People who prey on others are not confused about what they're doing.

Popular rhetoric these days is that people - well, typically "men" or even explicitly "all men" (expressio unius est exclusio alterius) - need to be "educated" about consent so they can comprehend what is and is not acceptable. Setting aside legitimate, honest miscommunication and philosophical disagreement for the moment, this is either wishful thinking or derogatory generalization or both.

The people who perpetrate deception, harassment, force, etc. know that they are perpetrating deception, harassment, force, etc. and are well aware that people consider it unacceptable. I've dealt with many of these people myself, both men and women (and even a transgender individual or two as well). Those same people will often complain about the same or similar things happening to them or somebody they care about, even to their victims, before, during, and/or after they do it themselves. The issue is not that they think their behavior is acceptable, or insignificant, but that they think it is acceptable or insignificant only when they do it. This is not a lack of comprehension or innocent misunderstanding of the subject, but a case of blatant self-entitlement. To give them the benefit of the doubt with rhetoric about how they "don't understand" is to basically just give them a bullshit excuse for their intentional transgression(s). To suggest they should be lumped in with other people who don't carry the same attitude is insulting to those other people.

It's not a nice simple quixotic theory like "teach men not to rape" or "men don't understand consent" or any of the other nonsensical rhetoric being thrown around, but the world we live in is not nice and simple just because we want it to be. "Men" are not "almost exclusively" or even "primarily" responsible for possessing or displaying this attitude and people who possess and display this attitude are not simply in need of "education" to be able to understand that what they are doing is unacceptable. What actually needs to be addressed in this case is that some people from any gender believe that they're above having to respect things like consent just because they don't want to, even though they know damn well what they're doing is unacceptable.

If you want to have educational and philosophical discussions to address some of the legitimate miscommunications and disagreements about consent as well, that's fine. Just don't suggest they're "gendered issues" or lump it in with people perpetrating deception, harassment, force, etc. or suggest people who perpetrate those things are "uninformed" about consent. By excusing, "gendering" or conflating those issues you're not doing any favors for anybody except the people who absolutely don't deserve it.

"Trans-Misogyny" Is A Misnomer And Bathroom Restrictions Unjustified

A lot of people seem to think the recent hatred and distrust of MTF transgender people is a new and unique thing. There's plenty of writings and speeches about how trans people are being uniquely singled out and persecuted regarding bathroom usage just for being trans.

What they don't seem to realize is that this is merely the extension of the same old chivalrous notion (as well as modern social justice rhetoric) that men are inherently a threat to women and women need to be protected from them.

There's the usual social justice scapegoating going around about how "misogyny" and "male homophobia" are the culprits, but at the same time we hear about how much more hostile people are toward somebody "not a real woman" trying to enter a "female space" than anybody (male, female, trans, straight, gay, etc.) trying to enter a "male space."



In fact, some people will plainly state that they have "never" experienced any significant issue in a men's bathroom as a homosexual and/or trans person, but are regularly treated in a very hostile manner and even threatened with violence by both men and women when attempting to use a women's bathroom.

If this were really "misogyny" and "male homophobia" one should expect to see the opposite - women, homosexuals and anybody else who was "not a real man" would be unwelcome in the men's bathroom, while women would be plenty welcoming within "their" space.

What we have here is not a fear, hatred and distrust of "not straight cis-male" people by men, but a fear, hatred and distrust of "not straight cis-female" people by and on behalf of women. That is why the problem presents the way it does. The women who balk at the idea of trans people using the women's bathrooms aren't displaying "misogyny and male homophobia" and the men who balk at the idea of trans people using the women's bathrooms while simultaneously not caring about a trans person, homosexual, or even genetic female using the men's bathroom aren't displaying "misogyny and male homophobia" either. What they are actually displaying is closer to "chivalrous misandry." They are displaying a fear, hatred, or distrust of "not female" people regarding their perceived "threat to women."

People need to wise up and start understanding that all prejudice is inherently interconnected and any promotion of hatred or distrust of any demographic will inherently impact all demographics negatively in one way or another. The same gender hatred the social justice warriors have been promoting all this time is now working against them. The fabricated "constant risk" of sexual assault and domestic violence, the fabricated "almost exclusively male perpetration" of sexual assault and domestic violence, and the rampant rationalization of the hate and distrust of all men as "inherently threatening to women" has created an environment where many people feel it is perfectly reasonable to bully, threaten, assault, or even legislate a "man in a dress" trying to enter a "female safe space."

This is not "trans-misogyny." If anything, it's closer to "trans-misandry."

Otherwise, you may as well label trans exclusionary radical feminists as "misogynists" - it's the same basic reasoning being used in both cases.




It turns out, though, that women perpetrate things like sexual assault and domestic violence at rates comparable to men.  Specifically when it comes to arguments like "men are going to use the opportunity to prey on women" and "I don't want a man in the bathroom with little girls" they just don't hold water, because women also prey on women.

http://www.curvemag.com/Curve-Magazine/Web-Articles-2010/Lesbian-on-Lesbian-Rape/

Because many people define rape at penetration by a penis, woman-to-woman rape is not acknowledged or taken seriously. But in fact, it is estimated that one out of three lesbians have been sexually assaulted by another woman.

In April 2009, Melissa Huckaby, a Sunday-school teacher, was arraigned for the rape and murder of Sandra Cantu, an eight-year-old playmate of Huckaby’s own daughter in Tracy, Calif.

And many studies actually suggest that, statistically speaking, women are more commonly the perpetrators of sexual assault and abuse of children.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/svjfry09.pdf

Sexual Victimization In Juvenile Facilities Reported By Youth, 2008-2009 Approximately 95% of all youth reporting staff sexual misconduct said they had been victimized by female staff. In 2008, 42% of staff in state juvenile facilities were female.

http://archive.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm06/cm06.pdf 

Child Maltreatment 2006 (Page 75)
For  FFY 2006, 57.9 percent of the perpetrators were women and 42.1 percent were men.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/cm11.pdf 

Child Maltreatment 2011 (Page 68)
More than one-half (53.6%) of perpetrators were women and 45.1 percent of perpetrators were men.

Now, it should go without saying, but I'm not suggesting there's no risk of anybody being victimized by a person of the opposite sex who took advantage of trans-inclusive bathrooms to facilitate predation.  What I am suggesting is that whatever risk does exist, not only has it been wildly exaggerated, but people should be equally concerned with same-sex predation, so bathroom gender exclusivity is simply not a practical solution.

Are We Equal?

While the message of "we should stop this" is good, the "are we equal" question is actually a wasteful and even offensively dismissive distraction.

Every culture where female genital mutilation is practiced, male genital mutilation is also practiced, so the answer there would be "yes, you are equal." In terms of number of victims worldwide, male genital mutilation has many more, though, so the answer there would be "no, not equal, you are less commonly mutilated."

Asking "are we equal?" makes zero argument for stopping female genital mutilation.

Where female genital mutilation is outlawed, male genital mutilation is still legal, so the answer there would be "no, not equal, you are more protected." In those cases, would they want to be equal?

