Categories
anti-Semitism feminism misandry misogyny MRA racism

The persistence of prejudice

The burning of the Jews in the Black Death pograms

Among those MRAs who are actually willing to acknowledge that women actually suffered oppression in the past, you sometimes find this argument: “Sure, things were bad for women back then – in the 1950s, or 1890, or whenever — but these days women don’t suffer from sexism. It’s men who are the real victims.”

This argument not only flies in the face of, you know, reality; it also reflects a naïve and simplistic understanding of how prejudice works, and why it persists. Misogyny, like other prejudices, is deeply rooted; it’s been around for literally thousands of years, and permeates culture and cultural/social/political institutions. The idea that a couple of decades of feminism have been enough to eradicate centuries-old attitudes and beliefs is, if you know anything at all about history or sociology or psychology, simply absurd.

How persistent is prejudice? A recent article in Slate looks at a historical study of anti-Semitism in Germany. As Ray Fisman notes in the Slate article, the study found that:

Communities that murdered their Jewish populations during the 14th-century Black Death pogroms were more likely to demonstrate a violent hatred of Jews nearly 600 years later. A culture of intolerance can be very persistent indeed.

Let’s just let that sink in for a second: Six. Hundred. Years. The noxious ideas of anti-Semites in the 14th century deeply affected what their great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren believed (and did) when the Nazis rolled into town six centuries later. (I’m assuming an average 4 generations per century here; if that’s an incorrect assumption you may need to add or subtract a handful of “greats.”)

Here are more details, from the study’s abstract:

This paper uses data on anti-Semitism in Germany and finds continuity at the local level over more than half a millennium. When the Black Death hit Europe in 1348-50, killing between one third and one half of the population, its cause was unknown. Many contemporaries blamed the Jews. Cities all over Germany witnessed mass killings of their Jewish population. At the same time, numerous Jewish communities were spared. We use plague pogroms as an indicator for medieval anti-Semitism. Pogroms during the Black Death are a strong and robust predictor of violence against Jews in the 1920s, and of votes for the Nazi Party. In addition, cities that saw medieval anti-Semitic violence also had higher deportation rates for Jews after 1933, were more likely to see synagogues damaged or destroyed in the ‘Night of Broken Glass’ in 1938, and their inhabitants wrote more anti-Jewish letters to the editor of the Nazi newspaper Der Stürmer.

As Fisman notes,

Changing any aspect of culture—the norms, attitudes, and “unwritten rules” of a group—isn’t easy. Beliefs are passed down from parent to child—positions on everything from childbearing to religious beliefs to risk-taking are transmitted across generations.

You can read more about the details of the study on Slate; the actual study is available here.

EDITED TO ADD: And, on a lighter note, here’s what happens when a “white-men-are-the-real-victims” dude (who clearly has been reading about pick-up artistry) goes a-courtin’ on OkCupid.

EDITED AGAIN: Added more details from the study’s abstract.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

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

93 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
thefemalespectator
thefemalespectator
9 years ago

DKM, that is what happens when the shit hits the fan. When you oppress people and deny them opportunities and a sense of investment in society then when they finally do have some decision-making power they will do things you don’t agree with and don’t understand and they will not care that you don’t “get” it. If women and minorities had been treated as human beings historically we all could have communicated with each other more effectively. The people who *don’t* tell you there’s something wrong are the ones you should be worried about. But, no, you’d rather blame feminism et al for the state of society. Believe me, things were wrong a long time before women and others started protesting. As for the harmony of the sexes…yeah, people who talk about women’s “special genius” say the same thing. Funny how women’s “special genius” isn’t as useful or as valuable as men’s though, and, despite its special specialness, still requires men to be the head of the relationship, huh? If that’s your idea of harmony, I’ll take feminism. Thx.

darksidecat
darksidecat
9 years ago

@Meller, in what parallel universe have feminists been universally getting their way for a century? A century ago, women could not vote in the US. Forty years ago, marital rape was nearly universally legal in the US. Not to mention things like the wage gap. (A similar principle applies to people of color-who faced ad lidem discrimination as well as de facto continuously, shit, Jim Crow wasn’t even officially ended fifty years ago). It is also worth noting that high levels of equality of women is strongly correlated with other measures of social well being, including lower violent crime rates (including lower rape rates) as well as better health outcomes and lower infant mortality. Take a look at the UN’s gender inequality index reports http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2010_EN_Table4_reprint.pdf and notice that countries which do well in health care and have low rates of violence in general score far better than their more misogynistic counterparts. Workweeks are actually shorter in western Europe, where gender equality tends to be the highest. Plain statistics suggest a correlation that is the exact opposite of your claims, Meller, because, in fact, the higher the gender equality, the better a country tends to be doing in all of the things you listed (with the exception of marriage rates, perhaps).

