://www.carillon.uregina.ca/feb12.98/features/index.html

And most importantly, you dismiss those trying to bring awareness of Domestic violence against men as “attacking”. But Men have NOT been getting the help and funding they need BECAUSE there is a lack of awareness. Hell, most of you won’t even acknowledge male victimization as anything more then an anomaly, and don’t even care when the perpetuation of “male=aggressor, female=victim” stereotypes are perpetuated, IE, perceived gender based stereotypes are re-enforced (isn’t this kind of stereotyping what feminism opposes?). Given the addendum to the VAWA that was added to ensure men were not discriminated against for funding purposes, I think that advocacy and awareness campaigns are very much doing what were intended to do, allowing those who help to get the attention they need.

“People tend to get caught up in their ideologies and less in the humanity of the situation..” Steven Easton.

Just as an aside. Here is a governmental committee report that suggests shared parenting as being “in the best interests of the child”… If you examine the minutes (under the link report No2) you will see it is dated 1998, 13 years ago… and we still don’t have a single example of shared parenting in any western nation, with the exception of the short lived and constantly attacked Australian model. If you examine the Appendix II, you will see the Easton Alliance for the prevention of Family Violence.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=1031529&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=36&Ses=1&File=6

Kratch
Kratch
9 years ago

And as for VAWA’s descrimination, hows this…

Children’s services supported with S.T.O.P. funds must show an inextricable link to and be the direct result of providing services for a victim. For example, S.T.O.P. funds may support the expansion of shelter services for battered women to include programs for their children. S.T.O.P. funds may not be used to support services that focus exclusively on children or to develop sexual assault or domestic violence curricula for schools.

VAWA funds were specifically prohibited from helping children CHILDREN! unless it was as a side effect of helping women, and you want me to believe the funds were available to men? This was just in 2004.

Page 2-7, Service Specifications

http://hawaii.gov/spo2/health/rfp103f/attachments/rfp791178314775.pdf

Kratch
Kratch
9 years ago

“Back when activists started the first shelters for women, there was no govt. money for them. It took years of activism and advocacy, against considerable opposition, before there was any money set aside for DV shelters for women.”

That is a blatant lie. Errin Pizzy was provided a big house for her women’s shelter, before any others existed, by the Greater London Counsel (a Top Tier Local government administrative body). Her own words. Start of the second video.

http://www.equalparenting-bc.ca/issues/na_pizzey-erin.htm

“1) They try to convince people who don’t give a shit about the issue that there is a problem. “

But don’t you denigrate this activity, as “not actually doing something to help men”.

“I’m guessing that the MRM who responded to that “baby rapist” ad with threats and violent rhetoric didn’t exactly help the cause.”

And people like you offered the opposition, claiming there was nothing wrong with it.

“They try to win over those on the other side,”

Feminism has been claiming to be about equality for both women and men for decades. They still continue to cling to that façade. Sometimes, when the other wide has demonstrated they can’t be trusted, via lies and a continuation of misandric behavior, you need to make it clear to them that that behavior won’t be tolerated. A slap on the wrist by demonstrating how the public feels will do that. After all, if they didn’t do anything wrong, Glen Sacks allegedly targeting their sponsors wouldn’t have done a damn thing.

You seem to have the arrogant focus on “if there is going to be a movement, feminists MUST be involved”. But Marcotte tried that in the good man project, and it was a sexist and selfish disgrace.

“2) Of course, there are people who can’t be won over to your side”

So you can acknowledge that, but not the idea that feminists are included amongst those who can’t be swayed, despite the hostility to men’s rights movements for simply standing up for men’s rights (there has been opposition to men’s rights far longer then there has been hostile ideologs posting hate online

“The fact that the people you’ve selected as the main villains here are feminists and/or women “

The terms are not interchangeable any more then MRA’s and men are interchangeable (or is this site dedicated to attacking men and not just MRA’s?). It’s a far too common mistake which you feminists need to get straight.

“doesn’t mean that all feminists and/or women are the enemy,”

No, but those feminists in positions of influence have largely, almost entirely, demonstrated they aren’t men’s allies, and many are very much waging a war on men. Those feminists who are posting online and doing nothing substantial are of no consequence, but at the same time, they are of no influence over the definition of feminism. As I suggested earlier, Don’t define a movement based on the comments of the nobodies who only talk, base it on the actions of the organizations representing that movement, that are actually doing something.

“I and a lot of the mostly feminist readers of this blog would in fact be supportive of a movement to address DV directed at men.”

You’ve already proven otherwise. You don’t have to agree with the MRM’s methodology in order to acknowledge they have valid concerns. I often acknowledge that I believe heavily in egalitarianism, but thinks feminism is a hate movement. I in turn get called a misogynist, by feminists… a hater of women … for wanting equality using methods other then feminism as if it has a monopoly on egalitarian ideals.

“Does this mean building a male shelter for every female shelter?”

Is that what was suggested? If so, you’ll need to provide a source. But currently, there are very few, if any, male only shelters

“At the moment, we don’t know what would be the best solution for men.”

And ignoring the problem (no demand for shelters? Not even 1 per state?) and denying it’s existence (By ignoring all the studies that show female perpetration as equal ( http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/publications/conditions/pdf2008/ViolenceH_F2004_an.pdf ) isn’t the way to start. You are part of the problem David, not part of the solution.

