It's always "them" isn't it....
TERFs crash London Pride
- Thread starter Information Analyst
- Start date
It's always "them" isn't it....
3point14
Pi
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Messages
- 23,108
Last edited:
Rolfe
Adult human female
Completely content-free and pointless post. You could say exactly the same to all the trans supporters railing about the evils of TERFs.
I can give one very obvious answer: There are virtually no resources for male victims, especially of female perpetrators.
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2008
- Messages
- 8,449
Good point. If feminists are clamoring for equality, they certainly could help bring public awareness to the silent suffering of some men. Or prostate cancer or male breast cancer.
But, hey if you're a man and you advocate for equal access to healthcare or mens' violence shelters, you're immediately labeled as a MRA and then denigrate you, mock you and continue to act as if it either doesn't happen or no matter which category one can choose, it's always worse for women.
Count on it.
Same thing for trans people. TERFs do everything they can to continue dividing the category not between cis and trans but men and women in order to continue playing the victim and they can feel like they're "punching up" (to the horrible men and the patricarchy) rather than what they're really doing which is "punch down" on the trans community.
Last edited:
I'm often too lazy to edit in quote tags so I put off these long responses and forget about the thread entirely for a day or two, so here it is...
Ok I'm not going to concede that this is at all a reasonable metric for privilege. That figure doesn't take into account any of the most basic considerations (job, hours, etc.) so it's a joke to me that you would even present this as evidence of privilege when I already conceded much more than I reasonably should have (that the gap for same hours, job, etc. is SOLELY due to discrimination).
Yes, women work less hours than men, take jobs more often for comfort than pay (risk factors and schedule flexibility) and don't have a drive to be higher earning like men do (since women are hypergamous and men are not).
That may be true. More importantly, it says nothing about who benefits/suffers the most for middle or lower classes. I think on most metrics it's even or worse for men, despite the mainstream narrative. Hell, I don't even try to make that point because I don't think arguing "X has it worse" is often a useful discussion. My point is that if "X has it worse", it's not so significantly better or worse than the other that we should consider one group "privileged" and the other "oppressed"
Were men's groups?
Remember, being a stay-at-home mom is virtually always a choice (abortion, abstinence, contraceptives, adoption, opting to be THE stay-at-home parent).
BTW, in a couple, who do you think has more control over the two factors:
1) Whether or not to have a child and keep it
2) Whether or not they get to be the stay-at-home parent or the bread-winner (or both/mixture)
I think the obvious answer is "women do", and that we all know this.
Pointing to women EARNING less money on average (globally!) and saying that this means they have to rely on begging is really gross.
I have no idea what the answer to your last question is.
I disagree
Ok I'm not going to concede that this is at all a reasonable metric for privilege. That figure doesn't take into account any of the most basic considerations (job, hours, etc.) so it's a joke to me that you would even present this as evidence of privilege when I already conceded much more than I reasonably should have (that the gap for same hours, job, etc. is SOLELY due to discrimination).
Yes, women work less hours than men, take jobs more often for comfort than pay (risk factors and schedule flexibility) and don't have a drive to be higher earning like men do (since women are hypergamous and men are not).
That may be true. More importantly, it says nothing about who benefits/suffers the most for middle or lower classes. I think on most metrics it's even or worse for men, despite the mainstream narrative. Hell, I don't even try to make that point because I don't think arguing "X has it worse" is often a useful discussion. My point is that if "X has it worse", it's not so significantly better or worse than the other that we should consider one group "privileged" and the other "oppressed"
UK women's groups weren't even consulted on the proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act, changes which will impact women negatively.
Were men's groups?
If you honestly have no awareness at all I will provide a list, but I am curious since you're a feminist if you can list any yourself. I've honestly mentioned some already but please do provide what you think are some real female privileges, or respond "none" if you can't think of anything.
