ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 15th April 2019, 05:43 AM   #521
SuburbanTurkey
Graduate Poster
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 1,854
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
Seems an odd position to take

Personally want women to succeed and men.

The men side points out somethings they are currently ugly for men,

suicide, assault, child custody etc.

Feminists seem to be offended.

Just find it odd.

Supporting peoples rights aren't mutually exclusive via biological sex
There are many MRA issues that I would support, but I disagree with the general MRA view that feminism is the source of the problem.

Sure, there is a radical wing of feminism that might oppose advocating for men's issues. This should not be conflated with the entirety of the feminist movement, which has been a massive boon for free societies.

MRA's might find making alliances with the broader feminist community if they did more to distant themselves from the misogyny and nastiness present in the greater "manosphere". There is a vibrant regressive wing of the MRA movement that, in my opinion, the moderate elements have not done enough to distance itself from. Red-pillers, PUA's, MGTOW are all reprehensible trash.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2019, 06:39 AM   #522
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,618
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
There are many MRA issues that I would support, but I disagree with the general MRA view that feminism is the source of the problem.

Sure, there is a radical wing of feminism that might oppose advocating for men's issues. This should not be conflated with the entirety of the feminist movement, which has been a massive boon for free societies.

MRA's might find making alliances with the broader feminist community if they did more to distant themselves from the misogyny and nastiness present in the greater "manosphere". There is a vibrant regressive wing of the MRA movement that, in my opinion, the moderate elements have not done enough to distance itself from. Red-pillers, PUA's, MGTOW are all reprehensible trash.
The more I read the less I'm enthused about painting all MGTOW with the same brush as the other two groups you listed. There's a lot of overlap and a fair amount of toxicity in some MGTOW but I think a fair amount of them are hurt and or scared and unlike some other groups like incels, are retreating rather than lashing out. So I may think they're wrong about some core things I but I can't demonize them.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2019, 07:29 AM   #523
SuburbanTurkey
Graduate Poster
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 1,854
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
The more I read the less I'm enthused about painting all MGTOW with the same brush as the other two groups you listed. There's a lot of overlap and a fair amount of toxicity in some MGTOW but I think a fair amount of them are hurt and or scared and unlike some other groups like incels, are retreating rather than lashing out. So I may think they're wrong about some core things I but I can't demonize them.
The overlap is the problem. Given the largely online, leaderless nature of these "movements", there's no meaningful way to self police against the nastier elements.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2019, 07:48 AM   #524
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,618
Originally Posted by Stout View Post
Interesting, it looks like we have NO shelters for men fleeing domestic violence anywhere in Canada. We've got a few counseling centers which feminists appear to hate.
I wanted to come back to this post because I think it highlights one of the major dynamics going on between MRAs and Feminists.

Stout, I hope you don't mind if I try to paraphrase the sentiment behind part of this post. Please feel free to correct me if I've misrepresented you.

Originally Posted by MRAs
Feminists are terrible! They're opposing this thing that's trying to help men!
But when we dig a little deeper (by clicking Stout's link) we find that the feminists in question don't have a problem with counseling for men per se. They have an issue with counseling centers run by a group which is vocally anti-feminism.

There are other issues between the two groups, but an awful lot of it seems to boil down to: MRAs hate/oppose feminists because feminists oppose the MRW and feminists hate/oppose MRAs because MRAs oppose feminism.

I'm sure people from either perspective could make an argument for who started it, or who is the worse offender, but on the balance this enmity is self-fullfilling and circular.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2019, 07:50 AM   #525
TomB
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 605
Originally Posted by pharphis View Post
That doesn't mean that women have something more to worry about. That means that women are more worried about something that they are less likely to be victims of. You can chalk that up to men being reckless/brave/whatever or to women being paranoid/uninformed/whatever.

Are rapes in parking lots anywhere near 1/100th as common as a male being physically attacked? I'm going to guess no.
Point missed.

The fear of sexual assault, while rarer than assault, is an additional danger that women need to be concerned about to a greater extent than men. The fact that other forms of assault are more common is not a reason to dismiss the concern.

And because it is an issue that concerns women more than men, it seems like it would be appropriate for feminists to be concerned about it.

Quote:
There seems to be a habit of dismissing men's problems because some of these are due primarily to a subset of other men's behavior. (in this case stranger violence being mostly male on male). What you've pointed out is in no way a rebuttal to the problem existing. It is instead a common framing technique to somehow blame men (in general) for a problem caused by a tiny subset of men (which make up the majority of violent attackers).