“But by and large MRAs seem much less interested in actually campaigning for DV services for men and far, far more interested in using he issue as an excuse to bash feminists (and in some cases women). I can’t support that.”

If we can’t get people to even acknowledge male victimization is a problem, largely due to feminist opposition in statistics, as we’re seeing in this very thread… We can hardly expect to get money out of programs and ministries specifically biased in favour of women (even if caveats now exists within those locations to not discriminate against men), let alone the feminist indoctrinated public. You even acknowledge in your 1st and second points above that convincing people is what political movements need to do when facing opposition.

Schala “What is especially damning is that people who claim to be for equality are fine with stepping on victims for ideology’s sake.”

Well said.

Pecunium
9 years ago

Schala/Trainspotter: I’m sorry, I misread who had written that.

PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth
PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth
9 years ago

An Act that is entitled “Violence Against Women” says no to funding to something working on stopping violence against men? Shocking. Cuz you know, who would think that the government actually follow the law.

What I did note, and you certainly ignored in your comment there Kratch, the director gave information to help the applicant find funding that is not VAWA since the requested aid is not within the laws parameters.

The second link does not appear to get direct funding from the UK government and that is something they probably are lobbying for. They should receive support-but under Cameron, I doubt it.

Also, this is not about these groups-they are trying to solve a problem of domestic violence against men without showing the hatred that the Spearhead-for instance-does on a daily (if not hourly) basis towards women. And you know what? I think they make the effort harder because they, like the radical feminists of yore, get the attention from the media for acting in that manner.

I think it is pretty clear to me (and I would wager to David) as well as to you that there is a difference between MRAs at the Spearhead and the hardworkers at the Mankind Initiative. I did not see the seething hatred of A Voice For Men-I saw people asking for help funding and also telling people about how real violence against men is and it should be addressed.

Also, AGAIN, getting the funding and the resources for these things is NOT going to be easy nor will you have feminists just drop everything and say “we will forget about all the women that are still being abused, stalked, harassed, trafficked, murdered, screwed over and just focus on the men who are having similar difficulties.” That is not about equality-that is about making women do your bidding because men are in pain and god knows no woman should ever get anything when a man is need anywhere.

Yes, I am being hyperbolic but good grief, it should be pretty fucking obvious that feminists should not be expected to give up their life’s work achieving equality for women because there may be a current imbalance of women getting some help instead of men.

Kratch
Kratch
9 years ago

“What I did note, and you certainly ignored in your comment there Kratch,”

And what you seem to ignore is the fact that I was specifically told that men weren’t discriminated against in VAWA funding.

But you only prove my point further. You seem to think nothing is wrong with the countries primary domestic violence prevention funding being discriminatory towards men, and I’m expected to believe people aren’t harboring Radical anti-male ideologies?
And secondly, It was provided in direct response to Davids insinuation that MRM organizations don’t do anything for male victims. The fact is, there has been clear cut discrimination against men built into official policies, and that indicates that awareness campaigns have a very significant part to play, and every other post David is complaining that MRA’s are wasting time spreading the word rather then doing anything.

I’m going to ignore the rest of what you have to say because clearly you are violating David’s posting policies by grossly misrepresenting what I had to say. You are doing so by ignoring the fact that I posted those links and comments in direct response to a challenge laid out by David himself, and my responses about VAWA funding were very much relevant to accusations that VAWA didn’t discriminate against men.

Marc
Marc
9 years ago

“@Marc In other words, we should feel justified in dismissing anything we don’t agree with because people don’t put their real name on things? That would be Marc …? Or should I just dismiss you as an anonymous troll?”

No. You didn’t read my post!

I explicitly stated that there is no reason to dismiss a rational argument by an anonymous poster (like my post).

But it’s simply sad and an enormous waste of time to bother (even write articles like on this blog) with personal stories, introspection and unsubstantiated opinions of anonymous authors.

Kratch
Kratch
9 years ago

Marc: “No. You didn’t read my post!”

Actually I did read your post. But all that it contained was your unsubstantiated opinion that it isn’t worth peoples time to debate anonymous authors opinions.

What is or isn’t worth someones time is completely subjective, and individual to each person (hence why yours is unsubstantiated… just to back up my own opinion with a valid reason).

Marc
Marc
9 years ago

You are wrong, I gave you a reason: One shouldn’t bother with unsubstantiated opinions of anonymous authors because you don’t know if they are meant serious.

“What is or isn’t worth someones time is completely subjective, and individual to each person”
Oh no, value nihilism / relativism again…
You can also make an argument that it is completely subjective what is right or wrong (for example read Michael Ruse’s “Is rape wrong on Andromeda?”)… you may still get thrown into prison 😉

To be honest, I don’t care if value nihilism or value relativism is true. I will always make my arguments pretending that they are wrong… otherwise I can’t reach other people. If I want people to stop eating meat, I will argue as if they objectively do something unethical. If I want my friend not to waste five hours of his day playing WoW, I will argue as if there are objectively far more valuable things to do.

Schala
Schala
9 years ago

“If I want people to stop eating meat, I will argue as if they objectively do something unethical. If I want my friend not to waste five hours of his day playing WoW, I will argue as if there are objectively far more valuable things to do.”

And people might ignore your pleading unless they already agree with you.

Yell all you want at your cat that they’re not carnivores – because it’s unethical, they still have teeth made to destroy raw meat (and can eat small prey if they want to).

