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

[Mathematician]

I sympathize, sir. I was falsely accused by a woman a few years ago but luckily her assertion and story was so bizarre that once the initial death threats aimed at me finally settled the only people who believed her were her close relatives. A mutual friend of ours who was raped finally called her out. To be honest if it wasn't for my close friends I may have become a bitter misogynist.

 

[rageoftyrael]

My question Storm, is why you would automatically assume that it was asked as a friend, and that HE was the jerk in that situation? Why would someone even bother to defend themselves against you if you are automatically go on the offensive, assuming that they were in the wrong? You don't know the relationship, do you?

 

[apophenia]

I sympathize, sir. I was falsely accused by a woman a few years ago but luckily her assertion and story was so bizarre that once the initial death threats aimed at me finally settled the only people who believed her were her close relatives. A mutual friend of ours who was raped finally called her out. To be honest if it wasn't for my close friends I may have become a bitter misogynist.

Yeah it happens. And yes I became bitter for some time, but not a misogynist. Perhaps a misanthropist. The situation I faced was not just women who didn't get it. It taught me a lesson about human ignorance, and how it is maintained. It was about peer pressure, it was about expediency, unquestioned assumptions, pride and arrogance. Those qualities are not gender specific.

 

[Storm]

My question Storm, is why you would automatically assume that it was asked as a friend, and that HE was the jerk in that situation? Why would someone even bother to defend themselves against you if you are automatically go on the offensive, assuming that they were in the wrong? You don't know the relationship, do you?

I don't. I qualified it with "the way you tell the story." IOW, it sounded that way based on his own words.

That said, I didn't say he was a jerk. Actually, I assumed he was joking around.

ETA: And what in the world does a lack of servitude have to do with self defense?

 

[Reverend Rick]

I'm glad you clarified, Rick.

I don't know what other experiences are like, but when I got my first car, I begged my parents (my dad, really, since my mom didn't know) to teach me how to maintain it. I repeatedly, over several years, asked my dad to show me how to change a tire, check the oil, etc. He once, very impatiently, showed me some basics. However, he spent copious amounts of time with my brothers, even showing them how to change brake pads! I'm still grumbling that I also begged him to teach me to play drums, like he taught my brothers. Same with SQL and JavaScript, which served to get my brothers IT jobs later.... But oh well.

It was swimming upstream to try to learn car maintenance since then. It was just odd to people, including my husband, that I wanted to know basic car care! In another thread, I mentioned that I go to great lengths to teach both my daughter and my sons the same qualities - compassion, hard work, honesty, and resilience. I want them all to know basic life skills that will allow them independence.

I don't know for sure, but I don't think it's a general poor little helpless me act, for the most part. It's that we continue to raise our sons with certain skills in mind and our daughters with others. If that creates double standards, then we should address it.

When my daughter got her drivers license, I showed her how to do the basics like check her oil and how to change a tire. She had trouble with the lug nuts, so I bought her a battery powered impact driver and the correct sized socket for the lug nuts. I also got her some jumper cables, a fire extinguisher, flashlight and a first aid kit. I also took her to the oil change place and showed her how easy it is was to let the professionals handle it, but also the need to keep an extra quart of oil in the car because these places are not open 24-7. We discussed air pressure in the tires and other things as well.

When it was time for her to pick her major in college, I explained the need to choose something that was going to provide her with an income that was large enough to support herself and why she would not want to be dependant on a man.

I told her a man should inhance her life, not maintain it. She also has taken martial arts classes since childhood. This girl could kick butt if need be. She will be 21 this year and I plan to teach her how to shoot and get her fire arm license. She allready understands fire arm safety and has shot a gun before.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Women have proved that they can hold down any job as well as a man.
They do as well as men, if not better in education. and work skills.
However they still hold far fewer senior positions in the work force.

I would expect them to be as equally skilled when it comes to dominating men on a personal level.
they do however lack in physical strength, so rely on other attributes.

It is amusing that men feel the need to complain, now that women are approaching equality in all fields and skills, about their nastiness and viciousness.

men and women are just people.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I used to tear down motors on Volkswagons, old Chevies and Cadilacs as well as old Harleys. Every since the EPA got involved with motor technology and computers run everything now, my knollege about cars is worthless. My neighbor left her dome light on and killed her battery which was corrected by plugging in a battery charger and connecting two wires. A six year old could have done this or made a sammich for that matter.