If you don't understand why this framing is problematic or insensitive, consider revisiting the sentence "most black victims are victims of OTHER blacks" which is commonly a derail tactic from addressing some race issues.
You misunderstand (again). I'm not dismissing the violence against men issue, and it's dishonest to suggest that's the case.

We are talking about violence in the context of gender. Sexual assault is an issue that is primarily (but not exclusively) committed by one sex upon the other. Domestic violence is debatable, but is primarily seen as women being victims because of the disproportionate injuries. Both those issues its appropriate for a female advocacy movement to target as affecting their constituency disproportionately.

Bringing up the fact that men are more likely to be victims of violence is "what-about-ism." It's a separate issue. The fact that feminists do not address that particular issue does not mean it's ignored.

Look at ait this way: A common derail when talking about male violence against women is to bring up the point that men are overall more likely to be victims of violence that doesn't involve women.

They are't the same issue.
TomB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2019, 07:57 AM   #526
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,618
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
The overlap is the problem. Given the largely online, leaderless nature of these "movements", there's no meaningful way to self police against the nastier elements.
But feminism is also leaderless. In fact it's probably more leaderless, since things like MGTOW are small enough that there are a finite number of influential voices and factions.

I don't like to let the uglier sides of things that are not necessarily ugly define the wider group of people. My Muslim neighbor can't police someone with a suicide vest in Syria. My feminist friend can't police a Valerie Solanas fangirl sending death threats to a men's shelter. A man going his own way can't police some other man whose own way involves a lot of misogyny.

I get that we can't always goggle at the complexity of human individuality and sometimes we need to judge a tree by its fruit. But in this particular case, I think we can chalk up the toxicity to the proximity to those other groups.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2019, 08:40 AM   #527
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 84,462
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
Custody courts for a start.
How so?

Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
Practically everybody from what I can see.
But again, not because women's role is taking care of kids, but because, presumably, men are just not good for that.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2019, 08:55 AM   #528
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,618
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
But again, not because women's role is taking care of kids, but because, presumably, men are just not good for that.
What makes you presume that's the case?

Show your work!
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2019, 09:06 AM   #529
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 84,462
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
What makes you presume that's the case?
I'm not presuming anything. It fits a larger pattern of assumptions about men, even though the numbers don't support them. And there is no need to two explanations for how courts handle custody cases.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2019, 09:06 AM   #530
Georgio
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 634
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
I'm sure people from either perspective could make an argument for who started it, or who is the worse offender, but on the balance this enmity is self-fullfilling and circular.
Sorry, but this makes me really angry. You are looking at a completely innocent party and a guilty party and saying, 'We can talk all day about who is the worse offender'.

Find me one, singular, solitary example of an MRA individual or group attempting to shut down a feminist meeting, organisation or endeavour. One.

I can find you literally dozens of feminist groups shouting, screaming, threatening, pulling fire alarms, blocking entrances and otherwise 'protesting' men's rights groups even meeting in a room to discuss men's issues.
__________________
Violence is a weakness, not a strength. - Sylvester McCoy
Georgio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2019, 09:12 AM   #531
Georgio
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 634
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
I get that we can't always goggle at the complexity of human individuality and sometimes we need to judge a tree by its fruit. But in this particular case, I think we can chalk up the toxicity to the proximity to those other groups.
Doesn't matter, apparently. The men's rights movement has to distance itself from groups that actively oppose it to make up for the laziness and bias of people who refuse to research the groups but also want to retain an all encompassing opinion on them

We can't blame feminism or feminists for damaging feminist doctrine and ideology; we can't criticise that doctrine or ideology because, although we are allowed to talk about men's issues we can only do so without criticising feminism, but we can blame the men's rights movement for not doing enough to distance itself from things that actively oppose it but that we have assumed are part of it.

What do you do in the face of this kind of 'thinking'?
__________________
Violence is a weakness, not a strength. - Sylvester McCoy
Georgio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2019, 09:18 AM   #532
pharphis
Master Poster
 
pharphis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,025
Originally Posted by Georgio View Post
Doesn't matter, apparently. The men's rights movement has to distance itself from groups that actively oppose it to make up for the laziness and bias of people who refuse to research the groups but also want to retain an all encompassing opinion on them

We can't blame feminism or feminists for damaging feminist doctrine and ideology; we can't criticise that doctrine or ideology because, although we are allowed to talk about men's issues we can only do so without criticising feminism, but we can blame the men's rights movement for not doing enough to distance itself from things that actively oppose it but that we have assumed are part of it.

What do you do in the face of this kind of 'thinking'?
I'm confused about who you are referring to as "actively opposing the MRM" that are presumed to be part of it. Are you talking about other manosphere elements?