Also worth noting, birth control and social safety nets are not modern inventions. While it is true that birth control technologies have in some cases improved, there is literally thousands of years of documentation of birth control technologies. Roman women even drove an entire genus of plants extinct by overusing them for their effective birth controlling properties. The sheep skin condom has been around for at least two millenia. People discussed abortion in Ancient Greece (Hypocrites may have taken a different side of that than I, but people were talking about it). Often, our Eurocentric view of history projects Victorian morals (and other post Renaissance Western European Christian models) onto every other culture-when these things were not in fact the case at all historically. Imperialist spreading of these ideas, along with the other brutalities of imperialism, also did massive damage to women and sexual minorities within victimized societies. But, blame the troubles in the Islamic Empires on those ladies being too slutty, rather than the massive fucking invasion and centuries of brutal attack by Europeans, because that view of history makes tons of sense.

Captain Bathrobe
Captain Bathrobe
9 years ago

O Lord, we thank thee for this bounty of trollishness of which we are about to partake. Amen.

Thomas
Thomas
9 years ago

My gut feeling tells me there is something way off about this study. The fact that both authors are working in economic departments at their universities is also not strengthening my trust in their research.

I mean, we are talking here about the deepest Middle Ages vs. the Modern. Now the study tells me that in 600 years of incredible scientific, economic, philosophic, psychological revolutions prejudices were able to maintain in a very small local area. People were able to accept that the sun is the center of our universe and time is relative, that light is a wave but also a particle, that humans descend from apes, that humans have an unconscious mind etc. etc. But they were not able to give up their hatred against Jews because people, living in the same small area, 600 years ago hated Jews. I’m sorry, but I can’t believe this. How is it possible to overcome so many false beliefs, but to hold on to another very specific false belief?

There is something wrong with the methodology of the study.

Lady Victoria von Syrus
Lady Victoria von Syrus
9 years ago

Almost every article–and post–on the Spearhead gives clear, thoughtful and reasonable arguments how feminism–and feminist–injure society, damage the family, and corrode love and harmony between the sexes!

No, they really don’t. I’ve started reading some of the Spearhead since I was made aware of it, and the misogyny is fairly rampant – you won’t see any of the commenters or bloggers on Pandagon, Feministe or Feministing trashing men with the same vitriol that is shown towards women on the Spearhead. Not to mention, many posts on the Spearhead are factually incorrect and logically unsound. When I think ‘love and harmony,’ I certainly never think of The Spearhead.

IF feminists were correct in their assumptions of gender equality, everyone–both men and women, and especially the up-and-coming generation, would be strikingly better off! Divorce would be fewer, families would be stronger, drunkenness, drug abuse, urban crime and crime–especially among young people, would be a rarity, and perhaps even unknown in many communities, the workweek would be shorter (especially given the immense technological advances of the past 50-75 years), rape and sexual pathology would be almost unheard of, and equality could and would have fulfilled its promises made so noisily in the ’60s and early ’70s!

As to that – most marriages in which one or both partners identify as feminists are more sexually satisfying (http://www.livescience.com/1964-feminists-fun.html), from which we can assume that they are at least marginally less likely to divorce (I tried googling it, but all I came up with were posts blaming feminists for divorce without any supporting evidence). Since feminist men respect women as people, they are certainly far less likely to rape than a man who sees women as objects to be controlled.

I’m not sure what you mean by ‘sexual pathology’, nor am I clear on precisely the mechanic by which you think feminism ought to reduce alcoholism, drug abuse and crime (that being said, there’s a chapter in Freakonomics that argues Roe v Wade in the 70s was responsible for a permanent drop in crime in the 90s). Besides, there was certainly crime, rape, sexual pathology, drug abuse and alcoholism way before even the first wave of feminism – so from whence came those impulses, if not from the evil feminists?