Unpaid? I think that's what the person who goes out and works does. PAYS the bills, while the stat-at-home parent does the house-keeping and takes cares of many aspects of parenting. Do you honestly think stay-at-home parents deserve a paycheck? Who should pay this?
Remember, being a stay-at-home mom is virtually always a choice (abortion, abstinence, contraceptives, adoption, opting to be THE stay-at-home parent).
BTW, in a couple, who do you think has more control over the two factors:
1) Whether or not to have a child and keep it
2) Whether or not they get to be the stay-at-home parent or the bread-winner (or both/mixture)
I think the obvious answer is "women do", and that we all know this.
As if women are completely without money lol. Guess what: The majority of homeless are men. The majority of charity work is gender-neutral or specific to women.
Pointing to women EARNING less money on average (globally!) and saying that this means they have to rely on begging is really gross.
Sure. I think we disagree on this then.
Well of course that's where the entire debate lies... so according to who?
I think this is merely a coincidence, because men don't seem to complain about having their spaces invaded by women as much as women do (as far as "mens' spaces" exist, anyway)
True, but also almost no groups consider themselves MRAs because it's a fairly universally demonized label for those who have even heard of it (even among anti-feminists).
Ok. Do girls deal with those logistics out in the open? I assume most deal with it in a closed stall, like they deal with defecating or urinating. I hardly see a difference, here.
I have no idea what the answer to your last question is.
Then men should campaign for shelters for male victims, just like women had to for female victims.
However, the main concern is that violent male perpetrators, rather than male victims, will be able to gain access to women's shelters by legally pretending to be women.
Help for male victims of domestic abuse in the UK: http://www.mankind.org.uk/
Help for male rape survivors in the UK: https://rapecrisis.org.uk/supportformenboys.php
Last edited:
Britain's first transgender students officer suspended for, apparently, flashing his girl dick:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...al-transgender-student-officer-suspended.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...al-transgender-student-officer-suspended.html
Yes. The work is hard, often tedious and has very long hours. Why shouldn't it be paid?
...in your comfortable, male, First-World bubble.
Why do you think so many women have to sell their bodies? By choice?
Scientists
LOL. The world is full of men-only spaces.
Do you not think there is a reason why some men don't complain about women invading their spaces?
Man Friday's experiences suggest men can be very sensitive to having women in their spaces
Women and girls may need to wash blood off their clothes, or off themselves, in the sinks.
Men don't menstruate.
That's telling..
Last edited:
Who should pay for this? This isn't a question that can just remain unanswered.
The children? After all, they're the ones being taken care of. The breadwinner? They ALREADY ARE.
(also you didn't give a list or even tell me if you;re aware of any female privileges. I'm still very curious about that since feminists often claim to be unaware of their existence)
LOL. You mean "in my first-world bubble". Not "male". Men have less choice of paternity than women do for maternity at every single stage (before conception up to and including post-conception).
Of course, we're mostly talking about the first world in these conversations, aren't we? Either way, women still have more choice for these things outside of the first world as well, even if they have less options than in the first world.
That doesn't seem to be an answer to my question of who has more choice. I'd like to hear your answer.
That said, "selling one's body" is an example of female privilege. Men don't have that option.
Scientists decide what a "women-only space" is? Since when?
Enlighten me
I think women are less paranoid and have been brought up being taught that such spaces shouldn't even exist. I think men might even be more welcoming in such situations (inviting the other sex into their spaces) in general but I'm not sure where these spaces are other than bathrooms.
"Friday's experiences"? Not sure what this means.
fair enough
What does it tell you?
Is there a concern for violent female predators who already have access to such shelters because they are biological females? After all, the majority of domestic violence is reciprocal which means that more often than not, said victims are ALSO perpetrators themselves.