If so, I don't think any of them necessarily actively oppose the MRM (though certain individuals do, like RooshV [prominent PUA often referred to as a MRA], many MGTOWs and probably some incels).

But I also don't think some overlap means that one group has to "denounce" the other or distance themselves necessarily.

It's a bit of a different story with feminism. Radical feminists ARE a proper subset of feminists, and therefore there is an automatic association. That doesn't mean the average feminist agrees with the radicals, of course.
pharphis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2019, 09:21 AM   #533
Georgio
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 634
@SuburbanTurkey

The Duluth Model and the feminists that introduced it WERE NOT responsible for domestic violence being seen as a crime or bringing it to world attention. That was Erin Pizzey, who then had her amazing work co-opted by these people to amplify their ideology.

Did you watch that interview I linked?

What you are arguing is nothing more nor less than saying we shouldn't be too keen to criticise imperialism or slavery because both ultimately led to a lot of societal developments. That is not a reason not to point out that it's wrong; and the Duluth Model is wrong, in both senses of the word. It doesn't just ignore male victims, it tells them that they are perpetrators of coercive control that are only being attacked in self defence.
__________________
Violence is a weakness, not a strength. - Sylvester McCoy
Georgio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2019, 09:23 AM   #534
Georgio
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 634
Originally Posted by pharphis View Post
I'm confused about who you are referring to as "actively opposing the MRM" that are presumed to be part of it. Are you talking about other manosphere elements?
Incels, PUAs and traditional conservatives really. They all see a man's worth as being defined by his sex life and his deference to women. Their fundamental philosophies are incompatible with the men's rights movement. Other things like MGTOW are often related to MRA talking points but don't have to be. You can become a MGTOW without ever having heard of the men's rights movement.
__________________
Violence is a weakness, not a strength. - Sylvester McCoy
Georgio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2019, 09:28 AM   #535
Georgio
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 634
"Do whatever you like; talk about whatever you like, so long as it doesn't oppose feminism"

I can't be the only one who is absolutely terrified by this sentiment. It has echoes of the medieval church.

What about respecting the consilience of data over an ideology?
__________________
Violence is a weakness, not a strength. - Sylvester McCoy
Georgio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2019, 09:29 AM   #536
Georgio
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 634
Originally Posted by dann View Post
Thus becoming a martyr to the cause of MRA lies.
What lies?
__________________
Violence is a weakness, not a strength. - Sylvester McCoy
Georgio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2019, 09:44 AM   #537
ThatGuy11200
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: London
Posts: 165
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
This is a much better article on all that: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/expla...rson_b_5269255
I had a quick look through but couldn't see a reason why it matters if I 'check my privilege' as they say. Would you be able to say in your own words why it's important, or is it just an academic term that is meaningless in day-to-day life.



Incidentally, as a side note (a quote from the book mentioned in the article)...

Quote:
I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time.
..strikes me as an incredibly racist thing to call a privilege. Does anyone else agree?
ThatGuy11200 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2019, 09:53 AM   #538
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 84,462
Originally Posted by ThatGuy11200 View Post
I had a quick look through but couldn't see a reason why it matters if I 'check my privilege' as they say. Would you be able to say in your own words why it's important, or is it just an academic term that is meaningless in day-to-day life.



Incidentally, as a side note (a quote from the book mentioned in the article)...



..strikes me as an incredibly racist thing to call a privilege. Does anyone else agree?
Here's another gem:

Quote:
But whether you realize it or not, you do benefit from it, and it is your fault if you dont maintain awareness of that fact.
Excuse me, whoever composed this article, but **** you.

Who gives a flying fox about being "aware" of the privilege? Does that help black people, or anyone, for that matter, extirpate themselves from poverty or abuse? Shaming people for advantages they might have enjoyed, imagined or real, and sometimes entirely due to someone else's actions, is not going to help. Quite the opposite, I think.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2019, 10:00 AM   #539
Georgio
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 634
Originally Posted by ThatGuy11200 View Post
..strikes me as an incredibly racist thing to call a privilege.
Agreed. And how on earth is it not equally the case for non-whites? Did I miss the meeting where we agreed it was illegal for a black person to happen to have only black friends and acquaintances?