My point is, (and I will attempt to tie this story into the OP) many women still do this helpless act to extract favors from men. Women start crying when the police show up and act all weak but minutes before they where chasing a man around with a club. Guess who goes to jail?

Women most always get custody of their children unless they are grossly unfit. Where is the outrage for these sexist injustices?

Progressives say that same sex couples make good parents in one breath, (I agree) but support a woman to get custody of children 99% of the time in divorce court.

I call this selective bias outrage. It is no different than the good ol boy sexist crap of old.

The more things change, the more they stay the same if you think about it.

 

[Storm]

I used to tear down motors on Volkswagons, old Chevies and Cadilacs as well as old Harleys. Every since the EPA got involved with motor technology and computers run everything now, my knollege about cars is worthless. My neighbor left her dome light on and killed her battery which was corrected by plugging in a battery charger and connecting two wires. A six year old could have done this or made a sammich for that matter.

My point is, (and I will attempt to tie this story into the OP) many women still do this helpless act to extract favors from men. Women start crying when the police show up and act all weak but minutes before they where chasing a man around with a club. Guess who goes to jail?

Women most always get custody of their children unless they are grossly unfit. Where is the outrage for these sexist injustices?

Progressives say that same sex couples make good parents in one breath, (I agree) but support a woman to get custody of children 99% of the time in divorce court.

I call this selective bias outrage. It is no different than the good ol boy sexist crap of old.

The more things change, the more they stay the same if you think about it.

Oh, I agree that there's reverse sexism, and that SOME women like to play damsel in distress. I just thought your story was a bad example.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Oh, I agree that there's reverse sexism, and that SOME women like to play damsel in distress. I just thought your story was a bad example.

That is something new? My intentions are good however.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Yeah it happens. And yes I became bitter for some time, but not a misogynist. Perhaps a misanthropist. The situation I faced was not just women who didn't get it. It taught me a lesson about human ignorance, and how it is maintained. It was about peer pressure, it was about expediency, unquestioned assumptions, pride and arrogance. Those qualities are not gender specific.

I agree. :yes:

Part of the patriarchal design that I object to is the idea that women are incapable of power, force, impact, etc. I also object to the idea that women only use force for good (the same way the assumption is there of a man's use of force is always and only for good). It determines an ignorance on the part of an aggressor and dismisses the harm inflicted on the recipient.

I think personally the most insidious sexism against men in our culture is the automatic custody rights given to the mother.

 

[work in progress]

I agree. :yes:

Part of the patriarchal design that I object to is the idea that women are incapable of power, force, impact, etc. I also object to the idea that women only use force for good (the same way the assumption is there of a man's use of force is always and only for good). It determines an ignorance on the part of an aggressor and dismisses the harm inflicted on the recipient.

I get the impression that the reason I don't follow yours and some other feminists' line of thinking is because you think that men and women are interchangeable. I remember back years ago, a cavalcade of feminist leaders and writers were outraged when E.O. Wilson published Sociobiology: A New Synthesis, and proposed that humans can be studied using the same evolutionary principles that biologists and zoologists apply to other animals. Most feminists had been hung up on behavioural psychological theories -- that gender differences between men and women were all culturally imposed from early childhood.

Sure there are exceptions to the general rule; but humans are still sexually dimorphic animals with men being larger and having greater muscle mass than women. That gives a huge advantage in any sort of physical confrontation, and that has skewed the behaviour of men and women over the ages towards the expectation that men should lead and women should follow. Today, we are trying to change the ways we are largely hardwired to act, and remove all the intimidation factors to have a gender-equal society. This is going to be a tough struggle for many decades or generations because of the physical and biological factors. And I believe that recent studies showing younger women moving ahead of men in education and higher paying careers, may exacerbate tensions if we can't change old cultural expectations that were mostly grounded in our physical differences. If we have too many unemployed, hostile and aggressive young men who are blaming women for their lack of achievement, that is going to be dangerous for women.

I think personally the most insidious sexism against men in our culture is the automatic custody rights given to the mother.

