When will we acknowledge sexism and violence against men is just as real?

[Revoltingest]

Defence is one thing, but not attack, that is another.

I advocate only self-defense.
Attacking others isn't really the issue, since no one here is pushing that.

 

[Robert.Evans]

You have a habit of evading direct questions. Though you also have a habit of confronting other people to clarify their perspectives. Feel free to prove me wrong here.

Do you give this advice to men too? Yes or no, please.

I said:
You might want to consider that lest they really take offence. As for learning self defence, why should WE? Try living somewhere else. Try talking your way out of trouble. It is called social skills and inter-personal skills.

You see the ''we''. Why does that not includes men and women?

 

[Robert.Evans]

I advocate only self-defense.
Attacking others isn't really the issue, since no one here is pushing that.

But I thought you said you had fought? That does not sound like self defence. May be it was just lost in translation.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I'll go ahead and say it...

I find this to be a sexist and anti-male statement. In a thread looking to elevate the importance of the stats of violence and sexism against men, this is stated.

Anyways, it is not about building up one side or the other, it is about seeing what we truly are, and changing that which is wrong.

 

[Revoltingest]

But I thought you said you had fought? That does not sound like self defence. May be it was just lost in translation.

Lost in translation it is then.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I said:
You might want to consider that lest they really take offence. As for learning self defence, why should WE? Try living somewhere else. Try talking your way out of trouble. It is called social skills and inter-personal skills.

You see the ''we''. Why does that not includes men and women?

Thank you for the clarification. That wasn't so hard was it?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Anyways, it is not about building up one side or the other, it is about seeing what we truly are, and changing that which is wrong.

We are all truly human beings. What wrongs I see that need changing...

I advocate for changing sexism in society that hurts anyone, male or female.

If discrimination is present in an ornery and established sense, I stand against it and argue that it places undue harm on those who live the discrimination.

The current culture assumes that men are to be unfeeling hunters, fighters, soldiers, and providers for their property. It doesn't assume men are victims of domestic violence, victims of rape and sexual assault, lest they bear the stigma of being "weak."

It also assumes if a female teacher rapes a teenage boy, the boy is considered "lucky" by society and by his peers. It assumes males are only sexual predators and hunters, and never targets. These boys victimized by their perpetrators typically have no resources at their disposal to cope financially, legally, or psychologically with their PTSD.

Our culture also assumes that fathers and grown men are not as fit to be parents as women overall are. This is reflected in custody hearings as well as societal gender roles within marriages where dad is expected to work and spend little time with the kids.

This is where I stand with men's rights. Our current culture hurts them more than what is acknowledged most of the time. Anti-feminist rhetoric aside, what I care most about is standing for mens equality in the public and private spheres in regards to fatherhood, rape survivor advocacy, and selective service.

 

[Debater Slayer]

And now even you buy into that bogus war cry of "Patriarchy!"? If you start talking about the fine qualities of an imaginary boogeyman stalking the halls & stalls of power, you're just enabling'm.

Do you seriously believe that patriarchy is a mere "boogeyman"? I'm just asking to see if what I understood is really what you meant, because then the statement would be downright... absurd, for lack of a more descriptive word.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Well read it and understand it next time.
I said that women copying men meant they fell as low as men had done. Your answer to that was that women could not do those things then.
How does that make sense?
If you do them I am saying you end up like men. That is not a compliment. If you want to do them, go ahead, open up your matial arts school, sail the oceans, fat lot of good it will do ya .

At first I thought your chauvinistic beliefs contained a lot of misconceptions and sexist ideas of women while being more tolerant of men, to the point of idealizing men as the only creators of civilization.

Now I know your beliefs are both misogynistic and misandrist. In other words, what you have to say about women's rights and what you have to say about men's rights are equally worthless.

Oh, and just to note a trend I'm seeing here...

 

[Revoltingest]

Do you seriously believe that patriarchy is a mere "boogeyman"?

Yes. Do you seriously believe that men are solely in control to the extent that women lack any power? The "patriarchy" is a boogeyman because it's the foe that doesn't exist in substance. Where there is bad law, we can cite the offending law. Where there's an evil politician, we can point to the malefactor.

I'm just asking to see if what I understood is really what you meant, because then the statement would be downright... absurd, for lack of a more descriptive word.