Some people seem to imagine that a white person can say, 'No, I don't want you here because you're not white' and nobody will bat an eyelid but if a black person says they don't want a white person around everyone will suddenly notice that they're a racist.
__________________
Violence is a weakness, not a strength. - Sylvester McCoy
Georgio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2019, 10:51 AM   #540
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,425
Originally Posted by Stout View Post
I actually know a couple of guys who'd qualify for the MGTOW label. One guy's in his earlt 70s, never married and not really interested in relationships due to having to deal with what he calls "baggage and issues"
So he is aromantic basic really.
Quote:
The other guy, a widower has a girlfriend and he's helping her out with her rent but there's no way, now how that he's going to let her move into the three bedroom house he owns and lives in by himself because he's afraid of losing half of it.
Unless it is somewhere with truly ridiculous common law marriage laws he is just being an fool. Or using it as an excuse because he does not want to cohabitate. That kind of asset protection is really really easy.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2019, 01:01 PM   #541
pharphis
Master Poster
 
pharphis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,025
IIRC common law marriage in my province is only 2 years (3 at most) of cohabitation. Pretty absurd imo
pharphis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2019, 01:28 PM   #542
Georgio
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 634
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
That kind of asset protection is really really easy.
It's also really, really easy for a woman to make a false accusation of domestic violence and be believed, after which all bets are off regarding such asset protection.

I may be remembering this wrong, and I'll get back to you with the evidence, but I gather this is one of the big factors driving the men's rights movement in India; it's pretty much standard practise for a wife's lawyer in a divorce to accuse the man of domestic violence. If I'm remembering correctly there are frequent incidents where the same 'skeleton accusation' is actually copied and pasted in legal documents and it can lead to the grimly hilarious incidents where husbands are accused of harming children they don't have or committing domestic violence when they were out of the country etc.

I'll try and find the source for that.

EDIT: Here we go - Deepika Narayan Bhardwaj - On 498A and 'Martyrs of Marriage'- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vb3muUBJjLE "The statement of a woman is basically treated as an evidence in itself"

I'd remembered it a bit wrong; the example given was a woman demanding maintenance for children that didn't exist and another saying that an event happened on a holiday that never occurred.
__________________
Violence is a weakness, not a strength. - Sylvester McCoy

Last edited by Georgio; 15th April 2019 at 01:41 PM.
Georgio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2019, 03:15 PM   #543
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 18,852
Originally Posted by Georgio View Post
"Do whatever you like; talk about whatever you like, so long as it doesn't oppose feminism"

I can't be the only one who is absolutely terrified by this sentiment. It has echoes of the medieval church.
I see it more as branding advice.

Based on what I have read in this thread you are alienating a lot of potential allies by claiming that your movement is anti-feminist and then using a definition of feminist that is not found in the dictionary and is not consistent with most lay-people's experience.

Why create such an uphill battle of first redefining the word feminist and then convincing people who used to label themselves as feminist that they are actually anti-feminist? That is a huge educational push just to get people to listen to what you are trying to say.

Even if I strongly wanted to support your goals I would be hesitant to go out and publicly push your ideas in the public sphere. I just don't have the time for the educational component you are requiring for your message.

It would also make it easier for you to leave the more misogynistic aspects behind. If you don't want to be seen alongside PUAs then try to set yourself further way from them with the language you use.

Use more conventional language and lose some of the enemy-blaming* and you will have an easier time. Push for equality and you will find friends among those who currently hear you calling them enemies.

Quote:
What about respecting the consilience of data over an ideology?
Fantastic. Can you do that without mentioning feminists?



*I don't know which one bugs me more, your anti-feminists mantra or the radical feminist and their anti-patriarchy mantra.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2019, 03:16 PM   #544
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 18,852
Originally Posted by Georgio View Post
It's also really, really easy for a woman to make a false accusation of domestic violence and be believed, after which all bets are off regarding such asset protection.

I may be remembering this wrong, and I'll get back to you with the evidence, but I gather this is one of the big factors driving the men's rights movement in India; it's pretty much standard practise for a wife's lawyer in a divorce to accuse the man of domestic violence. If I'm remembering correctly there are frequent incidents where the same 'skeleton accusation' is actually copied and pasted in legal documents and it can lead to the grimly hilarious incidents where husbands are accused of harming children they don't have or committing domestic violence when they were out of the country etc.

I'll try and find the source for that.

EDIT: Here we go - Deepika Narayan Bhardwaj - On 498A and 'Martyrs of Marriage'- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vb3muUBJjLE "The statement of a woman is basically treated as an evidence in itself"

I'd remembered it a bit wrong; the example given was a woman demanding maintenance for children that didn't exist and another saying that an event happened on a holiday that never occurred.
That is number 4 on the list of reasons I never got married in India.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2019, 05:49 PM   #545
Georgio
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 634
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
Fantastic. Can you do that without mentioning feminists?
Certainly not in the case of domestic violence since, and I'm sorry if you don't like this, everything that's horrifically wrong about the current domestic violence 'treatment' is a direct result of feminists and feminism.