I hear from my side of the fence, a lot of what guys who've ended up divorced said before and after they got hauled through the wringer. Let's just say that afterwards, they all turn into bloody martyrs when they have their wages garnished to pay alimony and child support. So don't get taken in by all the sob stories afterwards. Courts are messy and can never dispense perfect justice to everyone's satisfaction. The courts where I live, do not grant automatic custody to the mother, except in the case of very young children, who are more dependent on that bond with the mother, than the father.....that's nature and biology, and that's just the way it is! When men start breastfeeding infants, maybe I'll alter my opinion a bit! But, I know of at least one case where the court awarded custody to the father -- even though he lived out-of-province, because they had determined the mother was mentally and emotionally too unstable to be a reliable parent.

Most legal systems are likely as fair as they'll ever get! The only sure way to avoid such a mess is to take marriage seriously before you finally decide to get hitched, and don't do the things that lead to certain marriage breakup and divorce. The men's rights activists try to present a scenario where women are frivolously getting divorced, so they can run off with another guy and take their money. From my window on the world, the women who've ended up going through separation and divorce, did so after a long, agonizing process, because they were aware that most middle and lower class women end up in poverty if they are divorced while raising young children.

 

[Revoltingest]

When my daughter got her drivers license, I showed her how to do the basics like check her oil and how to change a tire. She had trouble with the lug nuts, so I bought her a battery powered impact driver and the correct sized socket for the lug nuts. I also got her some jumper cables, a fire extinguisher, flashlight and a first aid kit. I also took her to the oil change place and showed her how easy it is was to let the professionals handle it, but also the need to keep an extra quart of oil in the car because these places are not open 24-7. We discussed air pressure in the tires and other things as well.

What a geek you are! My daughter's male friends are amazed that we actually own an air compressor, & that she puts air in her own tires! (They don't do that. How do people get buy without tools, eh?) She's also the only one who can drive a stick shift. (Her friends are shiftless.)

 

[Songbird]

When my daughter got her drivers license, I showed her how to do the basics like check her oil and how to change a tire. She had trouble with the lug nuts, so I bought her a battery powered impact driver and the correct sized socket for the lug nuts. I also got her some jumper cables, a fire extinguisher, flashlight and a first aid kit. I also took her to the oil change place and showed her how easy it is was to let the professionals handle it, but also the need to keep an extra quart of oil in the car because these places are not open 24-7. We discussed air pressure in the tires and other things as well.

When it was time for her to pick her major in college, I explained the need to choose something that was going to provide her with an income that was large enough to support herself and why she would not want to be dependant on a man.

I told her a man should inhance her life, not maintain it. She also has taken martial arts classes since childhood. This girl could kick butt if need be. She will be 21 this year and I plan to teach her how to shoot and get her fire arm license. She allready understands fire arm safety and has shot a gun before.

Be my dad!

 

[apophenia]

I get the impression that the reason I don't follow yours and some other feminists' line of thinking is because you think that men and women are interchangeable. I remember back years ago, a cavalcade of feminist leaders and writers were outraged when E.O. Wilson published Sociobiology: A New Synthesis, and proposed that humans can be studied using the same evolutionary principles that biologists and zoologists apply to other animals. Most feminists had been hung up on behavioural psychological theories -- that gender differences between men and women were all culturally imposed from early childhood.

Well, I'm pleased to read that you are aware of E.O.Wilson and are not condemning him. I bought and read "Sociobiology: The New Synthesis" when it was released in 1975. Back then, the book was anathema to feminists, who considered that it was a clever way to subvert feminist dialectic ! I was regarded with suspicion for reading it ! In fact the book was re-released in 2000, with a publishers note that it was unfortunate that such a significant book had been overlooked by many because of the zeitgeist at the time of it's publication, and that perhaps its time had finally come.

Sure there are exceptions to the general rule; but humans are still sexually dimorphic animals with men being larger and having greater muscle mass than women. That gives a huge advantage in any sort of physical confrontation, and that has skewed the behaviour of men and women over the ages towards the expectation that men should lead and women should follow. Today, we are trying to change the ways we are largely hardwired to act, and remove all the intimidation factors to have a gender-equal society.