I say it's absurd (avoiding more descriptive words) for some feminists to continually trumpet "The Patriarchy" as the ill defined cause of women's supposedly low status.
Considering the USA (the subject country):
- Women are the majority of voters. They have the power to decide who gets elected. Their influence in elections is comparable, if not greater- than men's. They drive public policy to a great extent.
- Women control a vast amount of wealth & property. (Dower rights given women even greater legal privilege.) And this situation is increasing in their favor.
Women, Wealth, and Power: The Emerging Paradigm - Forbes
To claim a "patriarchy" isn't just empty jargon. It's a label which puts only men in the driver's seat (to the detriment of women), & to give no mention of women, thereby denying their power in business, politics, society, & media.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Thank you for the clarification. That wasn't so hard was it?

But I'd already told you hadn't I, hmmm

 

[Debater Slayer]

Yes. Do you seriously believe that men are solely in control to the extent that women lack any power?

No, men are not solely in control, but they are definitely in more control than women. Societal attitudes toward women also point to patriarchal elements not just in positions of power, but in social norms and traditions.

I say it's absurd (avoiding more descriptive words) for some feminists to continually trumpet "The Patriarchy" as the ill defined cause of women's supposedly low status.
Considering the USA (the subject country):
- Women are the majority of voters. They have the power to decide who gets elected. Their influence in elections is comparable, if not greater- than men's. They drive public policy to a great extent.

Women are the majority of voters--they are so free they have the right to vote for a shortlist of male candidates in nearly every presidential election (with relatively very few exceptions like Hillary Clinton). They are also so free that they get to watch a group of men sit around a table to discuss women's productive rights and decide what women should do with their bodies.

- Women control a vast amount of wealth & property. (Dower rights given women even greater legal privilege.) And this situation is increasing in their favor.
Women, Wealth, and Power: The Emerging Paradigm - Forbes

What is the ratio of women in power to women overall? And how does that compare to the ratio of men in power to men overall?

To claim a "patriarchy" isn't just empty jargon. It's a label which puts only men in the driver's seat (to the detriment of women), & to give no mention of women, thereby denying their power in business, politics, society, & media.

Men already took the driver's seat centuries ago; it is just now becoming more and more inclusive of women.

 

[Robert.Evans]

We are all truly human beings. What wrongs I see that need changing...

I advocate for changing sexism in society that hurts anyone, male or female.

If discrimination is present in an ornery and established sense, I stand against it and argue that it places undue harm on those who live the discrimination.

The current culture assumes that men are to be unfeeling hunters, fighters, soldiers, and providers for their property. It doesn't assume men are victims of domestic violence, victims of rape and sexual assault, lest they bear the stigma of being "weak."

It also assumes if a female teacher rapes a teenage boy, the boy is considered "lucky" by society and by his peers. It assumes males are only sexual predators and hunters, and never targets. These boys victimized by their perpetrators typically have no resources at their disposal to cope financially, legally, or psychologically with their PTSD.

Our culture also assumes that fathers and grown men are not as fit to be parents as women overall are. This is reflected in custody hearings as well as societal gender roles within marriages where dad is expected to work and spend little time with the kids.

This is where I stand with men's rights. Our current culture hurts them more than what is acknowledged most of the time. Anti-feminist rhetoric aside, what I care most about is standing for mens equality in the public and private spheres in regards to fatherhood, rape survivor advocacy, and selective service.

Good for you

 

[Robert.Evans]

At first I thought your chauvinistic beliefs contained a lot of misconceptions and sexist ideas of women while being more tolerant of men, to the point of idealizing men as the only creators of civilization.

Now I know your beliefs are both misogynistic and misandrist. In other words, what you have to say about women's rights and what you have to say about men's rights are equally worthless.

Oh, and just to note a trend I'm seeing here...

haha
So what's wrong with being pleasant? Difficult for you is it, or do you see that symbol as sarcastic. Perhaps you do. You seem to have a problem with just about anything.
And for your info, we are supposed to keep God's commands, that would be the God you don't even know.

 

[Robert.Evans]

No, men are not solely in control, but they are definitely in more control than women.

Really! *screams and runs out of room* (better not use that again, he might detect a trend)

Societal attitudes toward women also point to patriarchal elements not just in positions of power, but in social norms and traditions.



Women are the majority of voters--they are so free they have the right to vote for a shortlist of male candidates in nearly every presidential election (with relatively very few exceptions like Hillary Clinton). They are also so free that they get to watch a group of men sit around a table to discuss women's productive rights and decide what women should do with their bodies.



What is the ratio of women in power to women overall? And how does that compare to the ratio of men in power to men overall?