Asking "are we equal?" makes zero argument for stopping female genital mutilation.

In addition, they use the same old "female genital mutilation is much worse than male circumcision" argument, which serves no purpose besides suggesting one should get attention and the other shouldn't.

Again, "are we equal?" is a pointless question, because not only does it not provide any argument against female genital mutilation, but they obviously don't want to be equal, or they wouldn't portray the issue as "horrible genital mutilation" for one sex and "just circumcision" for the other.

I am of course all for ending genital mutilation, but people need to think through things before they go making videos which don't provide intelligent arguments and attempt to trivialize the issue regarding anybody not within their pet demographic.

Men vs Women Re: "Gendered" Crime

I've written about "gendered crime" before, but it occurs to me that there's another angle to consider here.

For a moment, let's forget about the statistics, the estimates, the convoluted gender theory.  Let's pretend that the differences in figures that "gendered crime" proponents like to use can't be explained by simple reporting/measurement bias.  Let's just consider some basic, necessary conditions for "gendered crime" to be a real thing.

The claims:

Women commit these crimes at a significantly lower rate than men do.

Men don't have to worry about being raped/assaulted by women the way women have to worry about being raped/assaulted by men.

The conditions:
#1. Women are inherently not as capable as men - that is, women cannot commit these crimes on an equal level to men, because they lack the ability to do so.  Women are inferior to men.
-or-
#2. Women are inherently better people than men - that is, women have all the same ability to commit these crimes on the same level, but simply choose not to.  Women are superior to men.



If there is a "significant difference" in risk and perpetration of "gendered crime" then one of those two conditions must be true.  If they are both false, that inherently means there is no "significant difference" based on the popular "because gender" prejudice. (and suggests you should probably take a closer look at where those claims come from)  So, if you're one of the "gendered crime" proponents, please tell me which of those two conditions you think is responsible for the "significant difference" in "gendered crime."  In your mind, are women inferior to men, or are women superior to men?

Africa Prediction: Female Genital Mutilation Increased as AIDS Prevention

No, I'm not advocating any type of genital mutilation.
If you clicked on the title to rip me a new one for being such a horrible person, too bad. I hate the idea just as much as you do. I'm simply predicting that it will happen.

With that disclaimer out of the way, let's get to the actual content.

How can I make such a prediction?
How can the two possibly be linked?
How can that even be possible?
Why do I suspect that's where things are headed?

I'll tell you, but first, let me tell you when it started.

Now.
Well, not exactly, but we'll get to that in a bit. However, let me tell you why now is important.

As you may have heard, three groundbreaking studies have recently concluded that circumcision of males prevents HIV transmission. This seems like great news, because a simple snip of the foreskin will make a huge dent in the epidemic, right?

Wrong.

What you may not have heard is that all three of those studies were designed by known male circumcision advocates - and later manipulated, specifically to conclude that circumcision was the answer, in contradiction to the actual data. Here's how:

• In all three studies, the circumcised group had to abstain from sexual activity for a period of time, while the uncircumcised group were free to maintain normal sexual activity. Obviously, the circumcised group contracted fewer cases of HIV, because they were not having sex. Abstinence was the only relevant variable at that point.

• In all three studies, when the circumcised group started sexual activity again, they actually started catching up in number of HIV infections to the uncircumcised group, demonstrating that if anything, they may have been contracting the infection more readily than the uncircumcised group. This does not at all suggest circumcision is an effective preventative measure.

• All three studies were terminated early, before the numbers could equalize, even though in one of the three studies the circumcised group had come close to matching the number of infections as the uncircumcised group. This demonstrates that when things didn't go the way they were hoping, the circumcision advocates running these three studies decided it was best to cut them short, before the results could prove the theory wrong. They then announced their findings to the world and the "Circumcise Africa!" campaign was born.

Pretty sneaky, huh?

How does this relate to Female Genital Mutilation?
Hold on, I'm getting there. First, let me tell you what I think will happen next and where it came from.

Next, they will start routinely circumcising infant boys.

It is reasonable to assume that male circumcision will progress in Africa in a similar manner to the way it did in the USA - That is, it started as a way to "protect" certain people at risk for diseases - in the USA it was "masturbation, infection, venerial disease, cancer, blindness, insanity, death..." and a whole huge list of other afflictions the foreskin was blamed for causing. The issue actually started a long time ago in the USA. It then became a "preventative" measure which was routinely performed on infants, because it was promoted as "harmless and even beneficial." "Harmless and beneficial? Why not just get them right out of the womb to make it easier?" I suspect this is the next stage in the progression of genital mutilation in Africa.

But, you still haven't told me how this relates to FEMALE Genital Mutilation!
OK, now I'll tell you.
The answer is, The Stallings Study.

That's right. There was a study, claiming that female circumcision decreased the chances of contracting HIV. It exists. It happened. It is out there, waiting for concerned (or motivated) Africans to find and interpret however they want to.

Results
The crude relative risk of HIV infection among women reporting to have been circumcised versus not circumcised was 0.51 [95% CL =0.38

In fact, this study makes the specific assertion that female genital mutilation, not male is the main statistical difference in relative risk:

Both circ vs male only = 0.56 Relative Risk Estimate
Both circ vs neither = 0.55 Relative Risk Estimate
Male circ vs neither = 0.97 Relative Risk Estimate

But how could that be?
It's actually very simple. It's probably true. It's probably true for the same reason those three "groundbreaking" male circumcision studies found an initial difference between the two groups: decreased sexual activity. When a woman receives little or no pleasure (possibly even intense pain, depending on the specific procedure) from sexual activity, she is less likely to participate in sexual activity, therefore lowering her risk of contracting HIV. The question is, do you think the Africans who heard "male circumcision prevents AIDS" and didn't bother to question why will be more concerned with the reason why female circumcision has been shown to have the same effect, or do you think "female circumcision prevents AIDS" will be enough once again?

But they'd never go THAT far, would they?
They already do. Female Genital Mutilation is happening in Africa right now. On top of that, "more advanced" cultures have now told them that cutting off parts of genitals is not only the answer to the AIDS epidemic, but is even a good thing for the person's general health. "Civilized" people advocating circumcision + lower risk of HIV for circumcised females? At some point, somebody is going to add 2 + 2 and get 4. When that happens, a whole new wave of "preventative" Female Genital Mutilation will begin. Last I heard, women contracting HIV from rape and then infecting other men was considered a major cause in the spread of the disease, so why wouldn't they try to do everything they possibly could to prevent women from contracting it? Remember, these are also the people who are advocating putting all homosexuals to death. Do you really think they're going to stop short of female children in the effort to solve the epidemic, when they already cut the genitals of female children, or do you think they'll just do it more?

