When discussing the issue or domestic violence or false allegations of rape/sexual assault/domestic violence the debate almost always turns to what the rates are: “Men are half the victims of domestic violence!” “no they aren’t!” “False accusations happen too often!” “no they don’t!” – That is basically a condensation of almost every debate on these topics ever.
When it comes to False accusations of rape the problem isn’t so much how common they are, the problem is that when they do happen there is no recourse for the accused and there is no punishment for the false accuser. When a man is falsely accused of rape it can completely destroy his life, he can lose his job, his family, his education, his reputation, his freedom, and even his life as some cases end with the falsely accused being murdered for their alleged crime. It is a very serious thing to be falsely accused and to not punish the people who do it is an affront to our entire justice system, further when such damage to a persons life is caused by any means other than a false accusation of rape that person has the right to sue for damages. The protections afforded alleged rape victims protect false accusers even if they admit afterwards that they were lying, there is no criminal consequence, and the accused has no redress of grievance for the damage done to him.
None of these problems change based on how common false accusations are, if you honestly believe that we should ignore the plight of the falsely accused because they are rare then you are morally bankrupt. It does not matter if 1% or 2% or 50% or 0.001% of reports are false, when it does happen there is no reason not to punish it and no reason to force an innocent person to have to deal with that damage to his life.
When it comes to domestic violence against men we have the problem of some places having the predominant aggressor policy which basically means that men are more often abusers than women so the police should just assume the man is at fault instead of assessing a situation and doing what’s right. We have shelters which only help female victims, there is no reason that a shelter cannot help any victim but they only help female victims because “they’re in greater need”, why can’t they simply help people who need help? Even if men were 1 in 10 victims of domestic violence why would shelters need to turn away those men? Even hotlines which people call to get advice and assistance when in abusive relationships will turn men away rather than help them, they judge based on genitalia rather than whether or not the person calling is being abused, once again even if male victims were extraordinarily rare why would those hotlines not be able to help them when they do need it?
If the laws were gender neutral, if the policies were gender neutral, if we helped people based on whether or not that individual person needs help rather than based on if they belong to a specific demographic then the problem we in the men’s movement have with domestic violence would disappear and none of those things rely upon the rate being equal between men and women.
Junior Anti-Sex League uOttawa student leader has had a conniption over a conversation that five men had about her in private and declared Canadian universities a hot-bed for RAPE CULTURE. She received a copy of the conversation from an “anonymous email”, basically she received it illegally without the consent of the participants(taking private e-mails or private messages without permission is in fact illegal). Let’s take a look at the article covering this story from CBC:
“The letter also alleged that Roy, through an intermediary, had initially considered not sharing the conversation if the four participants would promise not to run for student leadership positions in the future.” – that is blackmail. Pretty sure it’s a crime to illegally obtain private records about someone and then use that information to coerce them into doing things.
“Marquis was a vice-president in the student union until he resigned this weekend, reportedly after receiving hate mail and threats related to the conversation.’ – how is it a rape culture if saying you would want to fuck a woman in a private discussion leads to threats against you?
“I would never say that kind of thing out in the public but when it was a private conversation I guess it slipped my mind that that’s really not acceptable.” – I wouldn’t say lots of things in public, what’s wrong with saying things in private when you know the participants in a conversation will not be offended and are not being serious about what they’re saying?
‘The entire incident has at least one observer saying it’s clear universities need to have a more open discussion about how students talk about each other, even in private.” – so we are literally openly discussing thought crime as if it’s reasonable.
“”I do think it’s a form of cyberbullying even though she wasn’t a direct recipient of those messages on Facebook,” said Wanda Cassidy” – scuse me? So a man isn’t allowed to say anything about a woman that she might not like in a private conversation that she will have no knowledge of? You know what? These fucking people are so fucking pampered and have probably never faced any sort of hardship in their entire fucking life. They HAVE to be, I know what real bullying is and this isn’t it.
“There needs to be a lot more conversation around those kinds of behaviour and comments that are made demeaning towards women.” – women have no right to not have demeaning comments directed at them, in fact no one has that right and everyone has the right to make demeaning comments about anyone else.
“The footprint that such comments can leave on the Internet should also make individuals think twice before sending demeaning or hurtful messages, she said.” – don’t steal private messages from people’s accounts and this isn’t a problem.