Men already took the driver's seat centuries ago; it is just now becoming more and more inclusive of women.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Imagine there no heaven, it's easy if you try... but why would you want to do that? Are you in love with death? Nice how you put ''imagine'' though, and not''evidence'' haha (better not use that again, he might detect a trend)

 

[Debater Slayer]

haha
So what's wrong with being pleasant? Difficult for you is it, or do you see that symbol as sarcastic. Perhaps you do. You seem to have a problem with just about anything.
And for your info, we are supposed to keep God's commands, that would be the God you don't even know.

Another appeal to ancient texts. Okay.

I don't know which is sadder: believing in ancient myths or wanting to enforce them on others. I think I'm going with the latter.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, men are not solely in control, but they are definitely in more control than women. Societal attitudes toward women also point to patriarchal elements not just in positions of power, but in social norms and traditions.

Are they so much less in control?
- They, as a group, can determine who wins any election.
Gender Gap In 2012 Election Aided Obama Win
- They have greater privilege in the justice system (friend of the court, presumption of capability of violence, preferential treatment in sexual assault cases).
- They have no military obligation.
- They benefit from affirmative action.
Add to this their greater life span, & their lot in life looks pretty good compared with men's.

Women are the majority of voters--they are so free they have the right to vote for a shortlist of male candidates in nearly every presidential election (with relatively very few exceptions like Hillary Clinton).

This is an interesting claim to victimhood. Women freely choose to elect many male politicians thru the primary & actual elections, yet the net effect is blamed on the "patriarchy". How does the patriarchy force them to advocate for these candidates, & then vote this way?

They are also so free that they get to watch a group of men sit around a table to discuss women's productive rights and decide what women should do with their bodies.

You should note that many women are anti-choice (or pro-life if you prefer), & would force their personal preferences on other women. (As I see it, it's not right to limit someone else's bodily autonomy just because they're of the same gender.) But there's another side to this coin.....when someone like Ms Warren makes hawkish statements, she knows that if war erupts to the extent that the draft is reactivated, only men are currently required to register & serve if called up. Is she part of the "patriarchy"? Are all those anti-choice women part of it too?

What is the ratio of women in power to women overall? And how does that compare to the ratio of men in power to men overall?

I don't know. But if women decide upon those in power being in power, do you discount this as having power?

Men already took the driver's seat centuries ago; it is just now becoming more and more inclusive of women.

Centuries ago there was slavery, indentured servitude, child labor, corporal punishment, & other societal ills. Are they still around in full force just because they once were? Of course not.....which illustrates that it's dysfunctional to use language as though we live in the 18th century.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Another appeal to ancient texts. Okay.

I don't know which is sadder: believing in ancient myths or wanting to enforce them on others. I think I'm going with the latter.

Where is your proof that it is a myth? Oh right, you have'nt got any.
And why is it, I wonder, that just because something is old or ancient, it is of no value? Perhaps that is your lack of ability to understand what is written. Now that really is sad. Just ''imagine'' that <trend.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Are they so much less in control?
- They, as a group, can determine who wins any election.
Gender Gap In 2012 Election Aided Obama Win
- They have greater privilege in the justice system (friend of the court, presumption of capability of violence, preferential treatment in sexual assault cases).
- They have no military obligation.
- They benefit from affirmative action.
Add to this their greater life span, & their lot in life looks pretty good compared with men's.

This is an interesting claim to victimhood. Women freely choose to elect many male politicians thru the primary & actual elections, yet the net effect is blamed on the "patriarchy". How does the patriarchy force them to advocate for these candidates, & then vote this way?

You should note that many women are anti-choice (or pro-life if you prefer), & would force their personal preferences on other women. (As I see it, it's not right to limit someone else's bodily autonomy just because they're of the same gender.) But there's another side to this coin.....when someone like Ms Warren makes hawkish statements, she knows that if war erupts to the extent that the draft is reactivated, only men are currently required to register & serve if called up. Is she part of the "patriarchy"? Are all those anti-choice women part of it too?

I don't know. But if women decide upon those in power being in power, do you discount this as having power?

Centuries ago there was slavery, indentured servitude, child labor, corporal punishment, & other societal ills. Are they still around in full force just because they once were? Of course not.....which illustrates that it's dysfunctional to use language as though we live in the 18th century.

On the news recently in the UK it said that women might be treated differently from men in the judicial system, as it was deemed that their needs were more complex than men's. So how do we read that? Women are weak? But we can't say that. So women have favoritism?