What if we just hide that study?
Even without that one particular study, how long do you think it will take for the people who advocate Female Genital Mutilation to find other studies, or pick up on the statistics and start doing studies themselves? Hell, even without medical justification, people are already doing it, so why wouldn't the advocates decide to do the same kind of shifty study that was done to promote male genital mutilation? The notable thing is, this may even encourage them to suggest the less invasive forms be intensified to increase the "benefit" of the procedure. Women who would have otherwise only been subjected to the lesser forms of genital cutting may instead be subjected to the forms which are designed to make any sexual activity as unpleasant as possible.

Who's to blame for this? What can be done to stop it?

Who's to blame?

You are.

Every person who has not stood up for a child's right to genital integrity, whatever form they may be in, has contributed to the idea that it is acceptable to mutilate children.

Every person who has participated in the "circumcision" of infants, whether they be a medical professional or not, has perpetuated the tradition of mutilation.

Every mother or father who did not protect their child from being cut when they were able has let that child become yet another victim, instead of an example.

Every person who has said Male Genital Mutilation is "not the same thing" has contributed to the environment which lets people not only condone, but advocate genital mutilation in Africa.

Every male who is angry about having his basic human rights violated and yet refuses to speak out is contributing to the silence which allows ignorance.

And every person who has been witness to somebody claiming genital mutilation in any form is a human rights violation and still couldn't be bothered to read an article and pass on a link to somebody else is guilty of maintaining that ignorance.

What can be done?
People need to be taught that proper hygiene, safe sex practices and medicine are preferable and more effective methods of controlling disease than genital mutilation. We need to start advocating the benefit of condoms and safe sex education, the dangers of rape (even for the perpetrator) and the sanctity of genital integrity for everybody.

Sadly, I think the seed has been planted already in Africa and the idea of cutting genitals to prevent AIDS will invariably result in the mutilation of more children, both boys and girls, than would otherwise be subjected to such abuse. In my opinion, the only way to convince the people in Africa that genital mutilation is wrong, is if the rest of us "civilized" societies can agree that ALL genital mutilation is wrong, be they female, male, or intersexed genitals. Every child must be protected from non-therapeutic genital surgery before any child can truly be safe. Then, when we tell Africa we were wrong to suggest it in the first place and plead for them to stop mutilating their own children, they won't simply look at us and say "Why shouldn't we, when you still do?"

Originally written 12-27-2011

Severe sexual violence and genital mutilation without consent is funny, Mkay?

I think it would be really funny to surprise a drunk sorority girl and chop off her genitals so I could fuck them later!  Haha!  Wouldn't that be hilarious!

No?

Well, before you grab the torches and pitchforks, consider this...





















I came across this image posted on a social networking site:

(image censored here due to Blogger's new content policy)

The caption:

I've heard of surprise sex, but I'm pretty sure that even the drunkest frat-boy isn't expecting THIS!!!

It's been up for almost 3 years, several people have "liked" it and not one negative comment has been left about it where it is posted.

However, there were a few supportive comments left under the picture, one of which is particularly interesting:

I think I'd want the male to feel fear and even relive the trauma every time he looked down when he peed. He'd then be afraid to pee. Well to pee is to live so eventually his shit will get backed up and his bladder will have to get cut open and everything would need to be rerouted, which would be yet another possible trauma. I'm really getting ideas here.
Goes to look for "volunteers"

Nobody else seemed to think that was especially offensive, either.

Still think that comment of mine at the beginning wasn't funny?  Yeah, me neither.  The difference is, the one about female genitals is generally recognized as "sexual violence" while the ones about male genitals are "just a joke."

All sex is rape!

So, there's this line, "women as a class are coerced into sex by society and institutional marginalization and blah, blah, blah."

And as we have heard over and over, apparently, "coercion is the same thing as rape."

Well, if "women" are "as a class" incapable of having sex without being raped, "because institutional marginalization = coercion" then wouldn't it follow that any other class of "marginalized" people are subject to the same rules? Homosexuals are "institutionally marginalized" and transgendered people are "institutionally marginalized" and black people are "institutionally marginalized" and Hispanics, Asians, Jews, even disabled and poor people are "institutionally marginalized" according to popular rhetoric, so none of them can be considered to have the proper agency to consent to sex, right?

Turns out, the only people who are actually capable of consenting to sex are rich, straight, white, cis-male, able-bodied people, but since there's nobody else to have sex with, their only option is to have sex with each other. But wait - that would be practicing homosexuality, which means they no longer fall within the narrow class of people who possess enough agency to consent to sex.

I guess if an entire class of people should be considered incapable of meaningfully consenting to sex based on some professional victim politics rhetoric, then it's inescapable that every instance of sex between any demographics should be considered rape and all people everywhere should be prohibited from participating in it.

Is it a coincidence?

On April 14, 2014 Laci Green tweeted:

is it a coincidence that the peace sign looks like a "V" and vagina starts with a "V"? i think not

I've seen/heard countless times, claims like "women are more cooperative than men" and "women are less violent than men" and "there would be no war if women ruled the world."

I have one thing to say in response to that:
About 5,800,000 results.

So, is it a coincidence that "violence" starts with a "V" and "vagina" starts with a "V"?

I happen to think it is, but if Laci Green thinks there's no coincidence between the first letter of "vagina" and the visual appearance of a peace sign, maybe I'm wrong and it's no coincidence those specific two words have the same first letter, either.

So you think you "experienced rapeculture" on the bus?

Some guy bothered you trying to get your attention and the fact that the crowd of people didn't rescue you from arguing with him means "rapeculture"?

I've seen a few rants to that effect lately and it's total bullshit.

Point #1:

People don't like to set themselves apart from the group, especially when it involves conflict or inconvenience.

How often do people go out of their way to get involved in any argument between two strangers?  How often do you?  When two people are screaming at each other about one of them taking the spot the other wanted in a parking lot, how likely is it that people are going to head away so they don't have to deal with it, rather than heading toward the noise to see if they can help?  How often do you see youtube videos where instead of stopping to help somebody getting their ass kicked, people stop to record it instead?  How often do you see people stranded on the side of the road for long periods of time while hundreds of cars pass by, simply because nobody stops to help?  Have you not heard of cases where somebody preventably died from an injury, hear attack, etc. while people were crowded around them, simply because nobody bothered to call 911?

Are people just not aware of the concept of "mob mentality" anymore?  People generally don't want to be the first person to assert themself and get involved in any case where there's a group doing nothing.  That's just the way it is with everything.  When you're yelling at somebody on a crowded bus, don't be surprised when nobody wants to stick their neck out by both asserting themself from the crowd and white-knighting for you.  It's not "rapeculture" that keeps them from doing it.  It's general human social nature.

It is the ultimate narcisism to see people not treating your issue any differently from every other issue simply because it is important to you and you interpret that as "a unique systemic form of oppression."

That's not "rapeculture." That's rape hysteria.

Point #2:

There is no guarantee that sticking your neck out for somebody else will be appreciated.