I think the treatment of livestock can sometimes be appalling just for profit, and am for better conditions. We can live with killing them, but let’s not make a sport of also torturing them. This argument might reach more people than a “you’re objectively wrong to eat meat” would.

And about “valuable things to do”, unless they have chores to do that they didn’t do, and are your housemates (thus it affects you), you have no reason to even argue that. I could be defrauding people and make big money if I don’t get caught, that’s valuable in financial terms – but not something I value. Working 70 hour weeks is also not valuable to me. I refuse overtime, to play “more WoW” sometimes, yes.

That’s just valuing quality of life over slaving away for cold cash. Something many women choose to do (flexi-hours jobs, 4 days a week jobs, part time jobs).

Pecunium
9 years ago

Marc: The issue isn’t anonymity. It’s credibility. Each person has to decide what is credible, or not. There are tools we can use to make that assessment.

One of them is rationality. Let’s use it on your comments.

I’ll start with the more recent, since we should expect them to be the more developed arguments; the product of refinement in response to comment/critique.

You are wrong, I gave you a reason: One shouldn’t bother with unsubstantiated opinions of anonymous authors because you don’t know if they are meant serious.

This is a bad way to look at an argument. Unless one has reason to believe someone is arguing in bad faith one has to assume the person means what they say. Even if they disagree with it (what I presume; being charitable, is what you mean when you say you always make my arguments pretending that they are wrong), because a logically consistent argument is still valid.

Moreover, all we don’t assume a person is being honest in debate, then there is no point in debating with them. Not because they are unknown to us (which is not the same as anonymous, I’ll get back to that), but because if they are lying/acting in bad faith, there is nothing good in them, and they should be ignored.

Moving up a little: “What is or isn’t worth someones time is completely subjective, and individual to each person”
Oh no, value nihilism / relativism again…

No. Nihilism is the idea that nothing is worth anything. Relativism is any of a number of things. This happens to be a form of subjective objectivism. If an individual’s opinion is of no worth, then there is no point to argument at all. If how one enjoys spending one’s time isn’t a valid tool in deciding to spend it, why have it at all?

The entire discipline of aesthetic is based on how each person defines what is attractive/pleasant. Previous people’s opinions may inform (such as the Greek Ideal of the Golden Mean), but they cannot be the final arbiting tool, as what pleases each person is, at core, unique to that person.

So this argument of yours fails the validity test. Even if it were valid (that Kratch were being a nihilist; we have proven that relativism, even as you misunderstand it isn’t material) is unsound (i.e. each person does have to decide what is pleasant, and reasonable, in how they spend their time).

Now to the core of your basic argument: Anonymity. Yes, anonymity allows people to say/do things they might not be accountable for. It makes it possible for someone to make a whopper of a lie and not be branded a liar. Moreover it makes it possible for them to be patently offensive and not be, personally, villified.

But anonymity isn’t pseudonymity. Persistence of presence = identification. I am not using my actual name here. If I were, as NWOslave does, not attaching my name to any other part of the web, I would still be a known quantity. My words are attached to a specific name, and my quirks of spelling, typing, grammar and punctuation will make it harder (though not impossible) for me to hide my presence.

You also ask us to weigh the rationality of the argument before considering it. This is almost completely at odds with the rest of your actual statements. You make shit up (your “conservative estimates” are exactly the sort of unsubstantiated personal opinion you decry; which you are offering as support of your argument. It may be you are attempting subtle irony; by including an example, but if so this is a lousy place to attempt it, since it undercuts your credibility).

So, yes, an anonymous comment should get no more weight than the reason/logic in it. But, just as with a commenter I have never seen before, it should (consonant with it’s apparent validity) be treated as an argument in good faith, just as a first time commenter is treated (who is, actually, no more to be trusted than the anonymous one; even if there is a name attached. The first time poster has no track record, and so no social credibility).

Your advice would make the argument impossible. Everyone would be presumed lying, and only when measured against some abstract (i.e. not personal) measure would we listen. At that point why bother at all? Who grants the credibility? I do. Which is why my time is mine to decide.

It also undermines community, as it puts everyone under the burden of needing to prove, in some way, that they are “good”. That’s a version of what happens at The Spearhead. GO there and argue, as reasonable, and rationally, as you like about the usefulness of child support, or that women can be good authors/scientists, etc., and see what happens.

It’s not pretty. You will fail to match the template of their objective (as opposed to subjective) beliefs, and they will be doing exactly what you are recommending here.

PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth
PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth
9 years ago

Kratch, in the case where I got what you were responding to wrong, I apologize.

I do however not see how it is wrong to have an official actually follow the law-and try to help where the official could help. That is why I still find what you were claiming to be disingenuous.

I also said there is a vast difference between the people you posted about-the Mankind Initiative seems to be a good example of an MRM that is so different then the Spearhead that I do not believe that it is in the same movement. The Mankind Initiative is not talking about how evil women are-it is talking about how to fix a problem that no one cares about very much.

And instead of coming up with some reasonable compromise-you fall into the same trap you accuse feminists of and try to drive away the people who would normally support your efforts to help men on their problems as men. You could say “you know what, the Violence Against Women Act is discriminatory against men because men are hurt in domestic violence too. How about I and other men worried about these men work with feminists to create a ‘End Domestic Violence Act’ that includes ALL the people who are harmed by someone being violent?” But you do not.