Your observation is correct, and there is a significant flipside ...
Because of the muscular advantage of men, womens power has had its basis in social skills.
Despite the lamentable depiction of men as unfeeling brutes which characterised much of the feminist rhetoric in the 60s and 70s and even later, the fact is that men are also emotional creatures with powerful attachments to their spouses and children.I have observed this even in men who are otherwise, at least superficially, "unfeeling brutes ". This is the handle which women have had on the physically more powerful men since time immemorial. And it is a handle which circumstances caused them to learn to manipulate with (sometimes unconscious) finesse. That is not a criticism BTW. I can easily empathise with that.

This form of womens' power can be wielded to mutual advantage, or in the service of a controlling attitude. I have seen many, many men reduced to tears by the application of this kind of power ( though that response is, as far as possible, hidden from women, for reasons which are themselves affirmations of that power). It is legend in great literature. It would be disingenuous to ignore it.
Men do not get pregnant and breastfeed. The powerful bond between mother and child is assured by that biological context (research oxytocin for relevant detail). Not so for men. That bond is somewhat more fragile and dependent on the co-operation of the woman, and the men know it. And it matters to them, and always has ! Women have always had that power over men, and millenia of social adaptation have made a very powerful tool of it, a tool not to be underestimated.

This is going to be a tough struggle for many decades or generations because of the physical and biological factors. And I believe that recent studies showing younger women moving ahead of men in education and higher paying careers, may exacerbate tensions if we can't change old cultural expectations that were mostly grounded in our physical differences. If we have too many unemployed, hostile and aggressive young men who are blaming women for their lack of achievement, that is going to be dangerous for women.

True. So if our aim is not gender-oriented, let us by all means avoid such outcomes, and examine how this new situation has evolved.

I hear from my side of the fence, a lot of what guys who've ended up divorced said before and after they got hauled through the wringer. Let's just say that afterwards, they all turn into bloody martyrs when they have their wages garnished to pay alimony and child support. So don't get taken in by all the sob stories afterwards. Courts are messy and can never dispense perfect justice to everyone's satisfaction. The courts where I live, do not grant automatic custody to the mother, except in the case of very young children, who are more dependent on that bond with the mother, than the father.....that's nature and biology, and that's just the way it is! When men start breastfeeding infants, maybe I'll alter my opinion a bit! But, I know of at least one case where the court awarded custody to the father -- even though he lived out-of-province, because they had determined the mother was mentally and emotionally too unstable to be a reliable parent.

You're losing me here. The family lawcourt situation has been a disgrace and a bleeding wound for decades. And it's the children bleeding as much as anybody. At the time when this was significant to me, custody to the mother was routine almost entirely regardless of the situation. A lot of the responsibility for men having meltdowns and refusing court orders is on the shoulders of those who destroyed mens relationships with their children and expected them to carry on as if everything was just fine, even if there was compelling evidence that the man would be an equally good or better parent. And the awful irony is that the men who cared most about their children were the ones most damaged.

Most legal systems are likely as fair as they'll ever get!

Oh. So let's just stop trying to make them fairer ?

The only sure way to avoid such a mess is to take marriage seriously before you finally decide to get hitched, and don't do the things that lead to certain marriage breakup and divorce. The men's rights activists try to present a scenario where women are frivolously getting divorced, so they can run off with another guy and take their money. From my window on the world, the women who've ended up going through separation and divorce, did so after a long, agonizing process, because they were aware that most middle and lower class women end up in poverty if they are divorced while raising young children.

I know single anecdotes are not the best way to deal with a debate like this, but having said that I'm going to share one anyway.

I have a friend who confided in me about how he came to be a supporting father to a daughter who now lives 3000 miles from him. The man was a musician ( now a counsellor/social worker) with a tendency to enjoy whisky and weed. He woke from a stupor one night and was privy to a conversation between his lover and her girlfriend. The conversation was about how she had decided to get pregnant to him. He was misled into believing that she was on the pill. He listened to her explaining how much she wanted a child, and how she considered him a good choice because of his genetic characteristics plus the fact that he was such a decent fellow that she was sure he would pay child support (which he does, and lives in near poverty as a result). He described lying in that bed all night mortified and aware that a vicious trap had just snapped shut.

That man is emotionally devastated. He is around 60 years old and the daughter is his only child. He loves her dearly, all the while knowing he will see her maybe a handful of times as she grows. The situation is one of the cruelest I have seen, yet this woman comes across as likeable, intelligent and thoughtful.