I've more than once had to put myself in danger to protect somebody and I can tell you, it's a crap shoot whether the person you're trying to help will end up being friend or foe based on your involvement.  Try to break up a fight between two people and they could both just end up fighting you, instead of each other.  There was a particular incident that stands out for me where a single guy, too drunk to stand reliably was about to get jumped by 6 larger, more coordinated guys who thought he was slinging ethnic slurs at them.  I physically had to place myself in front of him and fend off/absorb the brunt of their aggression so they didn't literally beat him to death.  After I'd called the police and they flat out refused to show up or even file a report on the incident (is that "hatecrimeculture"?) the guy who was only still breathing due to my interference on his behalf used that very breath to call me "asshole."

Put yourself first, get called "rape supporter" for not doing anything.  Put the "victim" first, maybe get called a rapist for your trouble.

That's not "rapeculture."  That's rape hysteria.

Point #3:

You were not being raped.

I know, it's super-duper scary with all the hysteria about rape these days, to have a man try to actually get your attention and -gasp- interact with you in some way.  Still, some dude bothering you on a crowded bus is not the same thing as him raping you.  Those people you think were participating in "rapeculture" probably could just see you were not in serious danger by the fact that:

a. you were sitting there arguing with him, instead of trying to get away from him
b. he was not physically attacking you
c. you were in a public setting with other people available to help if things went really bad
d. you were not asking for help from anybody else

If you want to require people to automatically rush to the aid of the damsel in (minor) distress every time some man says something she finds unpleasant, then I suggest you start a social movement to turn the clock back to before "equality" was a goal, because that's the "oppressive" way things used to be.  Men used to duel over stupid shit like "offending a lady."  If, however, you want to be taken seriously as a capable adult human, equal to men, you're going to have to "man up" and fight your own "battles" (to use the term loosely) on occasion.

Throwing a tantrum, because nobody stepped in to keep you from being talked to in a public setting isn't "equality."  That's "sense of entitlement."

And people not going out of their way to rescue you from arguing with somebody isn't "rapeculture."  The fact that you are calling it "rapeculture" is just rape hysteria.

Why Derogatory "Feminist" or "MRA" References Make My Eyes Roll

It has nothing to do with any gender bias or quixotic interpretation of the term(s) on my part, but instead due to the over-generalizing, ad-hominem nature of the argument and the accompanying argument(s), and the nonsensical direction the debate takes from there.

It's one thing to dispute the validity of an argument, or a specific claim, or a prevalent attitude or action, but to lump together and dispute the validity of an entire demographic, regardless of which demographic, isn't actually a defensible position, nor a useful strategy.  When you debate a specific point, your debate is relevant to that point.  You exchange information, logic, and rationality.  When you argue against an entire demographic and/or ideology, your debate degrades into meaningless drivel and propaganda.  You cease to be concerned with an issue and start arguing straw people and stereotypes instead.



I've seen plenty of claims like "feminists are misandrous bigots" and "women are selfish and don't care about men's issues."  You know what that gets you? NAWALT/NAFALT.  For example, the majority of participants in the local march for male genital integrity this past year were women, likely some feminists among them as well.  I can even show you several examples of women as high profile MRAs.

I've also seen plenty of claims like "MRAs are misogynists" and "men are oppressive and don't care about women's issues."  You know what that gets you?  NAMALT/NAMRAALT.  There's plenty of MRAs who have never said anything demonstrating hate of women.  There's plenty of self-identifying and very active male feminists who seem to care about little else.



And that's the end of any legitimate debate.  Every. Single. Time.
From there, it's nothing but each side trying to prove they are "less evil" somehow and the other is "more evil" somehow, because they think that will somehow provide them some sort of victory.

Get a clue.

Even if you were to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that "feminism" or "MRAs" were an evil group, it still not only allows the individual you're arguing with to deny personal association and involvement with that evilness, but it does nothing to address or refute any specific claims they've made, or convince them to change their mind about any issue, or raise awareness about anything.  All it does is get 2+ people bitching at each other about which one of them belongs to the "more bigot" demographic.  You think any normal, reasonable person is going to stick around and read 3 pages or listen to 15 minutes of that garbage before getting to the little nugget of useful information you've buried in there?  You think the person you're arguing with is going to see that nugget and change their mind about anything?  Think again.



So, what should you do when faced with a "feminist" or "MRA" then?
Focus on their arguments instead of their demographic.
Tell them how their claims are bullshit, and ignore their association.
Disprove their specific results instead of attacking their entire ideology.

If you can dispute their entire argument one piece at a time, independent of their ideology label, not only will they not be able to wiggle out of it with NAFALT/NAMRAALT, but they may actually not get so defensive that they throw up blinders and stick their fingers in their ears to avoid considering what you have to say.




In the end, what would be more valuable to your cause?

Normal people actually listening and being exposed to information, as well as opposing ideologues possibly changing their perspective...

...or just pissing off the person you disagree with as much as possible until one of you finally quits to go spout vitriol elsewhere?




That's why I roll my eyes every time somebody uses "feminist" or "MRA" as a derogatory label.  It doesn't actually have anything to do with human rights, or exposing bigotry, or honest debate, or even raising awareness about any particular issue.  It's about nothing more than animosity and an attempt at vengeance based on your own prejudice, not theirs.

Is "Gendered" Crime Really Gendered?

You hear it repeated on the news, in public service announcements, in "social justice" slogans and literature, even from random friends and aquaintances in your daily life.

"Sexual assault and domestic violence are male crimes against women."

Some people will admit when pressed that there are "a few cases" where the reverse is true, "but those are rare" right?




http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf
Table 2.1 (Page 18)
12 month prevalence of Sexual Violence - Women:
Rape:                                       1.1%        1,270,000 victims
Made to penetrate:                   not listed
Unwanted Sexual Contact:         2.2%        2,600,000 victims

Table 2.2 (Page 19)
12 month prevalence of Sexual Violence - Men: 
Rape:                                       not listed
Made to penetrate:                   1.1%        1,267,000 victims
Unwanted Sexual Contact:         2.3%        2,565,000 victims

Table 4.1 (Page 38)
12 month prevalence of IPV Physical Violence - Women: 
Physical Violence:                     4.0%        4,741,000 victims

Table 4.2 (Page 38)
12 month prevalence of IPV Physical Violence - Men: 
Physical Violence:                     4.7%        5,365,000 victims

Table 4.5 (page 42)
12 month prevalence of IPV Sexual Violence - Women
Rape:                                       0.6%        686,000 victims
Made to penetrate:                   not listed
Unwanted Sexual Contact:         0.5%        645,000 victims

Table 4.6 (page 43)
12 month prevalence of IPV Sexual Violence - Men
Rape:                                       not listed
Made to penetrate:                   0.5%        586,000 victims
Unwanted Sexual Contact:         0.9%        1,031,000 victims

Summary (Page 39)
More than 1 in 4 men in the United States (28.5%) has experienced rape, physical violence and/or stalking by an intimate partner at some point in their lifetime.


http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1022456626538
In Study 1, 25.1% of respondents reported at least one incident of nonconsensual sex with a woman and 23.9% reported attempts by women to make them engage in nonconsensual sexual activity. In Study 2, the overall prevalence rate for completed nonconsensual sexual interactions was 30.1%, and 23.5% of the men reported attempts at making them engage in nonconsensual sex.