And you seem to think that David’s mockery of the MRAs and MRMs who write such vile things about half the human race is hurting your cause-it is not, the people saying the things originally are the ones who are hurting your cause. Go after them.

Kratch
Kratch
9 years ago

“I do however not see how it is wrong to have an official actually follow the law-and try to help where the official could help. That is why I still find what you were claiming to be disingenuous.”

The issue is that VAWA is/(was) Sexually discriminatory, despite claims otherwise. The issue is that it demonstrates an misandric mentality, where male victims are discarded or denied acknowledgement, and for what purpose? none. Nothing is gained by this kind of discrimination. Nothing is gained by excluding men from DV funding, even if the goal is aimed at helping women. It only exists within VAWA because of a prevalent anti-male perception, which is the very thing I’ve been arguing since my first or second post. The fact that you don’t seem to have a problem with discrimination, only further demonstrates how widespread and common this misandry is.

The fact no-one has spoken up to correct you or denounce the attitude that discriminatory VAWA funding is bad, only reinforces my opinion of feminism as a hate movement. It’s unacceptable to discriminate against anyone for how they were born and raised, if you were truly an egalitarian (like most feminists claim to be), you’d already know that.

PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth
PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth
9 years ago

I just told you that if you want to solve the problem of male victims of domestic violence not getting help they deserve because the VAWA ignores them that the solution is not to whine endlessly that men are ignored or currently being discriminated against which is what you are doing right now.

The solution is to start lobbying Congress to change it to the End Domestic Violence Act-that stops the discrimination against male domestic violence needs because it no longer singles out one sex over another. Shocking, a solution that respects both sex’s needs for help with domestic violence. It can even include something like “hitting is bad no matter who does it” education programs to teach both little girls and little boys that hitting is bad.

Also, I think it is stupid to end women’s prisons-some women should be locked up for committing criminal acts.

PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth
PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth
9 years ago

Damn tags.

Schala
Schala
9 years ago

“The solution is to start lobbying Congress to change it to the End Domestic Violence Act-that stops the discrimination against male domestic violence needs because it no longer singles out one sex over another.”

It’s already been tried in 2004.

They didn’t repeal the act or making it gender-neutral in name. They only added something that says they can’t discriminate against men in funding, while keeping the VAWA name.

They’ll say that a gender-neutral name is not needed, because it’s something that happens more to women (and this, regardless of statistics – until they are blue in the face).

PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth
PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth
9 years ago

So then the problem has been solved-the name is just a misnomer now and I really do think they should fix it. But it is a minor thing and the fact that they got the Republicans do anything that involves spending money is a miracle.

Plus, just because they said no this year, next year and the next fifty years is no reason to not keep trying.

Xtra
9 years ago

It’s already been tried in 2004.

Good thing MRA’s weren’t running the civil rights movement. Since MRA’s seem to have this insistence wanting feminists and women to stand down on advocating for women in spaces where women need it, they should probably model themselves like the KKK or Nation of Islam.

MRA’s have a similarity to the KKK in that they often say since blacks are “all equal” now, there’s no need for blacks(and other minorities) to be vigilant in fighting for and defending their rights. Also much of the MRM is racist anyway.

Then you have the NOI(Nation of Islam), wanting social justice for black people is a good thing. This is not something you can achieve in a majority white nation by calling white people devils and who knows what else.

Much of what is said in the MRM about women is pretty much like what klansmen say about blacks and NOI says about whites. If they insist on keeping that as a part of their movement, they need to run on donations from MRA’s and not try to obtain government funding. This is what the KKK and NOI do. Are MRA’s able to put their money where their women hating mouths are?

I did not consider myself a feminist until I came across all the woman hating rhetoric on the internet. I now full on wave the feminist flag. For having a goal of fighting feminism, I can only state they are way doing it wrong.

Schala
Schala
9 years ago

“I did not consider myself a feminist until I came across all the woman hating rhetoric on the internet. I now full on wave the feminist flag. For having a goal of fighting feminism, I can only state they are way doing it wrong.”

I considered myself feminist when I thought it was all about equality. Until I heard and read things that signify that we look only at women’s side of the equation in anything – and thus, can never declare them equal, since you need to be equal to some standard – a standard never really measured.

I’m not MRA either, given yeah, the hater part of the movement.

Doesn’t mean I can’t take the good of each movement that actually make sense, and ignore the radical fringe as ideology gone bad. Though some people worry that the radicals on either side will have political clout and be listened to. I’m not sure how realist it is, but I can understand caution.

Schala
Schala
9 years ago

The same patriarchy that says women are weak and less intelligent, also says that women cannot do harm – or were corrupted necessarily by some man, barring very few exceptions. Thus they deny women’s agency, but also the possibility of their guilt.

Feminism says that women are not weak and not less intelligent…and that by how women were raised, they do not commit crime. Which latter part perfectly aligns with patriarchy in assuaging guilt in women.

Patriarchy considers women are fragile and need protection. Tells men that hitting women is cowardice and brutishness, a sign of being evil – and that helping or protecting women is a good thing, like acting as a shield for a high-ranking officer is a good thing.

Feminism tells government agency that there is an epidemy of women being beaten, and they need to come down hard…and protect them. For sure, patriarchy will comply. But it won’t comply with helping men the same way – because no one wants to protect men as men, only men as presidents, generals etc. Men sacrifice themselves to let others live, not the other way around.