“”They should be held accountable for those actions. Actions have consequences and I think that this is certainly something that can’t go unnoticed,”" – I would like to fuck Emma Watson in the ass. Oh noes I just committed thought crime and need to be held accountable! Seriously there is no action other than expressing thoughts that some might find distasteful, therefore they are EXPLICITLY advocating that these guys be punished for thought crime.
Another interesting thing is that I have seen people compare facebook to telescreens in the past and here’s a clear example of facebook being used to punish thoughtcrime. Feminism as an ideology is so entrenched in our society that fucking THOUGHT CRIME is becoming a real thing(but only for men of course).
Dozens upon dozens of studies have been done showing women are just as violent as men in domestic partnerships. Police statistics always show an extreme majority(not usually less than 70%) of domestic violence cases being against women.
Men’s Rights Reddit, and several Men’s Rights Facebook Pages were on fire today after the release of a video of a February 15th incident in Moore, Oklahoma showing multiple police officers swarming over Luis Rodriguez, age 44, throwing him to the ground, macing him, holding him down, and cuffing him. He died shortly after onslaught. While results of the autopsy are still pending it is assumed that he died as a result of the attack.
The police had been called in on a “domestic disturbance” because his wife, Nair Rodriguez, had hit her daughter, according to multiple news sources.
Video(warning – disturbing): http://www.news9.com/category/116601/video-page?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=9880819
Mia Freedman published an article on the Huffington Post titled: “What to Say Whenever ‘Feminism’ Is Blamed for Something Totally Absurd“
Let’s go through her list of absurd things feminism is blamed for:
1. Kill all the fun
building strawmen and then knocking them down is one of the many things feminists excel at.
2. Demonise men
“there is an epidemic of violence against women” – that is the demonization of men, epidemic meaning widespread/more than common and ‘violence against women’ providing and assumption of ‘by men’ and ‘less violence against men’ making the illusion of violent men and nonviolent women being the standard.
Most feminist rhetoric demonizes men in some way. Don’t be that guy, teach men not to rape, etc.. Even things like believing the wage gap is caused by discrimination implicitly suggests that men are naturally oppressive and want to keep women down by paying them less.
3. Turn all women into lesbians
There are some feminists who explicitly believe all women should chose to be lesbians. This is something some feminists literally want and believe should happen, simply saying “not all feminists believe that” allows the feminists who do believe that to go on unhindered in spreading their ignorant bigotry.
4. Destroy the traditional family unit
This was an explicit goal of second wave feminism with enough evidence from leading feminists of the time to fill a cargo ship.
5. Make men and women the same.
I like her explanation, does this mean all those women only lists for government positions and quotas for women are going to go away since they only want everyone to have the same opportunities and rights rather than the same outcomes?
6. Claim to speak for all women / Make all women think the same way
Where are all the ‘good’ feminists that her description describes when the ‘bad’ feminists threaten/try to kill a woman who speaks against their beliefs?
7. Stop women from being sexy
No they want to stop men from being allowed to find women sexy without at least getting called a creep and at most going to jail for it. For example see their crusade against ‘lads mags’ in the UK.(also see #2 again for a refresher)
Also it’s kind of funny, a lot of feminists essentially inadvertently call attractive women objects. There was a game recently which made the female characters have smaller breasts citing they wanted them to be “more realistic”. Isn’t it great that women who have large breasts are told that they’re unrealistic?
8. Ban everything
- lad’s mags
- dongle jokes
- free speech(Warren Farrell protest at UofT & Ryerson University mafioso protection money for example)
- free press(recent example NOW trying to get James Taranto fired for thought crime)
- male only spaces(male only universities being banned but female only universities being fine, just one example of feminist EQUALITY)
- porn(along with demonization of men who watch porn)
- free market(female quotas)
- There was a law proposed in the EU which suggested banning anti-feminism
- Human Rights(The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms explicitly protects the freedom opinion and expression thereof, the feminists at Ryerson university explicitly banned the freedom of opinion if it contradicted feminist thought)
- men from entering domestic violence shelters(in many cases even male children of women fleeing an abusive husband)
- female genital mutilation(which is a good thing I just put it here to highlight the lack of feminist effort to ban male genital mutilation which would be equal rights to genital integrity)
9. Kill boners
- trying to ban strip clubs
- banning prostitution(and perpetuating a black market of sex trade as prohibition always does)
- banning lads mags
- trying to ban porn
NOT ALL FEMINISTS ARE LIKE THAT!!! Well then the feminists who aren’t like that should be standing at our side railing against the feminists who are like that. Telling the feminists who demonize men that they don’t represent feminism, telling the feminists who think all women should chose to be lesbians that they’re ignorant bigots, telling all the feminists that want to make men and women the same that they’re being idiots. However these so called ‘real’ feminists never stand up, never speak out. They only yell NOT ALL FEMINISTS ARE LIKE THAT until they are blue in the face and allow the feminist who are like that to spread their hatred without criticism or hindrance.