Anderson (1998)
36.5% of respondents reported having gotten a man intoxicated to make him engage in sexual acts. Threat of force was reported by 27.8%, use of force by 20%, and threatening a man with a weapon by 8.9% of the female participants.
(sorry, I can't seem to find a convenient link for that one at the moment...anybody care to help out?)


http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/svjfry09.pdf
Sexual Victimization In Juvenile Facilities Reported By Youth, 2008-2009
Approximately 95% of all youth reporting staff sexual misconduct said they had been victimized by female staff. In 2008, 42% of staff in state juvenile facilities were female.
10.8% of males and 4.7% of females reported sexual activity with facility staff.


http://www.curvemag.com/Curve-Magazine/Web-Articles-2010/Lesbian-on-Lesbian-Rape/
Because many people define rape at penetration by a penis, woman-to-woman rape is not acknowledged or taken seriously. But in fact, it is estimated that one out of three lesbians have been sexually assaulted by another woman.


http://archive.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm06/cm06.pdf 
Child Maltreatment 2006 (Page 75)
For  FFY 2006, 57.9 percent of the perpetrators were women and 42.1 percent were men.


http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/cm11.pdf 
Child Maltreatment 2011 (Page 68)
More than one-half (53.6%) of perpetrators were women and 45.1 percent of perpetrators were men.


https://1in6.org/the-1-in-6-statistic/
Researchers have found that 1 in 6 men have experienced abusive sexual experiences before age 18. And this is probably a low estimate, since it doesn’t include noncontact experiences, which can also have lasting negative effects.


http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/110127/dq110127a-eng.htm
A similar proportion of men and women reported experiencing spousal violence during the five years prior to the survey. Among men, 6.0% or about 585,000, encountered spousal violence during this period, compared with 6.4% or 601,000 women.


http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm 
SUMMARY:  This bibliography examines 286 scholarly investigations: 221 empirical studies and 65 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners.  The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 371,600. 


http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/5/prweb10741752.htm 
The most comprehensive review of the scholarly domestic violence research literature ever conducted concludes, among other things, that women perpetrate physical and emotional abuse, and engage in control behaviors, at comparable rates to men. 


http://www.cosmopolitan.com/celebrity/news/emma-roberts-evan-peters-abuse 
According to a study done in 2000, the statistics of domestic abuse in America were 1.3 million women versus 835,000 men. A more recent study from 2011 ups the percentage: One in four men have experienced "rape, physical violence and/or stalking" by a partner, and one in seven have experienced "severe physical violence," like beaten with a fist or a blunt object. And a 32-nation study by the University of New Hampshire claims that girlfriends initiate violence equally often as boyfriends do in relationships.


http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2005.079020
Results. Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases.


http://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/newsarticle.aspx?articleid=111137
Regarding perpetration of violence, more women than men (25 percent versus 11 percent) were responsible. In fact, 71 percent of the instigators in nonreciprocal partner violence were women.


http://news.ufl.edu/archive/2006/07/women-more-likely-to-be-perpetrators-of-abuse-as-well-as-victims.html
In a survey of 2,500 students at UF and the University of South Carolina between August and December 2005, more than a quarter (29 percent) reported physically assaulting their dates and 22 percent reported being the victims of attacks during the past year. Thirty-two percent of women reported being the perpetrators of this violence, compared with 24 percent of men.

In a separate survey of 1,490 UF students, one quarter (25 percent) said they had been stalked during the past year and 7 percent reported engaging in stalking, of whom a majority (58 percent) were female.

The study also was among the first to look at psychological abuse. Examples included preventing partners from seeing family or friends, shouting at them and using threats to have sex. Fifty-four percent of respondents reported being psychologically abusive, and 52 percent said they were victims of this type of behavior. Women were more likely to be psychologically abusive, with 57 percent saying they were perpetrators versus 50 percent of males.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070625111433.htm
...it showed that nearly twice as many women as men said they perpetrated domestic violence in the past year including kicking, biting or punching their partner, threatening to hit or throw something at their partner, and pushing, grabbing or shoving their partner.


http://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2078&context=news
Men are More Likely Than Women to Be Victims in Dating Violence

...most incidents of partner violence involve violence by both the man and woman...
The second largest category was couples where the female partner was the only one to carry about physical attacks, not the male partner.

These results call into question the widely held belief that partner violence is primarily a male crime and that when women are violent it is self defense.

...overwhelming evidence that women assault their partners at about the same rate as men.
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID41E2.pdf


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1553-2712.1999.tb01207.x/pdf 
Of 866 male patients interviewed, 109 (12.6%) had been the victims of domestic violence committed by a female intimate partner within the preceding year.

...choking, kicking, biting, and punching (48.6%), or throwing an object at the victim (46.8%).

Thirty-seven percent of cases involved a weapon. Seven perent of victims described being forced to have sex.


http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10896-006-9052-0








http://time.com/37337/nearly-half-of-young-men-say-theyve-had-unwanted-sex/

Nearly Half of Young Men Say They’ve Had ‘Unwanted’ Sex

18% of surveyed guys say women used physical force to make them have sex against their will

43% of high school and college-aged men say they’ve had “unwanted sexual contact,” and 95% of those say a female acquaintance was the aggressor 

"This is not to deny the gendered impact of sexual violence..."



Are we starting to see a pattern here? 

See, the real reason you don't hear about men being raped or beaten, is not because these crimes are gendered, but because the interest in these crimes is gendered.  When it's a woman being victimized by a man, people care.  When it's the reverse, they don't.













http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/frequently-asked-questions/ucr_faqs 
For UCR reporting purposes, can a male be raped?
No. The UCR Program defines forcible rape as “The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will” (p. 19). In addition, “By definition, sexual attacks on males are excluded from the rape category and must be classified as assaults or other sex offenses depending on the nature of the crime and the extent of injury” (p. 20).
(in other words, man forcing sexual intercourse on a woman = "rape" while woman forcing sexual intercourse on a man = "assaults or other sex offenses")

That definition was updated in 2012:
http://blogs.justice.gov/main/archives/1801
The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.
(in other words, man forcing sexual intercourse on a woman = "rape" while woman forcing sexual intercourse on a man = "assaults or other sex offenses")


https://dl.dropbox.com/s/nfqxs9cxu524gk2/Koss%20-%2…
P. 206-207: Although consideration of male victims is within the scope of the legal statutes, it is important to restrict the term rape to instances where male victims were penetrated by offenders. It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman.
(in other words, man forcing sexual intercourse on a woman = "rape" while woman forcing sexual intercourse on a man = "not rape")


And going back to that CDC survey:
http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf
How NISVS Measured Sexual Violence
Five types of sexual violence were measured in NISVS. These include acts of rape (forced penetration), and types of sexual violence other than rape.

• Rape is defined as any completed or attempted unwanted vaginal (for women), oral, or anal penetration through the use of physical force...or threats to physically harm...