I give that example because it encapsulates what I am trying to communicate. I am not suggesting that all women are that corrupt. Not at all. I am suggesting that a situation like that is one of the outcomes of the starry-eyed idealism many have about feminism, and by association, women in general, and the way that dovetails with the womens form of power I discussed earlier.

I could give lots of other examples, but I am savvy enough to know that if I did so I would be characterised as a male chauvinist apologist with a litany of complaints.

And please, ask yourself this question - why is it that after so many decades influenced by feminism and political correctness in general, marriage fails so consistently, and so much more than ever before ?

I know that one smug answer I have often heard is that women simply won't tolerate bad relationships like they used to . But I suspect that is a very superficial answer. In our culture, marriage has a life expectancy of 2-3 years. This is an emotional holocaust for the children of our time. All the indications are that divorce and separation have very negative outcomes for children.

Children can't organise a children's liberation movement. They are stuck with whatever their parents do. If we are indeed evolving socially, and if women have in fact been empowered socially by education and birth control etc (and I would accept that they have), why has the situation got so much worse ?

edit : I mean worse in the regard of marriage breakdown and the subsequent effect on children. Because IMO that is the consideration of the greatest significance.

 

[Songbird]

Well, I'm pleased to read that you are aware of E.O.Wilson and are not condemning him. I bought and read "Sociobiology: The New Synthesis" when it was released in 1975. Back then, the book was anathema to feminists, who considered that it was a clever way to subvert feminist dialectic ! I was regarded with suspicion for reading it ! In fact the book was re-released in 2000, with a publishers note that it was unfortunate that such a significant book had been overlooked by many because of the zeitgeist at the time of it's publication, and that perhaps its time had finally come.

Your observation is correct, and there is a significant flipside ...
Because of the muscular advantage of men, womens power has had its basis in social skills.
Despite the lamentable depiction of men as unfeeling brutes which characterised much of the feminist rhetoric in the 60s and 70s and even later, the fact is that men are also emotional creatures with powerful attachments to their spouses and children.I have observed this even in men who are otherwise, at least superficially, "unfeeling brutes ". This is the handle which women have had on the physically more powerful men since time immemorial. And it is a handle which circumstances caused them to learn to manipulate with (sometimes unconscious) finesse. That is not a criticism BTW. I can easily empathise with that.

This form of womens' power can be wielded to mutual advantage, or in the service of a controlling attitude. I have seen many, many men reduced to tears by the application of this kind of power ( though that response is, as far as possible, hidden from women, for reasons which are themselves affirmations of that power). It is legend in great literature. It would be disingenuous to ignore it.
Men do not get pregnant and breastfeed. The powerful bond between mother and child is assured by that biological context (research oxytocin for relevant detail). Not so for men. That bond is somewhat more fragile and dependent on the co-operation of the woman, and the men know it. And it matters to them, and always has ! Women have always had that power over men, and millenia of social adaptation have made a very powerful tool of it, a tool not to be underestimated.



True. So if our aim is not gender-oriented, let us by all means avoid such outcomes, and examine how this new situation has evolved.



You're losing me here. The family lawcourt situation has been a disgrace and a bleeding wound for decades. And it's the children bleeding as much as anybody. At the time when this was significant to me, custody to the mother was routine almost entirely regardless of the situation. A lot of the responsibility for men having meltdowns and refusing court orders is on the shoulders of those who destroyed mens relationships with their children and expected them to carry on as if everything was just fine, even if there was compelling evidence that the man would be an equally good or better parent. And the awful irony is that the men who cared most about their children were the ones most damaged.




Oh. So let's just stop trying to make them fairer ?



I know single anecdotes are not the best way to deal with a debate like this, but having said that I'm going to share one anyway.

I have a friend who confided in me about how he came to be a supporting father to a daughter who now lives 3000 miles from him. The man was a musician ( now a counsellor/social worker) with a tendency to enjoy whisky and weed. He woke from a stupor one night and was privy to a conversation between his lover and her girlfriend. The conversation was about how she had decided to get pregnant to him. He was misled into believing that she was on the pill. He listened to her explaining how much she wanted a child, and how she considered him a good choice because of his genetic characteristics plus the fact that he was such a decent fellow that she was sure he would pay child support (which he does, and lives in near poverty as a result). He described lying in that bed all night mortified and aware that a vicious trap had just snapped shut.

