Why so much hatred for feminism?

[KingMerv00]

You are right King Merv...it wasn't intentional and did show bias on my part.

I would also like to say thank you for your reply and yes, after seeing that, I now consider the draft to be a non-issue.

Thank you for a constructive response.

You are welcome. Thank you for your honest admission.

 

[TheJim]

In how many states are men being forced by law to undergo (and pay for) invasive and unnecessary medical treatment before obtaining legal medical care? In how many states are men forced by law into a waiting period for no medical reason before obtaining legal medical treatment?

I agree the laws that from the anti choice crowd are repugnant. But if you want to play who is the victim card you need to come stronger then that. How many states deny men their education if they do not sign up for to be drafted? How many states do not enforce visitation? How many states make a man pay child support even if DNA shows they are not the father? How many states have a branch of the judicary that go out of their way to deny custody to a single sex? How many states strip due process for men because their foreign wife claims abuse with or without proof? I can play the poor victim card all day but it does nothing to make the world a better place. You want my support tell groups like the AAUW to stop hurting boys.

 

[KingMerv00]

Lets' say my friend is looking to buy a new house. I go with him to look at one of the houses he is considering. Then 9 months later, my friend comes to me and says, "You remember that house we looked at? Well I decided to buy that." I say, "Wow, that's great man!" And he says, "Oh by the way I put you down as a co-signer on the house even though you weren't there and had no desire to get a new house. So now you are legally obligated to help me pay for the mortgage for the next 18 years." And then I say, "Uh..."

My problem here is not with abortion. My problem here is with a woman being able to CHOOSE that a man has to pay her money for 18 years.

That analogy is pretty bad for a whole cluster of reasons. I'll repost and slightly modify an earlier post of mine:

It is an unfortunate fact of reality that women carry the entire physical cost of pregnancy and of abortion. Men legally consent to potential fatherhood at sexual intercourse because that is the final time his physical autonomy is directly affected. If fertilization occurred externally, the situation would be different. Unwilling fathers had their chance to say no and didn't.

Forcing someone to accept their responsibility as a father is the unfortunate result of protecting the women's constitutional right to physical autonomy. Being stuck in a "man trap" sucks...a lot...but if we let men have paper abortions, it allows them to coerce women into abortions by retracting financial support.

The reality is neither parent has total control over child support. Say we have a middle-class working couple and they both agree that the mother is a terrible parent and shouldn't be involved in the child's life. The father agrees to accept full custody of the child and promises not to seek child support from the mother. That contract is void becaue the state presumes financial support from both parents is in the best interest of the child.

I don't particularly want women to go to war. I don't think that should be forced into the draft or into front-line combat situations. What I am saying is that if feminism is about equality then why aren't feminists demanding that they be treated in the exact same manner that men are in regards to both voluntary and compulsory service?

I guess you wrote this before you saw my NOW link and retracted.

And lastly, the amount of research funding for the study of breast cancer is more than double that of the research for prostate cancer.

Yea, that is pretty weird. For whatever reason, some causes get tons of attention while others do not. You don't see walk-a-thons for the flu even though it kills thousands. Chalk it up to marketing.

 

[KingMerv00]

I agree the laws that from the anti choice crowd are repugnant. But if you want to play who is the victim card you need to come stronger then that. How many states deny men their education if they do not sign up for to be drafted? How many states do not enforce visitation? ... How many states have a branch of the judicary that go out of their way to deny custody to a single sex? How many states strip due process for men because their foreign wife claims abuse with or without proof? I can play the poor victim card all day but it does nothing to make the world a better place. You want my support tell groups like the AAUW to stop hurting boys.

Every time someone brings up sexism against women, someone can't help but remind us home much men are suffering. Yes, we know. Men are victims of sexism too. We don't doubt that. What does that have to do with what Bookitty said?

It is hypocritical to accuse someone of playing the victim and then complain about how much life sucks for you.

How many states make a man pay child support even if DNA shows they are not the father?

I just wanted to highlight this because of how awful it is. It does happen and it is complete and utter ******** the courts haven't corrected it yet.

 

[TheJim]

Fair enough, but do you have a problem with the NCJRS survey I just posted?