• Being made to penetrate someone else includes times when the victim was made to, or there was an attempt to make them, sexually penetratesomeone without the victim's consent because the victim was physically forced...or threatened with physical harm...

(in other words, man forcing sexual intercourse on a woman = "rape" while woman forcing sexual intercourse on a man = "other sexual violence")


http://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(13)70069-X/fulltext 
Introduction 
Rape, which is defined as physically forced or otherwise coerced penetration of the vulva or anus,1 violates victims' human rights and causes enduring health problems.1 Victims are often wives or girlfriends, but can also be men
(in other words, man forcing sexual intercourse on a woman = "rape" while woman forcing sexual intercourse on a man = "not rape" - of course, they didn't even bother to ask about female perpetration in that study, so maybe it's not as relevant?)


http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Womens-groups-Cancel-law-charging-women-with-rape
Until now, the law has only defined rape as an act perpetrated against a woman. Although another paragraph of the Article on sex offenses appears to indicate that the offenses could be applied to women as well as men, it has not been used against women.
(in other words, man forcing sexual intercourse on a woman = "rape" while woman forcing sexual intercourse on a man = "not rape")


http://www.saveservices.org/pdf/SAVE-Predominant_Aggressor.pdf
Back-Door Approach to Gender Profiling
Over 250 scholarly studies reveal that men and women are equally likely to initiate severe partner aggression.  In other words, about 50% of domestic violence perpetrators are female.  In contrast, over three-quarters--77%--of domestic violence arrestees are male.  The discrepancy between 50% and 77% is suggestive of bias in the enforcement of our nation's laws.


http://jezebel.com/294383/have-you-ever-beat-up-a-boyfriend-cause-uh-we-have 
With Amy Winehouse busting open a can of whupass on her husband last week, we decided to conduct an informal survey of the Jezebels to see who's gotten violent with their men. After reviewing the answers, let's just say that it'd be wise to never ever fuck with us.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/men-women-prison-sentence-length-gender-gap_n_1874742.html 
The study found that men receive sentences that are 63 percent higher, on average, than their female counterparts.
Starr also found that females arrested for a crime are also significantly more likely to avoid charges and convictions entirely, and twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted.


http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V74-gender-symmetry-with-gramham-Kevan-Method%208-.pdf


http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/2009/07/06/researcher-what-happens-when-abused-men-call-domestic-violence-hotlines-and-shelters/ 
Of the abused men who called domestic violence hotlines, 64% were told that they “only helped women.” In 32% of the cases, the abused men were referred to batterers’ programs. Another 25% were given a phone number to call that turned out to be a batterers’ program.


http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/jul/17/the-rape-of-men

 

End violence against...women?  A battered child is...the perpetrator?




So, is "gendered" crime really gendered?

Nope.

The response to it sure is, though.

Read/Listen To Things Before You Judge Them.

There's been a lot of kerfuffle lately about a lot of things having to do with "social justice" causes.

The protests of "boy's and men's issues" lectures at the University of Toronto, being a good example.  There were plenty of people holding signs and screaming chants, but how many of the protesters have actually read anything written by the people speaking before branding them "misogynists"?  How many of the protesters actually bothered to investigate the topics being presented or listen to what was being said before labelling it "hate speech"?

Or did they just hear somebody in their "women's studies" group say "misogynist" and "hate speech" and line up to oppose it?

When somebody tells you something, it doesn't mean they actually have a clue what they're talking about, or if they do, that they're being honest about it.  You need to do your own research and form your own opinion about it, based on your own investigation and rumination on the subject.

Another good example:

URGENT: Take a stand against discrimination

We expect the House to soon take up a bill that would allow any healthcare-related institutions in the state to exempt themselves from discrimination laws that currently protect gay and transgender people.

CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVE NOW & TELL THEM TO OPPOSE SB 975!

Now, please feel free to inform me where this "danger to gay and transgender people" is outlined in the actual bill as passed by the senate, because all I see is a pretty reasonable-looking outline of legal protection for doctors and nurses who have a moral or religious objection to performing specific procedures, as long as it is not a significant part of the employer's business and under non-emergency conditions only.  There's nothing about allowing anybody to discriminate against providing healthcare services to any people in there.

I'll say it again.

Read/Listen To Things Before You Judge Them.

Re: Schrodinger's Rapist

A popular piece of rhetoric lately, "Schrodinger's Rapist" is the idea that every man should be assumed to be a sexual predator and treated as if they are a threat until proven otherwise, whether they do something to reasonably warrant such treatment, or not.  Women should be wary of a man approaching them or of being alone with a man and people should be wary of a man interacting with their children, etc.

Well, let's look at this from another angle: Schrodinger's Rapist, meet Schrodinger's Mugger.



Even if we were to discount the plethora of evidence that sexual predation is not a gendered crime, is there really any question that this is simply a bigoted, hypocritical example of garbage rhetoric?

And how ironic is it that the hypothetical experiment it is based on, Schrodinger's Cat, is actually intended to demonstrate the failings of such an assumptive theoretical approach when applied to practical scenarios.

The experiment was designed to illustrate the flaws of the ‘Copenhagen interpretation’ of quantum mechanics, which states that a particle exists in all states at once until observed.

Isn't there a stereotype having something to do with "women" and "science"?  Perhaps it goes something like "every woman should be assumed to be bad at science and people should be wary of any scientific work done by women."  Doesn't seem so "enlightened" when the shoe is on the other foot, does it?

Re: If You're A Dude On The Internet, You NEED To See This Video

http://www.upworthy.com/nailed-it-if-youre-a-dude-on-the-internet-you-need-to-see-this-video

I'm going to only criticize the video itself, because the video itself and the "ill doctrine" this guy spews out is the topic and not "feminism/MRM is/isn't..." or "men/women are/aren't" etc.  Again, I'm going to be using the list of prejudices from the "What Is Prejudice?" reference page which can be found on the right up there.

Let's break this down from a non gender-fanatical perspective:

Page Title:

If You're A Dude On The Internet, You NEED To See This Video

Assuming "dude" is being used as the slang label for "male" (also supported by the context provided by the video) this is clearly separation of and targeting people by gender.

Blatant prejudice - Right in the title of the page.
UT-1,2

From the video:

Recently, she set up a kickstarter page for a new project looking at the representation of women in video games...

a whole bunch of gamer dudes decided, even though they haven't heard what her opinion is yet, that the mere idea of this woman presuming to form an opinion about them...

Well, which is it?  Is this a judgement about the representation of women in video games, or a generalization about men who play video games? (which would be UPJ-1,2,3,4,5 and UGJ-1,3,4,5 by the way)

Those are two different subjects.  A representation of a demographic and an actual demographic are not the same thing.  One of them is a generalization - a stereotypical facade, while one is made up of actual living, breathing, individual people.  One of them is frequently possible to judge as a whole, while one simply can not be without turning it into the other.  So, is she attempting to judge the representation of women in video games, or make a generalization about male gamers?  Apparently, the answer to this question is unclear at the moment.