I'm not prepared to simply lie and make out that a huge number of the problems men face in society aren't as a direct result of feminism just so I may alienate a few less people in the short term.

I don't care if it bugs you. The MRA objection to feminism is based on provable data; the feminist objection to patriarchy is not (partly because patriarchy is an unprovable, undisprovable myth that changes its definition every five seconds).

To quote the 1987 version of 'Jack The Ripper' with Michael Caine - knowledge hurts.

I am not prepared to prioritize getting people 'on board' over telling them the truth, and the truth is that the swathes of feminist literature that directly inform The Duluth Model and much of what is done in the family court system do not simply quote the dictionary definition of feminism over and over again until they fill 300 pages; they make specific arguments and lobby for specific things based on that ideology.

You are straight up asking me to lie to people so they don't get upset that they have been lying to themselves for so long that feminism is an ideology of equality. Bollocks to that.

This notion that feminism cannot be questioned, be it for branding or ideological reasons, is fundamental to this argument. Your 'branding' advice may well be good advice if MRAs were selling a product but we're not; we are trying to tell people the truth. Getting people on side by lying to them is sort of the issue.

People who call themselves 'feminists' based on the misconception that it is a synonym for egalitarianism will be open minded and intellectually honest enough to accept the data when it is presented to them.
__________________
Violence is a weakness, not a strength. - Sylvester McCoy

Last edited by Georgio; 15th April 2019 at 05:53 PM.
Georgio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2019, 07:18 PM   #546
TomB
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 605
Originally Posted by Georgio View Post
Certainly not in the case of domestic violence since, and I'm sorry if you don't like this, everything that's horrifically wrong about the current domestic violence 'treatment' is a direct result of feminists and feminism.
I've been doing some reading on the Duluth model. While I think it's flawed, I think that it's mostly a case of being incomplete and overly focused on a single aspect of violence rather than a case of being flat out wrong. It basically seems to divide domestic violence into an attempt to control (primarily by men) and an attempt to not be controlled (primarily women i.e. the Burning Bed, Independence Day by Martina McBride). I can't honestly think that's totally wrong, though I think the roles are reversed somewhat more often than their website seems to indicate. It also seems to ignore some other sources of violence including things like simply anger management issues.

So yeah, the model is flawed and one-sided, but I don't think it's this huge thing that seriously oppresses men as a population. It actually seems like a starting point that could be built on.
Quote:
I'm not prepared to simply lie and make out that a huge number of the problems men face in society aren't as a direct result of feminism just so I may alienate a few less people in the short term.

I don't care if it bugs you. The MRA objection to feminism is based on provable data; the feminist objection to patriarchy is not (partly because patriarchy is an unprovable, undisprovable myth that changes its definition every five seconds).
As a biologist in a family of scientists and engineers, my brothers and I joke with my sister-in-laws who are social workers that theirs is not a "hard" science. But that's kind of true. I've took enough psychology courses to know that very little in social sciences is directly testable in the way chemistry and physics are. So pointing at a social science theory of any kind and saying it can't be proven is kind of a "yeah, and water is wet" moment for me.

Patriarchy theory is, at its root, a theory of how the social system evolved in such a way that men had economic, moral, and social power while women were placed in more dependent roles. Again, I agree with the observations about society that it tries to explain, but I'm not sure I agree with the sinister motivations it often implies.

But really, I don't see it as that important except that it's annoying hearing some YouTube person rant about the "patriarchy." Neither those screaming about patriarchy nor those screaming about patriarchy theory are doing anything to actually address real problems.

A more useful response would be: "I disagree with your underlying idea of where this problem originates from, but we have a common goal here where we can work towards a solution."

Fortunately, I know no feminists in real life who scream about patriarchy. I also no no one in real life who points out men's problems that screams about patriarchy theory. In real life I go out for beer every Friday with a group that contains both feminists and those concerned with men's issues and we have a good time respectfully discussing these issues. You'd be amazed how much agreement there is. If the radicals on both sides would just shut up, maybe progress could be made.

Quote:
To quote the 1987 version of 'Jack The Ripper' with Michael Caine - knowledge hurts.

I am not prepared to prioritize getting people 'on board' over telling them the truth, and the truth is that the swathes of feminist literature that directly inform The Duluth Model and much of what is done in the family court system do not simply quote the dictionary definition of feminism over and over again until they fill 300 pages; they make specific arguments and lobby for specific things based on that ideology.
I think I've pointed out before that the family court system sucks for everyone. I'll take it a step farther and suggest that women and men both make questionable allegations to make the other look bad in custody fights. Probably at equal rates and to equal effectiveness.