No need to assume anything. The questions are right there in the RAINN link. They are A LOT better than the questions you describe:

The following questions were used to screen respondents for rape victimization:​

​

​

1. [Female respondents only] Has a man or boy ever made you have sex by using force or threatening to harm you or someone close to you? Just so there is no mistake, by sex we mean putting a penis in your vagina.​

2. Has anyone, male or female, ever made you have oral sex by using force or threat of force? Just so there is no mistake, by oral sex we mean that a man or boy put his penis in your mouth or someone, male or female, penetrated your vagina or anus with their mouth.​

3. Has anyone ever made you have anal sex by using force or threat of harm? Just so there is no mistake, by anal sex we mean that a man or boy put his penis in your anus.​

4. Has anyone, male or female, ever put fingers or objects in your vagina or anus against your will or by using force or threats?​

5. Has anyone, male or female, ever attempted to make you have vaginal, oral, or anal sex against your will, but intercourse or penetration did not occur?​

Do you have any objections?

I put these together since they are related. Yes I have a huge objection to it I don't believe its possible to get those numbers from these questions. The reason I say this is every survey that gets the 14 percent number has used the drunk question to get the number that high. If this is the honest number the got I am assuming its an outlier because again every other survey on the issue comes no where close to this number using only these types of questions. Reading it they said screening questions that is also why I don't believe this was all that was asked.

True. On the other hand, I'm sure you'd agree that if you are drunk enough, drugged, or unconscious, you are unable to consent to anything let alone sex.

I am going to answer this legally not by what I think is rakish behavior.

Basically you have to be thisclose to passing out to be too drunk to consent. Drugging someone is just not common if the British hospotial study that looked at women that claimed to have been drugged but found only a high BAC applies to the US and until I see something different I will assume it does.

In other words I don't think in reality that the real number of rapes coming from this group is anything more then the margins.

Out of morbid curiousity, do you have a a link to that survey and the one you quoted above?

Which ones are you looking for?

Those numbers are based on reported cases of rape only. It says:

...the estimates of rape/sexual assault are based on a small number of cases reported to the survey.​

"Small number" is unhelpfully vague but it does mean they understand the limitation of their numbers. The RAINN link I gave you includes unreported rape and attempted rape over a lifetime. I imagine a big portion of the gap may be caused by childhood parental abuse since kids are far less likely to go to the police than adults.​

The childhood number ones in general ask worse questions than these. I have seen ones that if your aunt kissed you on the cheek against your will at 4 you are marked down as a victim of sexual assualt.

The BJS is not the reported crimes but a household survey of those 12 and up and includes both reported and unreported crimes. The disclaimer there is about the number in the subpopulation that where there is not a large enough sample size to give credence to such a large swing in percentage increase or decrease in crime for that specific sub population.

 

[TheJim]

Every time someone brings up sexism against women, someone can't help but remind us home much men are suffering. Yes, we know. Men are victims of sexism too. We don't doubt that. What does that have to do with what Bookitty said?

I brought it up because this was in direct response to one of my posts on the subject. Since my first post on the subject on why someone would hate feminism included feminist claim to care about issues men deal with but actively work against it I found these to be a relevant response. Even the post she directly responded too was me talking about how feminism is big tent when it is convenient which includeds said caring about males and male issues but goes small tent when it likes too.

I just wanted to highlight this because of how awful it is. It does happen and it is complete and utter ******** the courts haven't corrected it yet.

The worse case of this I have seen was this case in PA. Women claimed some random guy was the father. The guy never met her before, only went to her home town once in his life. The real biological father has full custudy and she of course does not pay her child support. And even with all of this he is paying the mother.

 

[KingMerv00]

I brought it up because this was in direct response to one of my posts on the subject. Since my first post on the subject on why someone would hate feminism included feminist claim to care about issues men deal with but actively work against it I found these to be a relevant response. Even the post she directly responded too was me talking about how feminism is big tent when it is convenient which includeds said caring about males and male issues but goes small tent when it likes too.

It's frustrating. I've just told you that I DO care and I'm NOT fighting against you but I suspect you will leave this thread and continue to say things like "feminists don't care about male problems". How many times do you have to hear it before you stop lumping all feminists into one pile? At the very least, take care to add a caveat when you insult a large group of people.

The worse case of this I have seen was this case in PA. Women claimed some random guy was the father. The guy never met her before, only went to her home town once in his life. The real biological father has full custudy and she of course does not pay her child support. And even with all of this he is paying the mother.

You sure that accurate? I thought the problem came up because some courts have an irrebuttable presumption that husbands always father their wife's children. That presumption doesn't exist if they aren't married.

 

[bookitty]

I brought it up because this was in direct response to one of my posts on the subject. Since my first post on the subject on why someone would hate feminism included feminist claim to care about issues men deal with but actively work against it I found these to be a relevant response. Even the post she directly responded too was me talking about how feminism is big tent when it is convenient which includeds said caring about males and male issues but goes small tent when it likes too.





The worse case of this I have seen was this case in PA. Women claimed some random guy was the father. The guy never met her before, only went to her home town once in his life. The real biological father has full custudy and she of course does not pay her child support. And even with all of this he is paying the mother.