...the private army of sexist dudes...

Gendered cooperative sexism!
Yeah, I've heard the "conspiracy" claim before and I'm still not convinced that either gender is conspiring to keep the other down, regardless of how many times it's suggested.  There is most likely some individuals from all genders involved in such things, but I have yet to see any actual evidence that there is a mass organizational effort behind any of it.
UPJ-1,2,4,5, UPR-1,2,4,5, UGJ-1,4,5 and UGR-1,3,4,5

...has only succeeded in proving her right...

Quoted again from previous:

...even though they haven't heard what her opinion is yet...

Wait - can they prove something right that hasn't been said yet, or is the ultimate conclusion this woman will reach predictable enough that they might have figured out what it will likely be, as you apparently have, and they are reacting to that?

You can't criticize others for making assumptions and then make the same assumptions yourself to criticize them again.  The rules don't change depending on which side you argue for.
UT-1,2

...raises a whole bunch of questions about why this happens so often and why so many dudes think it's OK to persecute and harass and abuse women online.

I would assume, for the same reasons that so many men think it's OK to persecute and harass and abuse other men online so often, or for the same reasons that so many women think it's OK to persecute and harass and abuse men online so often, or for the same reasons that so many women think it's OK to persecute and harass and abuse other women online so often.  Sexism doesn't exist in only one direction and bullying in general is a rainbow of different colors of hate.  Even though this incident is possibly statistically gender-weighted in this regard, he is broadening the scope to include everything by referencing how often and online in general, so it's very sexist of him to suggest that "dudes" in general are the problem, instead of certain people.
UGJ-1,2,4,5 and UGR-1,2,3,5

A lot of these dudes...will tell you...that they don't really hate women - that they just think it's funny to treat women as if they hate them...first of all, you're lying to yourself...

I'm not familiar with his psychological credentials.  Is he adequately qualified to make an assessment about the inner workings of the minds of internet bullies?
UPJ-1,2,4,5 and UGJ-1,2,4,5

Only somebody who hates women and sees them as less than human would think that's a meaningful distinction.

Again, I'm not familiar with his psychological credentials.  Is he adequately qualified to make an assessment about the inner workings of the minds of internet bullies?
UPJ-1,2,4,5 and UGJ-1,2,4,5

Also, did he observe this reaction from people actually involved in this incident, or is he projecting this reaction on to them based on different experiences he has had and his own emotional reaction to this particular incident?
UPJ-1,2,4,5 and UGJ-2,4

And I don't know what I could say that would get through to someone that is so invested in detaching from their own humanity...

The person who is dehumanizing "dudes" with condescending labels and blatantly prejudicial accusations is also claiming that those people having the same type of view of women is actually them being "invested in detaching from their own humanity?"
UT-1 and UAS-4

...so I'm just going to think about that and come back to it.

Yeah...me too.

But for now I'm just going to say to everyone else and especially my fellow dudes that when you see something like that going on, you and by "you" I mean "we" have an obligation to speak out against it more often.

UPR-1,2, UGR-1,2,3, UT-1,2 and UAS-4

However, I agree that people should call out bullshit, which is why I make statements like this as well as this.

It's really not cool for us to just shrug our shoulders...

I agree.  Apathy about prejudice is "really not cool."  That includes the blatant prejudice this guy displays, which is why I'm "speaking out against it."

And it's really not OK for you to jump into somebody's discussion of this harassment and derail it with a bunch of comments about (mocking voice ->) "well sure, harassment is bad, but men are discriminated against too. Feminists are always makin' somethin' out of nothing and bababababa."

In the case of discussing a single instance of harassment without prejudicial themes, it would be very impolite to jump in and start discussing gender issues, yes.  However, if the tone of the "harassment" discussion is as prejudiced and offensive as the accusations and mocking present in this video, you can not fault people for attempting to defend themselves against the dehumanizing and belittling intent behind it, because

...when you see something like that going on, you and by "you" I mean "we" have an obligation to speak out against it more often.

Right?

...if you need to show off your debating skills and make fetch happen with the misandry thing...

"The misandry thing?"  You mean, like, suggesting men are ignorant about gender issues, as with the title of the page?  Like, making negative generalizations about specifically male gamers, as the kickstarter project may or may not have been intended to do?  Like, suggesting that when debating possible negative generalizations about themselves, men are not allowed to use the same reasoning as the people putting them down?  Like, suggesting men are exclusively responsible for bullying?  Like, suggesting men are conspiring with each other to keep women down?  Like, suggesting that dehumanizing men with insults, prejudicial accusations and mocking is simply respecting women and that same prejudice against women is men actually dehumanizing themselves?  Like, suggesting that especially men should be responsible for protecting specifically women from exclusively male bullies?

That "misandry thing?"

Fuck referencing each one individually, just read them all:
http://jeenyusatwerk.blogspot.com/2013/07/what-is-prejudice.html

...But none of that stuff is the issue right now.  The issue right now is the bullying and abuse and harassment that she's facing...

That depends on what kind of history her statements have had so far, actually.  If she's a reasonable person, who makes rational judgments of things instead of simply throwing blame at demographics, she certainly doesn't deserve such treatment.  However, if she is as sexist as this guy, attempting to fault people for things based on what gender they are, I can totally understand why she might be harassed when asking for money to do presumably the same thing again.

...regardless of your political position on (funny face and mocking finger quotes ->) "misandry and men's rights and blablablablabla."

Condescending, much?  Men have just as much right to have rights as any other demographic.  You may not agree with some people about what those specific rights should or shouldn't be for each demographic, but the very issue of a human being having rights is not one worthy of mockery, regardless of what their genitals may look like.

This kind of abuse and harassment matters and when it happens in our corner of the internet we need to treat it like it matters.

I agree, even though you just contradicted your mocking stance on the subject of misandry.  Misandry is the same kind of abuse as misogyny, in case you weren't aware.

We need to speak up and let them know we're not impressed by how edgy and fearless they are.

Again, I agree.  Which is why I post things like this.  I know I'm likely to get harassed for it, but unless somebody can point out where I'm making prejudicial comments in response to your prejudicial comments, the haters can just fuck off.

If you are a dude on the internet and you see other dudes in your scene harassing women (or transgender people, or anyone else who's outside of our privileged little corner of the gender spectrum) we need to speak up!

Again, blatant sexism.  Those poor women (and trans and blablablablabla) need our protection!  They need to be able to say what they want without some mean ol' men being mean to them!  Seriously, The level of benevolent misogyny this guy is displaying is as disgusting as the hostile misandry.  And I hope I don't need to revisit the subject of gender privilege again for you. 

We need to add some extra humanity into our scene to counteract their detachment from their humanity.

You mean, after dehumanizing other people in online discussions, you find the "humanity" coming from others to be lacking in online discussions?  I'd never have guessed! /sarcasm

---

So really, if any of my commentary makes any prejudicial statements about any demographic, be it gender, gamer, etc. feel free to point it out.  You have a whole list of offenses to choose from.  Feel free to suggest improvements to that list there as well, as long as they're constructive and aren't simply petty attempts to be difficult, because you're pissed off, but lack the ability to argue intelligently.