Bee
Bee
9 years ago

“Almost every article–and post–on the Spearhead gives clear, thoughtful and reasonable arguments”

God, I’ve heard this so many times from MRAs here. And I read the Spearhead quite a bit, and I’ve never, even once, read a blog post there that wasn’t patently ridiculous, wrongheaded, mean, unsupported by any credible evidence, and totally predictable and thus dull as hell. Could you, perhaps, link to something on the Spearhead that you think gives even one clear, thoughtful, or reasonable argument?

Another question no Spearheader can answer: Why do you insist on calling their blog posts “articles”? Trying to add credence where none is warranted, is my best guess.

speedlines
speedlines
9 years ago

oh shit, you mean there was a deadline for creating feminist utopia? You mean we only had 40 years? I must have missed that memo.

speedlines
speedlines
9 years ago

I mean, I’m trying hard to remember which 60’s 70’s feminist “noisily promised” that everything would be hunky dory in the year 2011, and nothing’s springing to mind.

Johnny Pez
9 years ago

Bee, I’ll have you know that every post on my blog is actually an article, especially the brief, nonsensical prophecies.

Bee
Bee
9 years ago

Johnny Pez, my response to you is in the form of a Big Fancy Treatise:

Well, poop!

PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth
PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth
9 years ago

And then I went and found out that the VAWA does in fact, help men. Ooops!

Oh and Thomas-people have followed some Jew from the Middle East with no hard evidence he even existed for thousands of years…so it it really THAT odd to think something like that could persist equally long?

Lady Victoria von Syrus
Lady Victoria von Syrus
9 years ago

What I would be interested in knowing is why some villages had many pogroms and some did not. I mean, it had to start somewhere, right?

Plymouth
Plymouth
9 years ago

Feminists (and nonwhite racial egalitarians) have had everything their own way for the better part of a century

We have? Really? You mean they passed the Equal Rights Amendment, abortion is totally unrestricted in every state, Planned Parenthood has been fully funded & contraception is free for everyone, public schools are fully funded & sex education includes full information about contraception and there are no “abstinence only” programs anymore, maternity leave and paternity leave are guaranteed and fully paid… all if this has been going on for decades and NO ONE TOLD ME???

Ami Angelwings
9 years ago

@Plymouth We would have done all that and more if feminism was run by men… it’s about time we put a real man in charge and get some results! >_>;;

xD

katz
9 years ago

I’m not sure what you mean by ‘sexual pathology’

He means teh ghey.

Bee, I’ll have you know that every post on my blog is actually an article, especially the brief, nonsensical prophecies.

Did you guys all read my article about my kitty?

MissPrism
9 years ago

The crime rate and the divorce rate are falling.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304066504576345553135009870.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8485132.stm

The divorce rate in the UK, for example, is lower than it was in 1980 when women were not allowed to get mortgages without a male guarantor, and lower than it was in 1990 when rape within marriage was not legally a crime.

Sarah
Sarah
9 years ago

Katz, that article was incredible! Stimulating and well thought-out!

Kitteh. =3

Ami Angelwings
9 years ago

@Katz AWWWWWWW <3 She is adorable! 😀 So cute! :3

katz
9 years ago

Ami: That is some hard-hitting investigative journalism right there. Cat that thinks it’s a dog! Also, cute.

Johnny Pez
9 years ago

It’s a serious, thoughtful catblogging post that has never been made in such detail or with such care.

Xtra
9 years ago

Are MRA’s ever concerned with quality of marriage more than quantity?

MissPrism
9 years ago

Katz, she is a splendid kitty!

The bit I don’t understand is that, having decided to live in a fantasy world of their own devising, MRAs choose such a nasty one: a crime-ridden battlefield where nobody ever finds actual, freely-chosen and equal love or happiness – even the alphas, who just get the comparative pleasure of being the spitter rather than the spittoon. If I was going to make shit up, it’d be happy shit, like that chocolate prevents cancer or there are a family of pandas in my garden.

amandajane5
amandajane5
9 years ago

What I like best is being told that women/feminists/whatever have been RULING THE WORLD!!!1!!!!11!!!

Women have only had the right to VOTE for 91 years. Not even a century yet. But somehow we’re controlling the world? The ERA was never passed and my right to bodily autonomy is being debated by old white dudes on pretty much a daily basis, it’s only 900-something bills in every single state (those bills are spread across all 50) because I’m sitting here trying to tell men….anything about their healthcare.