Caring about one issue does not negate the rest. I am (and have always been) an outspoken and informed advocate of and activist for father's rights.

The way that fathers are treated by our court system is wrong. That does not make the war on abortion, birth control, and health care better or worse. You said:

I mean really at this point its an extreme fringe belief that women should not be treated the same under the law

I answered with proof that women are being treated differently under the law. This is not a fringe belief. This is one of the main talking points of the GOP party in the US. There were over 1000 new pieces of legislation against abortion and birth control introduced last year alone. Without access to birth control and abortion, women have no bodily autonomy and a no chance at personal freedom.

ETA: Access to birth control and abortion and the attitudes that allow government intervention in private medical care affect all women. The horrific abuses of the court system do not affect all men. It does not affect men who are with their child's mother, it does not affect men who come to a reasonable custody agreement, it does not affect men who are childless.

 

[truethat]

bookitty there is no way in hell they are outlawing abortion. To suggest otherwise is dishonest. You often post things like this without backing it up with evidence. What laws are being put forward about a "Woman's body" that are likely to change any time soon?

The fringe can always push laws through, it doesn't mean they get passed. By continuing to pretend that the fringe issues are a pressing threat to female freedom and so that's why you don't care really so much about men's issues is also dishonest.


For example men are forced to pay child care for children that are not theirs, women can force a man NOW to pay for a child he does not want. Etc etc etc. That's REALLY happening, but no let's focus on a fringe law that's not really going to impact a woman's right to have an abortion. And let's pretend this affects ALL women. No it doesn't. I would never have an abortion and many other women I know would never have an abortion. So you are once again lying.

This is another thing that annoys people about feminists.

 

[psionl0]

In any nominally free society, there is power stratification. We expect to find some people are powerful and wealthy and others are poor and weak. That is the price we pay for living in a country that donesn't have state thought police. To test whether or not the society is egalitarian, we take arbitrary factors like race or gender and see where they fall on that strata. If everything were equal, we'd see women distributed in the same way as men. But the results say men on average have more wealth, governmental representation and business power. This is a bad thing and we need to do something about it.

Why?

 

[Wildy]

No need to assume anything. The questions are right there in the RAINN link. They are A LOT better than the questions you describe:

The following questions were used to screen respondents for rape victimization:​

1. [Female respondents only] Has a man or boy ever made you have sex by using force or threatening to harm you or someone close to you? Just so there is no mistake, by sex we mean putting a penis in your vagina.​

2. Has anyone, male or female, ever made you have oral sex by using force or threat of force? Just so there is no mistake, by oral sex we mean that a man or boy put his penis in your mouth or someone, male or female, penetrated your vagina or anus with their mouth.​

3. Has anyone ever made you have anal sex by using force or threat of harm? Just so there is no mistake, by anal sex we mean that a man or boy put his penis in your anus.​

4. Has anyone, male or female, ever put fingers or objects in your vagina or anus against your will or by using force or threats?​

5. Has anyone, male or female, ever attempted to make you have vaginal, oral, or anal sex against your will, but intercourse or penetration did not occur?​

Do you have any objections?

Reading these questions makes me think that the questions give bias results when it comes to male victimisation. Basically these questions, coupled with their definition of what rape is would mean that certain situations of female on male rape, such as a woman forcing a man to penetrate her, don't count as rape.

 

[KingMerv00]

Why?

I responded to a post of yours earlier in the thread and you never got around to writing back. I'd appreciate it if you did before I start on something new.

 

[KingMerv00]

Reading these questions makes me think that the questions give bias results when it comes to male victimisation. Basically these questions, coupled with their definition of what rape is would mean that certain situations of female on male rape, such as a woman forcing a man to penetrate her, don't count as rape.

Agreed.

 

[Supernaut]

Is there a difference between 'hatred' and anger?

Can anyone define the two words for me?

'Hatred', or more usually (and grammatically incorrectly) 'hate' is used everywhere, not least in legislation against absurdly named "hate crimes".

 

[KingMerv00]

Can anyone define the two words for me?

'Hatred', or more usually (and grammatically incorrectly) 'hate' is used everywhere, not least in legislation against absurdly named "hate crimes".

I'm no authority but I see hatred as a more irrational, personal, and intense form of anger.

Why?

 

[crimresearch]

It's frustrating. I've just told you that I DO care and I'm NOT fighting against you but I suspect you will leave this thread and continue to say things like "feminists don't care about male problems". How many times do you have to hear it before you stop lumping all feminists into one pile? At the very least, take care to add a caveat when you insult a large group of people.