But I'll also note that looking only at custody rates doesn't say anything. This is because in something like 95% of cases, the courts don't actually make decisions on custody or property division. Those things are almost always negotiated outside the court by the attorneys. And yes, sometimes the lawyers on either side will threaten things. But the judge rarely has to rule. They just rubber stamp the settlement presented and agreed to by both parties. I never even went into the courtroom for my divorce. I waited in the hall outside. Took about 20 minutes.

Quote:
You are straight up asking me to lie to people so they don't get upset that they have been lying to themselves for so long that feminism is an ideology of equality. Bollocks to that.

This notion that feminism cannot be questioned, be it for branding or ideological reasons, is fundamental to this argument. Your 'branding' advice may well be good advice if MRAs were selling a product but we're not; we are trying to tell people the truth. Getting people on side by lying to them is sort of the issue.

People who call themselves 'feminists' based on the misconception that it is a synonym for egalitarianism will be open minded and intellectually honest enough to accept the data when it is presented to them.
Funny. I thought MRAs were interested in addressing and finding solutions to problems that affect men. But it seems that the focus is rather on blaming feminists. Isn't that the same thing that you criticise patriarchy theory for doing?
TomB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2019, 09:13 PM   #547
Georgio
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 634
Originally Posted by TomB View Post
Funny. I thought MRAs were interested in addressing and finding solutions to problems that affect men. But it seems that the focus is rather on blaming feminists. Isn't that the same thing that you criticise patriarchy theory for doing?
When MRAs attempt to implement these solutions they are shut down by feminist lobbyists and protesters (Earl Silverman, Justin Trottier, Erin Pizzey). When MRAs try to meet to discuss these issues they are shut down by feminist protesters (dozens of examples). When someone makes a documentary film about men's issues it is picketed wherever it is shown by feminists, media outlets refuse to watch it but will interview the director calling her a misogynist (Cassie Jaye's 'The Red Pill').

Find me one example of MRAs doing anything similar to that. One.

I can give you concrete examples of all of these things happening. Dozens and dozens and dozens of them.

You equating MRAs pointing out that feminists and feminist organisations are directly responsible for frustrating the discussion on men's issues with feminists blaming anything and everything on a nebulous bogeyman that they can't even define is unbelievably disingenuous.

And about your comment that the Duluth Model is simply incomplete and there's not actually anything reprehensible in its ignoring of half the victims of the crime (directly because of the 'ideology that shall not be criticised'), have a look at this list of papers showing consilience on the conclusion that female perpetrated violence (and very serious violence) is almost as common as male violence in intimate relationships:

http://web.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

Quote:
So yeah, the model is flawed and one-sided, but I don't think it's this huge thing that seriously oppresses men as a population.
Don't you? Oh, well that's OK, then. The foremost expert on domestic violence in the world would disagree with you, however:

https://honest-ribbon.org/mega-featu...stic-violence/

No, it does not oppress men as a population, but it bloody well oppresses the population of male victims of domestic violence. Under this model male victims of DV are sent to perpetrator therapy groups because, as men, there's nowhere else for them to go. How can you even begin to defend that?

The majority of gun crime in the US is, apparently, committed by black people. Does this mean that a legal model in which black people are charged with a crime for reporting that they've been shot is a 'foundation to be built on'? Or would such a model be an absolute, unmitigated disgrace?

The only way Duluth is a starting point to be built on is if it's a putrid, porous mud heap that needs to be excavated before putting in some proper foundations.

EDIT:

Quote:
Neither those screaming about patriarchy nor those screaming about patriarchy theory are doing anything to actually address real problems.
This is a very popular trope; the idea that the likes of me who posit this ideology as being a direct cause of many of these problems (and provide evidence to back that up) are just the mirror image of the insane feminists spouting it, and that both are screaming at each other and drowning out the reasonable voices that might actually affect change.

The problem with that is the demonstrable fact that 'those screaming about patriarchy' are incredibly influential in many areas; they are not 'not doing anything to address the real problems', they are actively causing the problems, and you want me to somehow address the problems without acknowledging that because...why?

Why? Why must feminism be beyond criticism? Why is 'blaming feminism' when feminism is demonstrably the cause somehow wrong?