That man is emotionally devastated. He is around 60 years old and the daughter is his only child. He loves her dearly, all the while knowing he will see her maybe a handful of times as she grows. The situation is one of the cruelest I have seen, yet this woman comes across as likeable, intelligent and thoughtful.

I give that example because it encapsulates what I am trying to communicate. I am not suggesting that all women are that corrupt. Not at all. I am suggesting that a situation like that is one of the outcomes of the starry-eyed idealism many have about feminism, and by association, women in general, and the way that dovetails with the womens form of power I discussed earlier.

I could give lots of other examples, but I am savvy enough to know that if I did so I would be characterised as a male chauvinist apologist with a litany of complaints.

And please, ask yourself this question - why is it that after so many decades influenced by feminism and political correctness in general, marriage fails so consistently, and so much more than ever before ?

I know that one smug answer I have often heard is that women simply won't tolerate bad relationships like they used to . But I suspect that is a very superficial answer. In our culture, marriage has a life expectancy of 2-3 years. This is an emotional holocaust for the children of our time. All the indications are that divorce and separation have very negative outcomes for children.

Children can't organise a children's liberation movement. They are stuck with whatever their parents do. If we are indeed evolving socially, and if women have in fact been empowered socially by education and birth control etc (and I would accept that they have), why has the situation got so much worse ?

edit : I mean worse in the regard of marriage breakdown and the subsequent effect on children. Because IMO that is the consideration of the greatest significance.

That's a lot of hyperbole there.

Marriage "breakdowns"? Divorce rates having been dropping for decades and are lower now than they were in the 70s. People are waiting longer than ever to marry, one big factor in lower divorce rates.

In terms of supporting fathers' rights, and in conversations with people who belong to organizations who help dads in family court, dads are usually shortshrifted time with children, and moms are shortshrifted financially. You know why? Courts usually award whoever was the primary caregiver during marriage custody after the marriage ends. It's easily searched on the internet - wage earners suffer least financially, caregivers suffers least in time with children.

And here's a point people miss when they debate fathers getting shafted in family court. The decision hinges on what's best for the kids. The most stability is keeping kids with their primary caregiver. It's that simple.

Despite what people think, courts don't automatically award mothers custody without examining who was the primary caregiver. The rise of primary caregiving fathers has been met with a rise in fathers being awarded custody, and more parents now are sharing custody.

Regarding children's poor situation - what poor situation?? What are you talking about? Crime is lower now than twenty years ago, suicide rates, abuse rates, death from all sorts of diseases and accidents are lower now than through most of history, and particularly of note, through much of recent history. Children have among the best lives ever, if the most obese.

Where are you getting your information?



And just because one swears to not be misogynistic doesn't mean one isn't.

 

[apophenia]

That's a lot of hyperbole there.

Marriage "breakdowns"? Divorce rates having been dropping for decades and are lower now than they were in the 70s. People are waiting longer than ever to marry, one big factor in lower divorce rates.

In terms of supporting fathers' rights, and in conversations with people who belong to organizations who help dads in family court, dads are usually shortshrifted time with children, and moms are shortshrifted financially. You know why? Courts usually award whoever was the primary caregiver during marriage custody after the marriage ends. It's easily searched on the internet - wage earners suffer least financially, caregivers suffers least in time with children.

And here's a point people miss when they debate fathers getting shafted in family court. The decision hinges on what's best for the kids. The most stability is keeping kids with their primary caregiver. It's that simple.

Despite what people think, courts don't automatically award mothers custody without examining who was the primary caregiver. The rise of primary caregiving fathers has been met with a rise in fathers being awarded custody, and more parents now are sharing custody.

Regarding children's poor situation - what poor situation?? What are you talking about? Crime is lower now than twenty years ago, suicide rates, abuse rates, death from all sorts of diseases and accidents are lower now than through most of history, and particularly of note, through much of recent history. Children have among the best lives ever, if the most obese.

Where are you getting your information?

And just because one swears to not be misogynistic doesn't mean one isn't.

Wow. What in that post makes you think misogynistic ? My guess is that it was because I made the mistake of relating the story of my friend. As I also posted "I could give lots of other examples, but I am savvy enough to know that if I did so I would be characterised as a male chauvinist apologist with a litany of complaints." Bingo. Broke the rules. Labelled misogynist (indirectly, but clearly enough).