You sure that accurate? I thought the problem came up because some courts have an irrebuttable presumption that husbands always father their wife's children. That presumption doesn't exist if they aren't married.

The presumption in court is that the child matters, not the DNA of the person paying support.

This has led to cases where husbands paid for children not their own, and where men paid for children when they were neither father, nor husband. The presumption usually has to be rebutted within a short period of time.

None of which would make the PA case as described an example of extremist feminism, even if the child was a girl.

 

[KingMerv00]

I put these together since they are related. Yes I have a huge objection to it I don't believe its possible to get those numbers from these questions. The reason I say this is every survey that gets the 14 percent number has used the drunk question to get the number that high. If this is the honest number the got I am assuming its an outlier because again every other survey on the issue comes no where close to this number using only these types of questions.

You need to justify these claims. I didn't expect you to take RAINN's numbers for granted, so I posted the survey. In return fairness, you can't expect me to take your word for it on other surveys. You keep using facts not in evidence. Saying this like "this one survey I heard about/remember about..." isn't helpful to anyone. For all you know, you heard or remember incorrectly.

Reading it they said screening questions that is also why I don't believe this was all that was asked.

Again you are assuming facts not in evidence to slant the results in your favor. They do mention follow up questions but only in reference to the impact of violence, not its type.

Even if I grant you your point (I don't), it doesn't help your case. The questions I cited are pretty explicit regarding the threat or use of force and if anything screen against cases of drunken intercourse.

I am going to answer this legally not by what I think is rakish behavior.

Basically you have to be thisclose to passing out to be too drunk to consent.

The definition of "this close" since it is highly subjective but I don't want to debate it. I hate semantics.

Drugging someone is just not common if the British hospotial study that looked at women that claimed to have been drugged but found only a high BAC applies to the US and until I see something different I will assume it does.

I don't doubt drugging is relatively uncommon. I'd be interested in that study if you have it.

Which ones are you looking for?

The ones you cut and pasted those questions from would be acceptable.

The childhood number ones in general ask worse questions than these. I have seen ones that if your aunt kissed you on the cheek against your will at 4 you are marked down as a victim of sexual assualt.

Facts not in evidence.

The BJS is not the reported crimes but a household survey of those 12 and up and includes both reported and unreported crimes. The disclaimer there is about the number in the subpopulation that where there is not a large enough sample size to give credence to such a large swing in percentage increase or decrease in crime for that specific sub population.

You are right. Sorry. I misunderstood the use of the term "reported" to mean "reported to police" instead of "reported to the survey".

If I'm understanding the BJS survey correctly (fat chance), my biggest complaint is that it selects a household and performs personal interviews with everyone over the age of 12. If you personally interview a 12-17 year old, they aren't particularly likely to give honest answers to a total stranger, especially if the perp is a parent who may be within earshot. Furthermore, the parents have legal authority over the child and can exclude them from the survey. In some cases, it says they can answer FOR them by proxy. The survey from my link corrects for that since it is a randomized phone interview with people over the age of 18. Presumably, people over the age of 18 are more willing and able to discuss incidents of childhood rape now that they are independent adults.

BJS doesn't list its questions. Hard to analyze their data if their methodology isn't more transparent.

In fairness, the 1 in 6 number is probably a bit high since it was from 1998 when the violent crime rate was higher.

 

[KingMerv00]

The presumption in court is that the child matters, not the DNA of the person paying support.

They both matter. The child certainly deserves support but who pays support should be based on logic and fairness.

I don't mind the court assuming the husband is the father. To do otherwise would force the mother to prove she hasn't had an affair which is practically impossible. On the other hand, if the husband can scientifically show that the father is someone else, there is no rational reason why he should pay while the other guy avoids responsibilty.

None of which would make the PA case as described an example of extremist feminism, even if the child was a girl.

He didn't cite it as an example of feminism per se, he cited it to "show" feminists don't care about male problems. He is wrong of course. Talking about abortion rights no more shows a lack of care for men than talking about unfair child support shows a lack of care for women.

 

[crimresearch]

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/

 

[crimresearch]

They both matter. The child certainly deserves support but who pays support should be based on logic and fairness.

I don't mind the court assuming the husband is the father. To do otherwise would force the mother to prove she hasn't had an affair which is practically impossible. On the other hand, if the husband can scientifically show that the father is someone else, there is no rational reason why he should pay while the other guy avoids responsibilty.



He didn't cite it as an example of feminism per se, he cited it to "show" feminists don't care about male problems. He is wrong of course. Talking about abortion rights no more shows a lack of care for men than talking about unfair child support shows a lack of care for women.

Logic and fairness are sometimes mutually exclusive.