It's like the conclusion that 'Feminism Is Not The Problem' is arrived at first, then everyone starts working backwards. It's just a given; it trumps everything.
__________________
Violence is a weakness, not a strength. - Sylvester McCoy

Last edited by Georgio; 15th April 2019 at 09:41 PM.
Georgio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2019, 04:48 AM   #548
SuburbanTurkey
Graduate Poster
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 1,854
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
But feminism is also leaderless. In fact it's probably more leaderless, since things like MGTOW are small enough that there are a finite number of influential voices and factions.
Modern feminsim may be less focused and leaderless, but that's only because of the success of mainstream feminism in the past. When it came to working towards the big issues, either women's right to vote or other basic civil rights, the women's movement was very well organized and strongly issues oriented. That's the nature of these movements, once the raison d'etre has been realized, the mainstream goes largely dormant. All you have left is a rump of the original group and a smattering of radical groups.

I'd say groups like the NAACP follow a similar arc. Sure, it still exists, but it is no longer the large powerhouse it was during the height of the civil rights movement in the South. The lack of present day vitality is should not be taken as a refutation of a group's history of good work.

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
I see it more as branding advice.

Based on what I have read in this thread you are alienating a lot of potential allies by claiming that your movement is anti-feminist and then using a definition of feminist that is not found in the dictionary and is not consistent with most lay-people's experience.

Why create such an uphill battle of first redefining the word feminist and then convincing people who used to label themselves as feminist that they are actually anti-feminist? That is a huge educational push just to get people to listen to what you are trying to say.

Even if I strongly wanted to support your goals I would be hesitant to go out and publicly push your ideas in the public sphere. I just don't have the time for the educational component you are requiring for your message.

It would also make it easier for you to leave the more misogynistic aspects behind. If you don't want to be seen alongside PUAs then try to set yourself further way from them with the language you use.

Use more conventional language and lose some of the enemy-blaming* and you will have an easier time. Push for equality and you will find friends among those who currently hear you calling them enemies.
I couldn't agree with this more. The priorities and tactics of the greater MRA movement are very suspect to my eye. The determination to position itself as an explicitly anti feminist movement seems to be more important than actual success on individual issues. No opportunity to take a pot shot at feminism is passed up, no matter how inconsequential.
__________________
Gobble gobble

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 16th April 2019 at 05:09 AM.
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2019, 10:20 AM   #549
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,618
Originally Posted by Georgio View Post
Find me one, singular, solitary example of an MRA individual or group attempting to shut down a feminist meeting, organisation or endeavour. One.
.
For the moment, I'll take your word that nothing comparable exists. But can I ask you a question?

What if I did find one? Imagine that a group that identified themselves as Men's rights activists somewhere in the world shut down a speech by a prominent feminist by pulling a fire alarm. Would that change your view of the principles and beliefs that draw your support to Men's rights? Would you be against MRAs then?

What if there were two examples? Is there a particular number of examples that would change your mind? A ballpark? A percentage of the whole?
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2019, 11:17 AM   #550
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 18,852
Originally Posted by Georgio View Post
Certainly not in the case of domestic violence since, and I'm sorry if you don't like this, everything that's horrifically wrong about the current domestic violence 'treatment' is a direct result of feminists and feminism.
As you define those words, but not as those words are understood by the vast majority of people who use them in a way consistent with the dictionary definitions of those words.

You are intentionally choosing a language that will limit the reach of your message. That is your choice, but your cause suffers for this choice.


Quote:
You are straight up asking me to lie to people so they don't get upset that they have been lying to themselves for so long that feminism is an ideology of equality. Bollocks to that.
No, I'm asking you to try to communicate in the common language, not one you have made up that is at odds with the common language. You can not communicate effectively if you choose to make up your own definitions when trying to communicate with those outside your group. Once they are in your group, sure you can use whatever words you want, but not before that.

I won't get far with a fire prevention program that has a central tenet of being anti-firefighter. Even if I take the time to explain that by "firefighters" I mean people who start fires, not people who try to prevent fires. That has nothing to do with whether I can criticize firefighters or not or any of the other stuff you mention.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2019, 11:18 AM   #551
Georgio
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 634
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
What if I did find one?
I would come down on it like a ton of ****. I would say, 'What in all kinds of **** are you idiots doing? This is exactly what we are supposed to be against - controlling the conversation so that opinions we don't like can't be heard. We do not need to do things like this - we have the facts on our side; they don't'

However, you're conveniently leaving out the other reason I oppose feminism - its ideology and literature. Even if men's rights groups suddenly started behaving like that, I would still agree with them on the nature of the issues and the data supporting the MRA position, just not on how they were going about trying to address them.