However, I suspect that in order to be legitimately accused of prejudicial statements about a demographic, I would first have to make a statement about a demographic and since I believe I have debated this entire piece of crap video without making a single judgement about any person or group based on any demographic feature (including voluntary demographics, such as chosen ideology labels) this may simply prove that you can debate prejudice and piss people off plenty without also being a bigot like that guy.

---

Is this the type of "bullying" he's talking about, I wonder?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJeX6F-Q63I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGAvjwQPCHE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_O1R7Zq9EI

MRM/Feminism - two sides of the same coin?

I'm sure you've noticed that there's no shortage of people involved in either the MHRM or Feminism camps willing to label the other as "a hate group."  The truth is, both sides are guilty of derogatory, generalizing rhetoric.

Yes, the MHRM has been classified as "a hate group" by the SPLC, but it seems the integrity of the organization doing the classification and the circumstances surrounding such is controversial, at best.  The MHRM have, on the other hand, done a good job of exposing many examples of feminist hatemongering, such as the deliberately misleading domestic violence and rape data and publicity, volumes of anti-male/female-superiority rhetoric and even what's called "The Agent Orange Files" which is a compilation of plots for anti-male eugenics and social engineering by feminists even in prominent public positions.  However, they are not innocent of negative, generalizing, anti-female rhetoric, themselves.

One of their favorite lines when accused of misogyny seems to be "...but they can never give any examples!" so here's a few examples:

"Women, it is apparent now, lack an ethical sense. They are without the capacity for moral agency."

"This is why for at least several generations, a major fraction of adult females have operated with the singular self-interest and disregard for others of overgrown children."

"Men are, indeed, more intelligent and creative than women, on the whole."

"Men's Rights" and "Feminism" aren't inherently anything but a discriminatory focus, which isn't automatically a negative for anybody else.  It is the specific rhetoric and opinions often voiced by members of both which make them negative.  That's not to say that both sides don't have some good points as well, some of which I agree with, but negative generalizations about the "other" gender are why I consider both "ant-_____" instead of "pro-_____" groups.

So, are the MRM and Feminism two sides of the same coin?  I'd say yes.  One seems to be less extreme and more likely to provide references to factual data in their arguments, but both seem to have similar (albeit, polar opposite) gender ideology themes to their literature.

Re: Re: Superior?

 

If you think you can judge an entire demographic by statistical, emotional, "logical" or anecdotal evidence, you are superior to nobody, regardless of which demographic you happen to be in.

The person who created this, as well as those who perpetuate it, have never been forced to die in war.

The person who created this, as well as those who perpetuate it, lack the ambition and devotion to elevate their arguments above prejudicial attacks.

The person who created this, as well as those who perpetuate it, lack enough logical reasoning skills to understand that prejudice is still prejudice, even when it's on their side and will never actually solve anything.

The person who created this, as well as those who perpetuate it, have never ruled the world.

The person who created this, as well as those who perpetuate it, only feel the need for such hateful rhetoric due to a sense of inferiority imposed by the same types of arguments against them.

The person who created this, as well as those who perpetuate it, have not invented anything worth mentioning or that are used in daily life in the last thousand years.

The person who created this, as well as those who perpetuate it, did not create mathematics, philosophy, science, medicine, or any other important building blocks of society.

The person who created this, as well as those who perpetuate it, are only valuable as individual people, but since they seem to prefer to lump themselves into groups based on gender, etc. they make themselves essentially worthless and in the case of hatemongering, even of negative worth to humanity.

Now go reconsider whether you'd rather be thought of as a statistic or as a human being.

Re: Reproductive Rights

Really?

Let's look at birth control options available for both genders.

Women:
Abstinence
Condoms
Diaphram
Sponge
Cervical Cap
Pill
Morning After Pill
Patch
Ring
IUD
Implant
Shot
Sterilization
Abortion

Men:
Abstinence
Condoms
Sterilization

In addition to more birth control options, women also have more options after birth.

Women:
Parental Rights
Public Assistance Programs for "Mothers And Children"
"Safe Haven" Abandonment
Putting The Child Up For Adoption

Men:
?

Men (unmarried to the mother) have very little say in how or by whom a child is parented.  Family courts have a demonstrated bias in favor of mothers regarding custody.  In "Safe Haven" or adoption cases, men often do not have the option of reclaiming a child they wanted, but the mother gave away.  Men are also often pursued by the state for financial support for a child they never wanted in the first place, but it is rare for child support to be extracted from a mother when the father is the sole caregiver.

The final note on this image:

The penis demonstrated is a circumcized penis, effectively labelling even the common lack of basic genital integrity and body self-ownership for men as "having a say."

Activist Guidelines

It seems to be a popular tactic these days for "social justice" to focus on "who's to blame" and "whom to attack" and "whom we don't like" and such.  If you ask me, an entirely offensive fight does more harm than good.  It hurts people labelled as "offenders" without actually benefitting anybody.  Harming people for no real purpose is not activism, just bullying.  It's done for the same petty reasons as any other type of bullying; insecurity, jealousy, anger and hate.

So, I think it's worth making a list of simple guidelines for anybody interested in doing something worthwhile, instead of just lashing out for the sake of being nasty.  That way, people know the difference between participating in a cause and just being a bully.

First, do no harm.

Anybody who truly intends to help people isn't going to try to hurt people.  The people not in your preferred group are still people and don't deserve any less, simply because you aren't focused on them, specifically.  Trying to hurt them isn't going to help you, or the people you claim to be fighting for, or anybody else, for that matter.  All generalizing about, projecting motive upon or dehumanizing others will do is piss off everybody.  As an activist, your job is to elevate, not tear down - to advocate, not attack.

Focus on your cause.

If your focus is on "fighting the system" or "sticking it to the man" or anything of that sort, your focus is not on the people you claim to be fighting for.  Focusing on trying to attack others or convince them that they are bad people is going to make them defensive, not receptive.  Instead of slinging derogatory insults like "privileged" and "ignorant" focus on things like "disadvantage" and demonstration of the information you think they lack.

Don't be a hypocrite.

If your problem is stereotyping and/or dehumanization of a demographic, it's not going to serve your cause to stereotype or dehumanize other demographics.  If you want sympathy and serious consideration for your cause, mocking the concerns of others isn't going to get it.  If you claim to represent "truth" then ignoring or minimizing the importance of facts and sound logic presented by the other side isn't going to speak well of your integrity.

Don't hate.

This is one of the biggest pitfalls I regularly see.  Regardless of a person's demographic, status, position, association, or power, they are no less human, nor less an individual as you.  None of those things negate their experience, perspective, or potential input toward a discussion.  Making judgements about or attempting to negate their personhood is not the same as making judgements about or contradicting their arguments.  Personal/political attacks and/or dismissals are not a form of rational debate.