So you have to go at it again and again and again and again until that mentality changes…that over 1000 years old mentality. The mentality that brought us conscriptions, even of pacifists (then treated as traitors to the nation) and white feathers.

Plymouth
Plymouth
9 years ago

Feminism says … that by how women were raised, they do not commit crime.

Wait, huh, what?? This is like totally out of left field, I am confused. Certainly there are categories of violent crime that have fewer women perpetrators due in part to cultural influence, but it’s a real stretch to turn that into “women do not commit crime”. Especially since there are plenty of non-violent crimes they commit in equal or even greater proportion to men.

Schala
Schala
9 years ago

I didn’t say women don’t commit crime, but that patriarchy says it’s not their fault, and certainly looks, a lot less, into their demographic, to find any guilty of a crime.

So we will investigate male pedophiles, and call it a male-exclusive malady caused by testicles and testosterone…as have all studies on pedophilia done (you know, those studies conducted with 100.00% male convicted pedophiles).

If a woman does it, she was “coerced into it” by a man, any man who conveniently(to blame him) is close to her. Patriarchy says that. And feminism is all too happy to say “Women are less violent than men” or the funny one “If women ruled, there would be no wars” (and this one dates probably over a century, it’s just been oft-repeated).

Schala
Schala
9 years ago

Patriarchy says that women don’t have fetishes (and ignores evidence to the contrary). This means they’re considered less sexual as far as beings (thus prostitution is *always bad and never chosen*), but also that they won’t be considered guilty of any sexual crime without a vast amount of evidence pointing to them.

No one suspects the girl-next-door you hire to babysit to be a pedophile or sexual predator, as opposed to her same-age male counterpart, based only on legal sex. But a man who has any interest at all towards being with children in any kind of function, has to be screened 5 times more, and we still doubt him over twice as much with “keep the door open when you change diapers” sometimes only applying to men.

Parents also complain about “a man working there”, and not because it’s a degrading job or anything (they probably couldn’t care less how degrading the job was as long as it got done for their cash), but because they’d suspect his motives to be primarily sexual, from the get-go.

Some countries consider rape to be only PIV penetration, the rest being sexual assault. Many also consider it literally impossible for a woman to rape either a man or another woman. Consent doesn’t even enter the picture with a female perpetrator – the simple fact that she can’t usually penetrate someone else using biological appendage made for such exonerates her. But if you did go in with consent, you’d be faced with a “men want it all the time, that’s what being a man means”. Good luck getting rid of that meme.

Schala
Schala
9 years ago

Heck conservatives use trans women as a tool to engineer panic about men in bathrooms. Because rape is all about the penis to them.

Because rapists need to dress as women and enter the women’s bathroom dressed this way to rape. Or because saying “I’m a trans woman” ever excused a rapist.

Heck, non-trans women get beaten and thrown out of women’s bathrooms based on that same panic, because they look too butch, and thus suspected of being the owner of a penis, thus a rapist-in-waiting.

My policy would be: If someone acts weird in the bathroom, regardless of what they look like, you can ask for someone to investigate (maybe they have a problem, too), but a blanket ban on masculine-looking people probably never protected anyone.

And this “the penis is dangerous” meme is not strong only amongst conservatives, since even US moderates have this in mind with trans people: “When they got surgery, they can use the right bathroom”. Oh and also, trans men completely ignored – not a threat to the men’s OR women’s bathroom.

PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth
PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth
9 years ago

Yeah, I think you are going out of left field with this crime thing.

I know very women commit crime. Some of those are incredibly horrific crimes. There may possibly be mitigating circumstances but to shut down prisons makes no sense. Just because Joe tells me to do something illegal does not mean I should-it means that the only way I could possibly not be responsible is if he is threatening me with imminent danger or others with imminent danger (why do you think cooperating bank tellers, male or female, do not go to jail for following a gun wielding crook’s orders?)

PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth
PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth
9 years ago

Very much, not very

Schala
Schala
9 years ago

I’m just getting you reasons why women, who are people with the same good and evil tendencies as men, don’t get *caught* as much, or aren’t treated as badly, and yeah, it’s patriarchy that says women don’t need prisons, even if the one who said it in the UK said she was feminist.

There probably are less simple assault and street murders by women. But the proportion is not “slightly more men” (like say 60/40% or even 70/30%), it’s “almost entirely men” (like 98/2%), which means we’re seriously ignoring some stuff. Giving passes and not condemning. Also: war on drugs, big mistake.

Recently a man has been on trial for killing his children and then attempting suicide, following his being thrown out and separated from his wife. People tried to paint him as a horrible man who did it in cold blood, out of anger and revenge and to spite his wife. He admits his culpability, but says he was extremely out of it.

Another story involves a woman who brought her children in a river, in deep cold water, attempting to drown them and herself. She remained anonymous since she died before she could be brought to justice. You could still read about the public saying “She must have been in a horrible mental state to do this”, and no one trying to paint her as a horrible woman who did it in cold blood.

Double standards like this often result in different prosecution and different sentences to serve.

In the first case, we accuse the man of not managing his anger well enough, it’s his fault. In the second, we accuse her husband of having done something unspeakable to her (without any shred of proof). Because how could she do this do her children in her good mind.

PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth
PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth
9 years ago

And Schala, that is something that the MRM could take up and be a lot more productive on-equal sentencing for equal crimes.

Just expect a lot of resistance to it because of the very reasons you stated-which by the way, we already knew about.

Ami Angelwings
9 years ago

Can you please not use trans women or our experiences as shields or rhetorical devices to argue your points? -_-;;

Also none of what you’re saying is what “feminists” are arguing… I know there are radical feminists that are very transphobic. But it doesn’t follow that “feminism” is, or that feminism even believes rape involves a penis or a vagina -_-;; I think if your hatred of “feminism” comes from basically the idea that feminism is traditional social conservatism, (or trans-exclusionary radical feminism) then we’re on the same page and you dun hate feminism as represented by nebody on this site. 😐 I can say that the feminists I’ve met, and who work at therapy programs and deal with trauma and etc, all of them (and I know there are exceptions, like VRR and I know that VRR has it’s supporters, and the thing is a LOT of the supporters are conservative anti-feminists who are w/ them in this only b/c their transphobia puts them together) without fail are great about trans inclusion, and that transphobia isn’t tolerated in those spaces (some have it explicitly in policy) not even under the “she has a penis so she’s a threat to me” guise. 🙂 I know this from both working with these spaces in my job and looking at existing policy (as well as developing policy) and as a person who have been thru various organizations and trauma programs :]

I get what you’re trying to say, and this is honestly not about what you believe feminism is or isn’t, cuz that’s an ideological label and I think arguing it would be semantics and go in circles : Plus, winning and losing on the internet isn’t something that matters to me xD But I’m asking you politely, out of respect, to please not use us as poker chips like you just did. 🙂 Thanks :]

Kratch
Kratch
9 years ago

“I just told you that if you want to solve the problem of male victims of domestic violence not getting help they deserve because the VAWA ignores them that the solution is not to whine endlessly that men are ignored or currently being discriminated against which is what you are doing right now.”

You say that as if nothing is being done. As if me and the handful of MRA’s David tends to follow is the limit of the MRM. But VAWA did get that addendum added in somehow, and that was due to MR Activism. But as Schala pointed out, it is an uphill battle to get anyone to help men, especially with feminist opposition such as you and NOW.

Realize that the accusation that “you’re not doing anything” is a shaming tactic designed to silence opposition. It is an attack on reasonable, rational discussion.

“The solution is to start lobbying Congress to change it to the End Domestic Violence Act-that stops the discrimination against male domestic violence needs because it no longer singles out one sex over another. Shocking, a solution that respects both sex’s needs for help with domestic violence. It can even include something like “hitting is bad no matter who does it” education programs to teach both little girls and little boys that hitting is bad.”

And yet, that wasn’t implemented right from the beginning, despite feminisms claim of wanting equality for all. Why is that? And why is it that any organization that opposes such gender biased policies are called “abuser lobiests” by feminists. Individuals who oppose VAWA’s sexism are called misogynists and accused of wanting to strip away the gains and protections women have (see Xtra bellow) rather then acknowledging that things aren’t equal, and should be.

“Also, I think it is stupid to end women’s prisons-some women should be locked up for committing criminal acts.”

And yet, it has still been proposed. What kind of female chauvinism exists in our culture, in our governments, that could even fathom such a program, consider it, and possibly even implement it? Your own opposition to this particular idea doesn’t change the fact that there ARE people out there, suggesting and making policies, that are sexist and discriminatory against men, and correcting that has absolutely nothing to do with shutting down women’s programs. And to ignore those people simply because you don’t personally agree with them, and yet continue opposing those who actively try to stop such policies, makes you liable, as far as I’m concern.

“So then the problem has been solved-the name is just a misnomer now and I really do think they should fix it. But it is a minor thing and the fact that they got the Republicans do anythingthat involves spending money is a miracle.”

Did the fact women got the vote solve the issue of female representation in government? VAWA remains a sexist policy. The fact a disclaimer is even needed, rather then equality being integrated into the policy itself shows that.

“Plus, just because they said no this year, next year and the next fifty years is no reason to not keep trying.”
VAWA reauthorization is being challenged due to its sexist policies as we speak. Don’t think for a second that activism isn’t still happening, it’s just not being reported on. (why is that, do some people not want it to get out that VAWA is sexist?

Xtra: “Good thing MRA’s weren’t running the civil rights movement. Since MRA’s seem to have this insistence wanting feminists and women to stand down on advocating for women in spaces where women need it, they should probably model themselves like the KKK or Nation of Islam.”

Extremist responses don’t make your point very well. Name me one MR issue that calls for women’s gains to be ignored or turned back. Just one. And before you start, realize the difference between a binary ether/or issue vs an issue of degree. For example, acknowledging men are also victimized in DV isn’t denying women’s victimization DV isn’t an ether or situation; it is a matter of degrees. Same with

Realize that the twisting of an argument to unreasonable extremes is also a shaming tactic designed to silence opposition. It is also an attack on reasonable, rational discussion.

PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth
PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth
9 years ago

I went and looked up the testimony before Congress in the 2005 re-authorization hearing before the US Senate….according to the Director of the Office on Violence Against Women:
Ms. STUART. Certainly, men are eligible for services provided
under the grant programs within the Office on Violence Against
Women. Approximately 12 percent of our victims, according to the
statistics that we are getting in now, are men, and more than
half—well, no, the majority of our grant programs, certainly more
than half, are serving men. So men are being served and they are
receiving those services through our grant programs as we speak

And from Vice President Biden (then Senator Biden): If there is any regret I have about this legislation, it is that so many men think that it doesn’t apply to them. There is a very active
gentleman in my state who has been on a crusade—I say that
positively, not negatively—to, quote, ‘‘include men.’’ Men are included.
Men are covered in this legislation. I think part of the problem
is that it is part of a culture among men not to report, as well.
So I think we should be making that more attractive for men to
understand they can access these same services. I am going to, for
the record, submit a much longer statement on that, Mr. Chairman.

So David was right after all. I went to the DOJ’s office-it specifically states: Domestic violence can happen to anyone regardless of race, age, sexual orientation, religion, or gender. Domestic violence affects people of all socioeconomic backgrounds and education levels. Domestic violence occurs in both opposite-sex and same-sex relationships and can happen to intimate partners who are married, living together, or dating.

The language of the Act itself is not sex specific in most of it. What excludes men is the sections on tribal domestic violence, probably because of this.

———————————

So you know what? The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 and 2005 may have some programs that are not geared towards men in that men are not going to be covered. Boo fucking hoo. Seriously. Boo fucking hoo. I may want equality but I am tired of men getting all butt hurt (that includes you Kratch) that they are not the top of the pile for some program. Or that an Act with the name of Violence Against Women Act that still covers men according the man who wrote the Act sometimes says no to programs that help men. If you still are demanding “equality” which means essentially that you want something to not have the word “women” in the title then you are whining.

Oooh, I used a shaming term! I iz the bad. And David is mocking those who seethe with hatred towards women because they deserve to be mocked.

Of the legitimate MRM organizations that want to improve things for men? I have not done much research but I know that the ones I have seen are not like that-but that is not what you are talking about now is it Kratch? Or if you are, you are not saying “I want to keep helping women out but I also want to help men out to the extent they need it.” It is “I want it equal!” Which usually means “shut it down for women.” And I am sure, if you think about it, you can figure out why I am that cynical.

Also, lots of people say things that are just silly and there are even people who take those statements seriously. That does not mean that it will ever happen. Government officials also say lots of things that are just silly-Ron Paul anyone?

Schala
Schala
9 years ago

“Can you please not use trans women or our experiences as shields or rhetorical devices to argue your points? -_-;;

Also none of what you’re saying is what “feminists” are arguing…”

Yes, because I said this was patriarchy’s doing. Though you are right, women-born-women and proponents of such are aligned with those notions, but they are few, even if vocal.

Still, feminism’s record vis-vis trans women is not perfect, and there still IS a divide of “but they’re really men”.

I also don’t claim to speak for all trans women, but I’m one.

Ami Angelwings
9 years ago

So am I 🙂 I just found it a random meander :]

Xtra
9 years ago

Individuals who oppose VAWA’s sexism are called misogynists and accused of wanting to strip away the gains and protections women have (see Xtra bellow) rather then acknowledging that things aren’t equal, and should be.

This would be because from the interactions I’ve had with MRA’s, their solution for the inequality they see is to make things worse for women instead of better for men.

Name me one MR issue that calls for women’s gains to be ignored or turned back. Just one.

First off to quote myself here, “MRA’s seem to have this insistence wanting feminists and women to stand down on advocating for women in spaces where women need it” I did not mention rolling back, I believe they want feminist’s to stop advocating for women, especially since they are in fact against feminism altogether. There is no alternative to feminism offered by them as well, so what exactly am I to take that as?

Anyway, this quote on a spearhead “article”, I believe from a female MRA, says a good deal to what I’m speaking of.

“We must stop talking about women’s rights, women’s needs, women’s problems, and progress for women. We must stop talking about girl power and female empowerment, and about overturning a patriarchy that doesn’t exist. When we frame the debate in feminist lingo, we foster a war between the sexes. It’s time to end the war between the sexes.” the-spearhead.com/2011/03/15/the-flipside-of-feminism-relief-for-the-discombobulated-woman/

Why is the only way to stop the “war between the sexes” for women to not have their needs spoken of? This reminds me of the interviews with whites from jim crow talking about how everything was fine between black and whites before the “interlopers” came along. It wasn’t fine, many women were unhappily silent. Blacks were unhappily silent and afraid for their lives from lynchings.

Realize that the twisting of an argument to unreasonable extremes is also a shaming tactic designed to silence opposition. It is also an attack on reasonable, rational discussion.

Not what I did in the least. Also not a tactic to silence either. Unlike telling feminist’s if they want equality so badly, why don’t they do things people who are obviously against feminism want them to. If you are totally against feminism, it is immensely stupid for feminists to align themselves with you. Just likes blacks and the KKK and non-racist whites and the NOI. The reason Martin Luther King had some success was not demonizing whites that could be his allies. Seems to me that actually happened with feminism as well, since it also had some mainstream success. I would not be good on specifics since I would be a baby feminist. Totally new but absolutely owning the title.

Pam
Pam
9 years ago

Why is the only way to stop the “war between the sexes” for women to not have their needs spoken of? This reminds me of the interviews with whites from jim crow talking about how everything was fine between black and whites before the “interlopers” came along. It wasn’t fine, many women were unhappily silent. Blacks were unhappily silent and afraid for their lives from lynchings.