Not so with feminism: it is wrong and its adherents are routinely found shutting down conversations they don't want people to be able to have.
__________________
Violence is a weakness, not a strength. - Sylvester McCoy

Last edited by Georgio; 16th April 2019 at 11:38 AM.
Georgio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2019, 11:34 AM   #552
Georgio
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 634
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
You are intentionally choosing a language that will limit the reach of your message. That is your choice, but your cause suffers for this choice.
You mean telling the truth? You sound like a politician. I'm less interested in getting as many people as possible to call themselves men's rights activists than I am in presenting the true situation based on observable data.

If an issue stems from incorrect feminist ideology then I'm going to say so. If it stems from feminist groups actively working to make it impossible for men's issues to be discusses then I'm going to say that as well.

I will also, politely and patiently as I hope I've done in this thread, ask people to define what they mean by their 'feminism', and if it is nothing more than 'We're all equal, yeah?' then I am going to point out why that is at odds with academic feminism and the feminism and feminist groups that are most influential in lobbying for men's issues to be suppressed and so on.

Let's say we've started this thread again and you're me. There are a load of posts saying the following:

"Look, patriarchy hurts everyone. Men's issues will be addressed once we dismantle patriarchy."

"We've had thousands of years of patriarchal oppression and I, for one, am frankly sick of it"

"MRAs don't care about actual men's issues. They only care about taking pot shots at feminism"

"Everyone knows feminism is about equality. I mean, look it up in the dictionary and that's what it says! So if these 'MRAs' are against feminism they are literally saying they are against equality!"

"I would be on board with the men's rights movement if it weren't so weirdly obsessed with attacking feminists"

Now, how do you address those objections, which are all stultifyingly common reasons people give for not even listening to what MRAs actually have to say about anything, without mentioning feminism?

Give me a demonstration. How do I go about reeling these people in such that I've got them in the net and can then start defining feminism properly and why it's at the root of so many of the issues?

How do I do that?
__________________
Violence is a weakness, not a strength. - Sylvester McCoy

Last edited by Georgio; 16th April 2019 at 11:36 AM.
Georgio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2019, 11:39 AM   #553
isissxn
Rough Around the Edges
 
isissxn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Deep Storage
Posts: 6,067
Which group is one that talks about women "hitting a wall" when they turn 30 and having "roasties" and stuff? They're the ones I don't like, because they are just freakin' mean. Even if someone thinks that, they should keep it to themselves. It has nothing to do with effecting political change. It's pure spite.

Some people call them MRAs, but I already knew that was incorrect. I'd been calling them "redpilled." Is that correct, or is there a further subcategory?
isissxn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2019, 11:43 AM   #554
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,595
Originally Posted by Georgio View Post
"I would be on board with the men's rights movement if it weren't so weirdly obsessed with attacking feminists"

Now, how do you address those objections, which are all stultifyingly common reasons people give for not even listening to what MRAs actually have to say about anything, without mentioning feminism?

Give me a demonstration. How do I go about reeling these people in such that I've got them in the net and can then start defining feminism properly and why it's at the root of so many of the issues?

How do I do that?
"I don't have a problem with most modern self-identifying feminists; it's really just the radical, toxic ideologues and their sycophants who we believe deserve exposure for promoting the toxic ideology which has harmed people. I think they have outsized influence over public policies and they deserve the attention of and shunning by all critically thinking, egalitarian secular humanists."

Something like that.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2019, 11:45 AM   #555
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,595
Originally Posted by isissxn View Post
Which group is one that talks about women "hitting a wall" when they turn 30 and having "roasties" and stuff? They're the ones I don't like, because they are just freakin' mean. Even if someone thinks that, they should keep it to themselves. It has nothing to do with effecting political change. It's pure spite.

Some people call them MRAs, but I already knew that was incorrect. I'd been calling them "redpilled." Is that correct, or is there a further subcategory?
"Roasties" is incels.

There's a lot of language and ideology borrowing back and forth between the groups in the manosphere, though, and each person who participates in that whole world is a unique individual. But "roasties" at least originated with incels.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2019, 11:47 AM   #556
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 84,462
"Roasties"? Why?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2019, 11:54 AM   #557
isissxn
Rough Around the Edges
 
isissxn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Deep Storage
Posts: 6,067
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
"Roasties"? Why?
I don't know - but the day I found out it was a thing, I changed a little.
isissxn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2019, 11:56 AM   #558
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,595
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
"Roasties"? Why?
Link. Sigh.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2019, 12:12 PM   #559
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 84,462
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Link. Sigh.
I regret asking.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2019, 12:13 PM   #560
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,595
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I regret asking.
Learning anything at all about incels tends to have that effect on everyone else. LOL
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:27 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.