Holly
9 years ago

Shit, I was away for a couple days helping my boyfriend move (yes, a woman doing physical labor for a man without remuneration, and only in this space does that seem weird) and now we have all these new characters!

Anyway, one thing I need to point out to David K. Meller – “Goyim” means “nations,” not “cattle!” It’s not an offensive term.

Also, a general comment: MRAs always seem to think that feminism is about women dominating men, so MRA should be about men dominating women–a straight up boys vs. girls game. The concept that they’re trying to dominate people who would (99% of us, at least) be very happy to merely share power never seems to really sink in.

Holly
9 years ago

I should add that when it comes to racial things (gender ones to a lesser degree), the effects of old prejudice take a while to dissipate. Someone who has a totally equal chance of going to college now, but is the child of someone who couldn’t go to college and couldn’t get a good-paying job and couldn’t live in a safe neighborhood and couldn’t pay for the child to get tutoring or extracurricular activities or travel… does not have a totally equal chance of going to college now.

sarahejones
9 years ago

The BBC’s got an interesting article about conspiracy theories today: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13682082 Reminds me a very great deal of our MRA friends.

ithiliana
9 years ago

Thomas: You do realize that “gut feelings” have little to do with actual evidence? I mean, it’s funny when Colbert’s gut tells him things, but he’s parodying the ongoing reliance on “gut” feelings.

You claim that it doesn’t make sense for prejudice to still exist for so long given all the other changes that have taken place the last 600 years or so. There have been many technological changes, that’s true–but we’re talking emotions, i.e. gut feelings, and amazingly enough (sarcasm) emotions are often resistant to change.

And what you say about how everybody is all enlightened and into astronomy, evolution, and physics–when in fact scientific illiteracy is incredibly high in the U.S.–is simply, demonstrably, not true.

Data on scientific illiteracy:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070218134322.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/science/30profile.html

(NOT economists!)

People were able to accept that the sun is the center of our universe

Um, the sun is certainlY NOT the center of our universe! It is the center of the solar system, but presumably you meant to say that. (And let’s also acknowledge that knowing what the majority of a population that was not print literate believed or did not believe in past centuries is damn difficult–I know a medieval historian who works on the religious changes in the 14th century at the grassroots level–when only 5% of a population is literate, for example, saying that translating the Bible into English is a RADICAL grassroots notion is a bit problematic)..

Stats:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/3742/new-poll-gauges-americans-general-knowledge-levels.aspx

As far as you know, does the earth revolve around the sun, or does the sun revolve around the earth?

Earth revolves around the sun 79%

Sun revolves around the earth 18

No opinion 3

And the fact that a whole shitload of people still believe in astrology which OLD also says something about the persistence of beliefs. (Not to mention the whole group who are all “we never went to the moon, it’s a fake”–i.e. the Flat Earth society). Persistence doesn’t have to mean majority, although in the case of prejudice, I think it does.

http://www.ntskeptics.org/factsheets/astrolog.htm

And while I doubt the accuracy of this poll, it is also true that there are a whole lot of people in the US who are not 100% scientific believers, and that the ‘narrative’ of “religion” vs. “science” is still pretty conflicted:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,99945,00.html

and time is relative, that light is a wave but also a particle, that humans descend from apes,

I have to go on my gut feeling here because I cannot find anything with a quick google, but I am a teacher who lives in rural Texas, and has taught for over 20 years.

I think most people don’t doubt or accept the theory of relativity because most people in the US cannot understand it. They probably know Einstein’s name, but that’s it.

Evolution, however, is a totally different theory. If you claim that the majority of people accept evolution, then you’re living on a different planet than the one I live in: (and it depends on what you mean by majority). There are a shitload of people in the US who categorically reject evolution in favor of creationism and intelligent design and are fighting to get it taught and are building Creation museums (dinosaurs plus Adam and Eve). I’d note that resistance to evolution is scarily connected to racism in the US, and a lot of the major pockets of creationism are in the South. So, no, don’t tell me people have accepted the theory of evolution. Some have, some haven’t.

Also, the statement “humans descended from apes” which actually I think is also a misnomer–am english major not biology, but aren’t primates includnig humans descended from common ancestor?

http://www.texscience.org/files/holt-rinehart.htm

Also: search for “Creation Museums”

that humans have an unconscious mind etc. etc.

This claim actually I don’t accept–I don’t accept Freud’s theory. And unlike the work in biology and physics, psychology/psychiatry are not able to ‘test’ their hypothesis (not ethically anyway). I know Freud’s work has been extensively revisited and developed, but my reading of the little I’ve done of Freud, his times, and other circumstances make me question his theories.

My gut feeling again, meaning based on my personal experience and not backed up by any sort of evidence, is that yes, there is a widespread acceptance of some of the basics of Freud’s work, very oversimplified and mostly misunderstood, which I call “psychobabble.” It’s part of a cultural construct around us, but I do not believe that “the unconscious mind” is in the same category as evolution or particle/wave theory!

Your gut may vary, of course.

Joe
Joe
9 years ago

i’m worried that David K. Meller thinks he’s a lot more interesting than he thinks he is. You know, as a 6.5/10 male.

ithiliana
9 years ago

http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/06/07/238472/the-gender-pay-gap-starts-right-out-of-college/

More proof that that feminists have taken total control of the world, er, the US, and are running everything to suit themselves.

oops.

On another note, much praise for the incredible ARTICLES about cats!

And Ami, thanks for the link to the Onion article: I hadn’t seen that one, and just about choked coke zero (developed for teh menz but as a killer feminist I drinkz it) through my nose!

XD!!

katz
9 years ago

The bit I don’t understand is that, having decided to live in a fantasy world of their own devising, MRAs choose such a nasty one: a crime-ridden battlefield where nobody ever finds actual, freely-chosen and equal love or happiness – even the alphas, who just get the comparative pleasure of being the spitter rather than the spittoon.

Remember that these guys are complete and utter losers. They want to imagine themselves as brave bold heroes fighting for a just cause (but don’t want to actually do something), so they construct a universe where everyone else is a vicious liar and they are the righteous falsely accused.

Kratch
Kratch
9 years ago

“ Apparently since women want to prevent violence against their sex, have worked hard to get help from government and other groups to do so, it means that teh menz are all discriminated against and we are misandrist because we are not focused on teh menz.”

And yet, you have no problem complaining that because women don’t have the same umber of seats in government, despite the laws that prevent discrimination, despite the fact that people vote for their officials, and women are the majority of voters, that women are discriminated against with a glass ceiling. Seems to me you think only women can be victims.

You also make the assumption that it’s ether one or the other, ether men or women, and this is the most common feminist argument the MRA runs into. Does the idea of addressing issues in a gender neutral, unbiased manner really frighten you so much? Are you really so opposed to dealing with issues unbiased for either genders? Despite all the hard work men also put into getting help from government and other groups… Or do your deny men like David and Biden played any part? I think that attitude very much demonstrates sexism.

“I pointed out that the nonpsycho MRAs could, you know, lobby Congress to replace that law with funding for both genders in an End Domestic Violence Act as anything that excludes one class can be viewed as discriminatory.”

And you’ve been shown, and discovered for yourself, that MRA’s already have, but it’s still discriminatory, so MRA groups are opposing it’s reauthorization in it’s current form, again. Your focus on the fringe group blinds you to the activism that is actually being done.

“He just went on complaining and demanding denouncements of whatever problems he has with women getting any benefit ever if it means a man is not paramount in everyone’s consideration.”

You’ll be able to provide a quote and link to support this accusation. I have never had issues with women getting benefit, I have issues with men being excluded from those benefits, based solely on their gender.

@David, I hope you intend to take action, if she can not provide a quote to support her accusation, for grossly misrepresenting MY arguments.

“And then I went and found out that the VAWA does in fact, help men. Ooops!”

You demonstrated that the 2005 Reauthorization added a clause that prevented VAWA from using the act to discriminate against men. Not the same as proving that was never the case. I have shown evidence that the prior version not only discriminated against men, but against children as well. That’s how discriminatory for the benefit of women VAWA was, that even children weren’t deemed worthy enough to get funding unless the proposal also helped women.

“you won’t see any of the commenters or bloggers on Pandagon, Feministe or Feministing trashing men with the same vitriol that is shown towards women on the Spearhead. “

I have to wonder if you are making the common mistake of confusing feminism and women as being synonymous. Being critical of feminism is not misogyny.

I also have to make note that feminists on slate, particularly the authors, not to mention Amanda Marcotte from pandagon, very much are hostile to men. Furthermore, It is very likely that the MRA has taken on the bulk of misandry. Many attacks on the MRA would apply equally if men were put in it’s place, but attacking the MRA specifically, rather then men in general, is more politically correct, and still manages to shame men for speaking up for themselves, and keeps men’s issues silenced, or at least attempts too.

I’m curious, how many Men’s rights sites/organizations do you know other then the spearhead, Reddit and mgtow?

Don’t bother rushing to answer. It’s been made clear by the utterly dismissive attitudes, the extreme bias’s against MRA”s in general, directly attributed to me and others (Schala), despite our own arguments not fitting their perceptions. In fact, Schala even got told “you sound like an MRA, therefore I don’t accept that you are sincere or credible”. This kind of bigoted close mindedness makes honest discourse impossible, and it isn’t MRA’s demonstrating the bigotry here.

http://manboobz.com/2011/05/26/hating-female-sexuality-is-it-normal/comment-page-7/#comment-24229

Kratch
Kratch
9 years ago

David: “Joe, I think you’ve misplaced the decimal point. He’s a 0.65/10 male.”

Is that a personal insult? A ridiculing of his manhood? And you didn’t even address any of his comments. When even you don’t follow your own posting rules, it bodes poorly for your credibility.

darksidecat
darksidecat
9 years ago

” have shown evidence that the prior version not only discriminated against men, but against children as well.” Wait, what? When? I think Beth and I have already nailed you on the VAWA issue, Kratch, so stfu.

PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth
PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth
9 years ago

I went and looked up the original Act…and you know what Kratch? Nothing in the text of the law with the exception of ONE section excluded men. Not one outside the sole exception. That exception? The Battered Women’s Shelter provision.

You know what else I found? None of the guidelines now prohibit it and they probably never did.

You know what else? I said that it means that someone did not pay attention to the important part of a law-the text. And because of that, men who may have gotten help did not. The Vice President, and the Director of the Office implementing the law were not lying. You committed the same violation that low level bureaucrat did and *failed to read the law.*

I also found the original text with a few seconds of googling. So finally, you know what? You really DO view it as not putting men first-but dress it up with “concern” that it is not equal. Bullcrap-it is as always with MRAs such as yourself, all about teh menz not getting the lion’s share. It took a while for it to shine through but you really are not much different then the other MRAs trolling this board.

Pecunium
9 years ago

Oneness of Ju Ju seems to be saying that reactionaries react to changing of social roles.

If the society is heavily gender-limited in those roles the changes being reacted to will usually involve a loosening of those social roles. Since a society has to be relatively secure to have that sort of flexibility the odds are it will be “at it’s peak”, but only because it’s a “reversion” to a less stable period (and so one looks back to, “a golden age”). The Merovingians and Carolingians had a very different set of roles for women than the cultures that followed them. So to for Saxon England than Norman.

It’s not an issue of, “decadence” but social turmoil and a lack of a sense of power/security, and the changing of, “traditional” roles is blamed, even though it is usually outside factors which those social roles had nothing to do with that caused it.

In short, it’s one long (and group) application of the post hoc fallacy, mixed with some confirmation bias (because all civilisations, “decline”, and reactionaries consistently blame it on, “the decay of traditional values”).

In short… the argument buried in there (which is anti-feminist), is bollocks.

(yes, I am behind… I leave and the candy-stuffed piñata trolls show up)

Kratch
Kratch
9 years ago

“” have shown evidence that the prior version not only discriminated against men, but against children as well.” Wait, what? When? I think Beth and I have already nailed you on the VAWA issue, Kratch, so stfu.”

“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.”

I will repeat the important part of that Paragraph…”S.T.O.P. funds may not be used to support services that focus exclusively on children …”

Page 2-7, Service Specifications

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

As for where I posted that…

http://manboobz.com/2011/05/26/hating-female-sexuality-is-it-normal/comment-page-6/#comment-22728

As for nailing me on the VAWA issue, you have not proven that VAWA has never discriminated against men (because you can’t, I’ve already proven it does), all you have done is acknowledge that changes were made to the 2005 version to include an addendum to ensure the act itself couldn’t be used to discriminate against men (doesn’t mean much when feminists insist Laws that specify employers can’t discriminate against women are ineffectual and women are still suffering discrimination ala the wage gap).

As for the STFU…

Kratch
Kratch
9 years ago

This is now my third attempt to post this response. I will break it in two…

“Alright Kratch, name something I (or others) have done in discrimination against men, as a whole (not just a group that is mostly male). Also give evidence, because just naming it doesn’t make it true.”

I think Elizebeth has already proved my point. The fact that she doesn’t have a problem with a government program being given $1Billion annually, specifically excluding over half the population, from their civil rights (IE, equal protection under the law) and denying victim support based solely on gender, shows a callousness towards men, the very discrimination I speak of.

I’m curious why you limit the discussion to here? Why can’t I also include the contents of Slate, which has a particularly scathing article on how fathers rights groups don’t really want to be with their kids, they just want to have someone to abuse.

“Many of Sacks’ arguments—for a court assumption of shared parenting in the case of divorce, or against child-support rigidity in the midst of recession—can sound reasonable.
But do any of their arguments hold up?”

Notice how she isn’t discussing the father’s right’s group specifically, but the arguments they make. Seems to me they are actively trying to deny father’s a fair and equal treatment under the family law system. They are discriminating against men.

Kratch
Kratch
9 years ago

” But of the 15 percent that go to family court—the cases that fathers’ rights groups target—at least half include alleged domestic abuse.”

http://www.doublex.com/section/news-politics/mens-rights-groups-have-become-frighteningly-effective?page=0,0

It’s almost like men’s issues don’t matter so long as this feminist keeps the MRA down. Again, a demonstration of a callousness towards men. and acceptance of discrimination (IE, It’s ok that some abused men go without support so long as the idea MRA’s are suggesting, that men are equally abused, gets squashed).

This very site is dedicated to opposing the MRA, to discrediting it. David routinely condemns Glen Sacks for allegedly targeting the support of an abuse shelter, rather then ignoring it’s misandry and helping instead. So why doesn’t he help Men’s issues instead of attacking the fringe, inactive elements of the movement that is. (and just for the record, the MRM is not limited the the spearhead, reddit and MGTOW, contrary to popular belief. There are many MRM organizations that do good work for men, you just never hear about them here, since they don’t have the misogyny David is trying to attribute to the entire movement. An opinion based on this misandric article:.

http://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/dismantling-the-mens-rights-movement/

Just for clarification, her is a short list demonstrating Men’s right’s activism by groups David doesn’t ever mention, so you may not know about

http://manboobz.com/2011/05/26/hating-female-sexuality-is-it-normal/comment-page-6/#comment-22724

It was in response to a challenge by David to show men’s rights doing something about Domestic violence (only, hence why only DV examples).

“Let me repeat, discrimination against a group that is mostly male, or against a single male, is not necessarily rooted in misandry.”

And yet, anti-feminists are routinely called misogynists for opposing feminism, an ideology followed by a largely female group, but not limited to such.

Kratch
Kratch
9 years ago

Part three:

Just for clarification, her is a short list demonstrating Men’s right’s activism by groups David doesn’t ever mention, so you may not know about

http://manboobz.com/2011/05/26/hating-female-sexuality-is-it-normal/comment-page-6/#comment-22724

It was in response to a challenge by David to show men’s rights doing something about Domestic violence (only, hence why only DV examples).

“Let me repeat, discrimination against a group that is mostly male, or against a single male, is not necessarily rooted in misandry.”

And yet, anti-feminists are routinely called misogynists for opposing feminism, an ideology followed by a largely female group, but not limited to such.

Pecunium
9 years ago

Kratch: A bill designed to deal with violence against women being written to as to exclude being diverted to non-violence related activities isn’t a problem, it’s a protective feature.

But you don’t care about that. You have a hobby-horse, and intend to ride it, no matter the falsity of it’s premise.

The hobby-horse is asking that a problem which affects one group more than another it is being addressed in such a way as to actually solve that problem.

When presented with the facts, you obfuscate. When someone deals with idiots by calling them idiots you take umbrage, though you practice the same behaviors. You are a mendacious hypocrite.

Raoul
Raoul
9 years ago

Whatever it takes.