This is why MRAs and the MRM are so appreciative of and extoll the virtues of, for example, Christina Hoff Sommers; from her white, middle-class, quiet suburban neighbourhood, she sees feminism as already having achieved equality for women everywhere at least twenty-some odd years ago, and now needs to come to a grinding halt.

Schala
Schala
9 years ago

“Approximately 12 percent of our victims, according to the
statistics that we are getting in now, are men, and more than
half—well, no, the majority of our grant programs, certainly more
than half, are serving men.”

One wonders in what capacity, since here in Quebec province, the only service for male victims of DV is anger management and the likes, for perpetrators – nothing for victims. Though you can be sure there are hundreds of women’s shelters.

“I think part of the problem
is that it is part of a culture among men not to report, as well.
So I think we should be making that more attractive for men to
understand they can access these same services.”

Yes, but it would be nice to have advertisement and outreach programs that didn’t exclusively portray men as perpetrators of violence (and never victims). I bet you though, if they did it, they’d focus on gay men. So it would do little for heterosexual male victims.

“So you know what? The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 and 2005 may have some programs that are not geared towards men in that men are not going to be covered.”

The language specifically *forbade* men’s programs from being covered until 2005. As Kratch quoted earlier. So yeah. And this, thanks to MRAs mainly, since few others see a problem with “only protecting women”.

I mean, if you looked at The Good Men Project and based what men’s issues there are on that site, you’d think the worst thing to fix is how men’s problems could potentially affect women. Not, you know, fixing those problems, only the side effects to the ‘real victim group’.

“Or that an Act with the name of Violence Against Women Act that still covers men according the man who wrote the Act sometimes says no to programs that help men. If you still are demanding “equality” which means essentially that you want something to not have the word “women” in the title then you are whining.”

The vote said that it was universal when commoner men got the vote (those who don’t own property), but according to you, suffragettes just whined to have it equal. And it was so uncalled for, I mean, they could have manipulated their husband into voting their way… (I’m sarcastic by the way).

Now politicians in Canada and the US seem to speak of violence against women, outside the scope of VAWA, as if it was THE issue happening. I mean, they had an anti-Harper campaign that put that as its first thing: But what about the women!! Thinking that Harper would roll back women’s rights (like abortion, which is legal everywhere here). You’d think women are physically assaulted in the street at 3 times the rate of men, or more…oh wait, it’s the reverse. Because no one thinks badly of hitting a man, and no one would protect a man unless they saw something in it for them (we’re selfish creatures us humans).

Schala
Schala
9 years ago

You can protect a woman as a man, for your sense of masculinity, feeling like a white knight.

But protecting a man doesn’t give anything in itself, so you protect it because he’s your close friend, sibling, boyfriend/husband, rich and you’re hoping to get cash sometimes, powerful and you want a job through his connection…if he’s Joe-nobody, he will likely be left to rot.

Just like most little boys in the recess court would be left to be beaten for minutes (very often it would be too late to intervene) – because no one wants to protect them. But you’ll have everyone against you if you hit a girl.

I know because in 9th grade, I turned around and held a girl at collar level, without doing anything else. She was taller and heavier (I was late to grow all my life), and constantly annoying me (and in my classes as well), teamed up with her boyfriend. But hey, I was the troublemaker, because I dared even touch her. For the record, she was more surprised than anything, and I didn’t lift her off the ground, I just stood there looking angry, then let go. Everyone in the corridor stared at me as if I had held her at knife point. And I heard about it for days, about how I was bad for hitting a girl, and how boys don’t do that (the message also being it’s okay for girls to do it to other girls, or to boys, though).

PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth
PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth
9 years ago

Reread the actual Act that only governs America Schala. It does not prohibit men from being covered. In fact, the specific language is “person.” Not “woman” unless discussing Indian tribes and most likely due to the fact that Indian tribes have a law directly aimed at their special needs for family violence.

And I quoted the actual Senator who wrote the Act’s language on if it covers men or not. He wrote the law, one would think he would know what he wrote unless one were you Schala.

Schala
Schala
9 years ago

“Rejection letter from Delaware Domestic Violence Coordinating Council to Forum for Equity and Fairness in Family Issues, October 9, 2002, quoting documentation provided by the Violence Against Women Office which says, “states must fund only programs that focus on violence against women”.”

Ahem. Even if that guy said it didn’t mind helping men, it actually did, until 2005, officially. Now I’m not sure what problem a men’s shelter faces receiving funding.

Schala
Schala
9 years ago

“Rejection letter from North Central Texas Council of Governments to Fathers for Equal Rights, December 16, 2002, including copy of application form which lists “Programs that focus on children and/or men” as the first item under “Ineligible Activities”.”

Amnesia
Amnesia
9 years ago

Schala, it’s wrong to instigate violence against anybody, whatever gender the person identifies as. The fact that society deems it acceptable to hit boys is the real problem, not the fact that it’s unacceptable to hit girls.

Oh, and there are still plenty of guys that think it’s okay to hit girls. The difference is they don’t do it in public.

PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth
PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth
9 years ago

Which means that these agencies were wrong-oh my god! An agency of the government made a mistake! Get the torches and pitchforks. Or maybe not.

Again, the actual law’s own author said women were covered. The Office’s director said otherwise. Apparently someone ignored the memo. It happens.

PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth
PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth
9 years ago

I mean men…duh…I wish I could figure out how to edit.