But ya it's always "men need to do their own activism for once" but it's also "feminism is for equality and if you're not feminist you're against equality" and when you ask if/when feminist organizations will help out you'll be told
1) "no whataboutism"
2) "we'll get to it after women's problems are solved"
3) "men don't have this problem" (see White Ribbon for an example of a feminist organization that misrepresents domestic violence as being solely male perpetration and almost entirely female victimhood aka the duluth model)
4) "why don't MRAs ever 'do anything' "
Of course, I don't think it's that "men" should campaign for mens' shelters, and "women" for womens' shelters. I think both sexes should do both. Sadly, almost no one cares about male victims and of the few who do, they receive little to 0 funding.
See:
1) Earl Silverman's suicide letter. NSFL
2) CAFE as an example of a successfully funded venture. We'll see if the government will pay attention after this but I'm skeptical given their history of lack of support.
Part of Earl's suicide note:
edit: I honestly find it disgusting when someone says "X group needs to do the lobbying for X's issues". It betrays a lack of compassion and also puts a focus on us other-ing one another.
Last edited:
Really? I could swear that there's no shortage of (usually) young men willing to be paid for sex...
First, what is the size of the problem? Second, what’s stopping the men campaigning for resources, the way women have had to?
Most breast cancer campaigns I’ve seen mention that men are susceptible too. There are plenty of awareness campaigns for male-specific cancers; I don’t feel discriminated against that there are also campaigns to raise money for breast cancer or cervical cancer research.
You’re joking, right? You might not have the option of selling to whom you might like to, nor for as much as you’d like, but that applies to women, too.
Yeah there's no market for hot young men. All those old middle age men (and some women too) salivating over their tight and smooth naked bodies would of course not be willing to pay them for sex.
The size of the problem is "as big of a problem as it is for women" since men and women are both perpetrators and victims at similar rates. In some ways it is worse for women (more likely to die) and others it's worse for men (more likely to be arrested when calling the cops even though they're the victim <- something that at least in the US stays on your record forever even if no charges ever hold). However, since men have almost no resources (for themselves or their children) it is much much worse for men, at present.***
I'm not joking. Selling your body isn't the same as being a victim. It's a means of making money and it's a method that is basically exclusive to (mostly just attractive) women. But that's hardly relevant. Somehow this was brought up as some counterpoint to my point that men are more likely to be homeless and have less government resources put their way.
It was a reply to my comment below:
How that is relevant I don't know. JihadJane brought up a way that women have to make money that is more accessible than it is for men. Not a counterpoint, but some kind of emotional appeal based on presumed exploitation of women.
edit:*** and I already addressed this. It shouldn't be up to "men" to campaign for 50% of domestic violence victims. But what's stopping them? Well every other domestic violence lobby that paints the problem as being strictly male-perpetrated and mostly consisting of female victims. They call it "gendered violence" and this permeates the universities, political sphere and the justice system. They do this by misrepresenting the statistics and have been doing so for literally decades. See White Ribbon.
Last edited:
1) There is less demand (total) for prostitutes from women than from men
2) Most women are straight, and most men are straight (>95%)
Therefore, there is way less demand for male prostitutes (and strippers, porn stars) than there are for female porn stars.
The fact that they have to also be attractive is basically irrelevant to the difference, though I bet on average a woman is considered "attractive enough" more often than a man is, which only skews it further.
So basically the option of selling your body is:
an attractive-person privilege that is nearly exclusive to women.
I should note that surveys have consistently shown that Swedish male youths report that they have experiences selling sex or sexual services either to the same degree as their female counterparts or even higher.
This alone shows that "male prostitution" isn't some completely negligible phenomenon. The problem here is that even those that are positive towards gay rights tend to keep the "gay community" at arms length, effectively making male prostitutes invisible. Note that wheter they themselves are homosexual or not their clients are mostly gay or bisexual men.
This alone shows that "male prostitution" isn't some completely negligible phenomenon. The problem here is that even those that are positive towards gay rights tend to keep the "gay community" at arms length, effectively making male prostitutes invisible. Note that wheter they themselves are homosexual or not their clients are mostly gay or bisexual men.