If these so called “real” or “good” feminists spoke out against the bigots then the men’s movement wouldn’t exist because feminism would have been what Warren Farrell calls a ‘gender transition movement’ rather than a movement of hatred.
Huffpo published an article which highlights the 4 Types of Bias Women Still Face at Work, lets take a look:
1. The Tightrope, in which professional women are seen as too weak or too assertive — and in response, must try to balance between the two.
Yes because men never have to struggle with being nice and forgiving and being ‘mean’ and forceful. Only women have to balance things, men can do whatever they want. men can go around calling everyone dipshits and flipping everyone off and no one cares because penis.
2.Prove it Again, in which women are held to a higher standard than men and must continually prove themselves. Women are promoted on performance, while men are promoted on potential.
How do you see this potential without seeing performance? You think someone see’s potential in a person because they have a penis? No, they see potential because they have done a damn good job. How did they see that person did a damn good job? That person continually proved themselves. Again thinking this is something that only women experience is simply narcissistic.
3. Maternal Wall, in which women are expected to lose their career focus once they have kids.
Women aren’t expected to lose their career focus, it is expected that women will lose their career focus. Subtle difference but the first one is basically societal/cultural pressure telling a woman “you better lose focus on your career” while the second one is an observation that in most cases women chose to focus on their kids instead.
4. Tug-of-War, in which women are harder on other women than men are.
“Dem menz are keepin us wimminz downses PATRIARCHY GLASS CEILING DISCRIMINATION PAY GAP”
“ohmigawd why are women so hard on other women!”
In reality men bosses are easier on women and hold men to higher standards while women bosses hold other women to the same standards as men.
Men are biased in women’s favour in many cases, not expecting them to do the hard work, not requiring the same standard of performance as male employees, not expecting the same level of commitment. Due to all of these things women are able to hold jobs and basically not work but get paid all the same. This mostly happens in lower fields like retail and food services rather than actual ‘professions’ where this same attitude which women EXPLOIT backfires into women not being taken as seriously especially by other women who are fully aware of their manipulations and games. Of course if they work hard and are genuinely good at their job then there’s no problem with male or female bosses, productivity speaks for itself in the world of business.
Feminists and a great deal of women in general due to decades of feminist lies look at typical workplace struggles like “having to prove yourself” and needing to cater your personality for your job requirements as struggles only women face when in reality they are struggles everyone faces, they are the everyday things we all deal with at work. Balancing between being assertive and ‘weak’(aka too nice) is a struggle every manager faces, you can’t allow employees to walk all over you but you can’t just be a total hard ass and destroy morale which damages productivity and increases employee turnover. Prove it again, and again, and again; something everyone does when they want to advance, prove yourself over and over until your boss says ‘good job’ and throws you a bone, everyone deals with it. The maternal wall is an actual problem women face but isn’t a problem to be ‘fixed’ by legislation or any sort of activism, it’s a problem for individual women to talk to their bosses/co-workers and actually act like people and sort out such concerns. The ‘tug of war’ is where the cultural and partly biological bias of men treating women better than men becomes an entitlement and when it’s removed by having a female boss and therefore equal treatment it feels like discrimination.
There is nothing actually gendered about that firefighter, it is only a human shape with the uniform of a firefighter. The reason people see it as male is because that is who it is targeted to and who primarily plays with it. It has no mustache, no big manly muscles, no gendered hair style.
When feminists and recently a supposed 7 year old girl complain about the lack of female representation in typically male roles in lego toys what they are actually advocating is the addition of gendered signifyers to these toys. Long hair, breasts, make up, etc…
In reality feminists and now apparently little girls poisoned by feminist influence want to take a non gendered thing and make it gendered. They want there to be gendered signifyers, they want there to be little Lego people with gendered design to differentiate between male and female. Rather than teaching their daughters that the non gendered toy can be what ever gender they imagine it to be and promoting use of imagination and creativity, they want to force gendered stereotypes into these toys.
Then if they succeed they will complain about the toys having gendered stereotypes. There is no winning with feminists, there is no goal beyond the constant demand for MORE. that is all feminists want and all they will ever want; MORE, MORE and MORE. Society needs to tell them: