Confused Dudes Confused by Confused Cats Against Feminism

It’s the Niall Challenge! And hopefully easier for him than “why are 5 and 10 not the same number”.

You’re right. advertisers selling products is a form of state and legal oppression.

No one said it was, but have fun doing the Goalpost Dance.

Are you ever going to name any radical feminists, or even define the term? Hint: saying “I know what it means” is not the same as demonstrating that you know what it means.

If 5 == 10, then 10 == 20, so 5 == 20, so 1 in 5 equals 1 in 20, therefore rape statistics are equal across gender! I’ve cracked the code!

Curiously, option 1a never comes up.

1A:
Talk with this now pregnant person, figure out what your options are going forward. Say you want an abortion. Take it from there.

But no, every sexual encounter has 100% chance of pregnancy, happens between complete strangers, and no one ever speaks one word ever again except “I do” when asked if they agree with the 3556 page Consent Contract.

I had a look at the paper. I’m raising some issues that anyone with a social science degree, and boasts about how that makes them a social science expert, should fucking realise.

They modified the scale they used in their research, without showing how the modification would affect the results. They added questions, and it is not clear whether the questions were based on previous research that recommended they be added and provided suggested wording, or even whether the researchers tested the questions and response categories before adding them. It is not clear whether the added questions were placed at the end of the scale, or at various locations inside the scale. The latter situation means that the placement of these new questions may have altered the responses the researchers received to the original scale questions.

Subjects were self-selected into the study, and they would have been given some information about the study. It is not valid to use a self-selected sample to generalise about rates of anything, because the self-selection introduces a bias into the sample. It is likely that subjects who were most interested in sexual coercion were the ones most likely to self-select, and therefore we can hypothesize that the percentages of sexual coercion found in this study do not extrapolate to the general college/high school student population.

There’s some elements in the questionnaire that make me wonder about whether the data was collected objectively. In table 1, p.6, the first line relates to verbal pressure and the definition of this measure is given as “nagging, begging, or other verbal pressure”. The example quote given to illustrate this measure is “A girl wanted me to do oral sex to her. And
begged. But I didn’t do it.” It’s not clear whether this request occurred in the context of consensual sexual activity or not. Why does this matter? Because if you’re having sex with another person/s then requesting a particular activity is in the context of negotiating what is happening in the fun smexy times. And making an explicit request for an activity found very pleasurable is expected during fun smexy times, because it’s not making the assumption that the partner/s is a mind reader. This is a completely different situation to the “girl” coming up to a guy in a bar and making the same request. There’s also the issue that the definition of this activity plays right into nasty stereotypes that females nag/beg. Context is everything.

tl;dr: I wouldn’t be using this study as the basis for estimating any type of sexual issue prevalence.

I’m also not saying that I condone sexual harassment or violence against anyone, just that we need good studies to assist us get accurate estimates – so we can do something about.

Hell, even capitalism, a political and economic system that serves the interests of the bourgeosie at the expense of the proletariat, isn’t perfect for bourgeosie. After all, with the high status in wealth comes an implicit possibility of losing it, and ubiquitous commodification and consumerism that comes with capitalism can have a negative impact on the quality of life even for rich people. But none of that changes the fact that being rich and having people work for you is a lot more privileged and cozy than constantly working just to survive.

Any time a business fails, that disproves capitalism.

Also, I’ve been looking into the numbers, and it appears that 4 out of every 3 male students have experienced sexual coercion.

(More seriously, we can’t compare the rates/numbers of rape in and out of prison unless the studies are conducted with the same definitions and methodology. They weren’t. In any case, the treatment of inmates in this country is terrible on so many levels. The real answer is to stop throwing so many non-violent offenders into prison, period, but that would help primarily men of color which is why you so rarely hear MRAs talk about that as a solution.)

@cloudiah

Capitalism has already been disproved in the US. Just look at the existence of social security and disability benefits. Clearly socialism. All workers have access to the means of production now. The world is going to end.

Patriarchy does not serve the needs of men, just like racism does not serve the needs of white people and homophobia/heteronormativity does not serve the needs of straight people. Just because they place one group above the other, it does not mean that there is any intended positive effect. Institutionalized bigotry serves to give the the least powerful among the privileged group someone to feel superior to and have control over. They serve as a wedge to keep the disempowered from identifying with each other or working together to fight the status quo. Patriarchy places men and the things associated with masculinity above women and things associated with femininity, but rich is still above poor and white still above non-white. Non-conforming men are punished for not being a man the “right” way because they threaten the patriarchy as much as nonconforming women do.

The pseudointellectual lacquer melted right off!

Do most MRAs even ever bother to do a 2 minute search on how parental rights work when the parents aren’t married before ranting about how unfair child support is (a word which here means “must be”) for the father?

Let’s be kind to niall… He only can communicate in MRA cliches and talking points, he’s having trouble finding one that says anything about radical feminism except that it’s destroying the world.

I find the whole “I have a degree in Social Sciences” darkly hilarious. I assume it was from the University of Uranus.

The real issue many people have with feminism is that not does not address men’s issues, or other groupings issues, and is a rather loose collection of ideas and ideologies that feminists themselves cannot agree on more often than not.

So your criticism is that feminists are not in fact jackbooted feminazis marching in lockstep? What??? As for your first “point”, I would say feminism has done a whole lot for men’s issues, by weakening up gender roles and expectations in general. Of course it has also weakened male privileges, but that’s kinda the point, no?

Sparky. It is estimated the top 1% control 40% of the world wealth. Your point is utterly moot,.

“I’m man, yet not part of the 1%, so obviously male privilege doesn’t exist”

I’m dredging up stuff from two page back, I know, but I really think niall gave me the perfect rebuttal:

The point is, men and men’s issues are not represented in the first place very often. Yet, men make up the majority of readers on sites. When men begin to demand articles and coverage of issues affecting them, there will be absolutely no option for the news sites to follow suit.

This is just magnificent. It completely ignores my claim (that the article he linked to support his position did no such thing), reiterates his own baseless speculations, and slyly lets me know that he thinks I was too stupid to get his point the first time.

A masterpiece, I say. A masterpiece.

OK, place your bets for today’s sock hunt here. I’m tentatively calling Pell.

Adding another vote for the not-so-good doctor. I’ve only tangled with him once, but it was quite a bit like this.