My experiences and how I interpret them are not supporting feminist politics therefore I am misogynist ? You sure played that card quick.

Feminism is not women. Let me repeat that, feminism is not women, it is a general term for various views of a gender-political philosophy .

To interpret criticism of feminism as hatred of women is a deplorable kind of propaganda and male-witch hunting.

Regarding family law courts -

In my post I stated "At the time when this was significant to me, custody to the mother was routine almost entirely regardless of the situation." That time was the mid to late 70s.

And the point is absolutely true. I have pointed out at various times that I am from Australia, and I point this out in case there are differences between here and the US. It is generally acknowledged, and can be proved if one does the research, that what I said is correct. I do not know the current figures in Australia, but I am well aware that shared custody is now common.

My information regarding divorce rates is not something I had researched before tonight. I don't research every thought and detail when I post, unless I feel there is reason to doubt what I am saying. Like most people, I develop a view of the current state of affairs from a variety of media, concensus opinions and personal observations. I can get it wrong. So can experts, who constantly disagree.

So ...

I just asked a woman psychologist working in family therapy ( I am effectively a grandfather and today was involved in a family therapy session) whether she knew if my impression of increasing marriage breakdown was correct. She suggested that I may find the data via the Australian Institute of Family Studies. So I will do a little research and correct my view if I am wrong. I have found out some interesting and relevant stuff already.

Your statement that " Divorce rates having been dropping for decades and are lower now than they were in the 70s" is worth carefully unpacking.

Divorce rates peaked massively and suddenly in the mid 70s in Australia. The rate for the last 30 years has been more or less the same, but well above the rates prior to that spike,( in the 50s and 60s and early 70s ), and of course extremely above the rates before that - here is the graph from 1900-2008 from the Australian Institute of Family Studies -

http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/info/charts/divorce/crudedivorcerate.jpg

I do not resile from my more general point about bad outcomes for children, regardless of "shared parenting" and the custody decisions based on who was the primary care-giver. That is about perceived justice for the parents and the best compromise for the children. Fine. But I have not met any kids who don't feel they were traumatised to some degree by marriage breakdown. (Why do you treat that term with derision ? I don't understand that). My grandchildren for example have shown major behaviour changes and distress since their parents separated almost two years ago.Their custody is shared almost 50-50.

And for the record, I don't hold their mother any more responsible for that separation than their father.

But their happiness and sense of security, safety and assured affection has been damaged. The attempt to refute this in the name of defending some form of gender politics is irresponsible IMO. I don't want to hang anyone for their personal errors of judgement, but I am not going to be part of a whitewash that says the kids are fine with divorce just so that the parents don't have to feel a bit of unease and maybe question their own behaviours, whatever their gender.

If you ask them how they feel they will tell you. Mummy and Daddy splitting up was very painful for them and has had a negative impact on them and their relationships. That is observable, as the family psychologist ( a feminist woman of about my age) agrees.

Regarding your last paragraph, where you celebrate the reduced suicide and abuse rates you claim society now enjoys -

This graph shows suicide rates in various countries from 1960-2007. In the USA the rate has been more or less the same (between about 10 and 13 per hundred thousand) the whole time, so your assertion that rates have dropped is incorrect-
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...jpg/525px-Suicide-deaths-per-100000-trend.jpg
info from - Suicide in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deaths per day due to child abuse and neglect -
http://www.childhelp.org/page/-/child-deaths-per-day-line_9-30-2011.jpg
info from - National Child Abuse Statistics | Childhelp

What was it you asked me - "Where are you getting your information?"
Where are you getting yours ?

Finally, this thread is titled " When will we acknowledge sexism and violence against men is just as real?".

It is not titled "Post here and dare to criticise feminist dialectic - and be labelled a misogynist !" And, by the way, the thread title does not suggest that such sexism and violence characterises women. Nor do I.

I will not be bluffed into feeling backfooted because someone has decided to insinuate something untrue about me, and use a contemporary term of demonisation.That proposition is made in a blatant attempt to discredit someone who dared to suggest that a sociopolitical movement may have zealots within its ranks.

What a shocking suggestion.

 

[Songbird]

Wow. What in that post makes you think misogynistic ? My guess is that it was because I made the mistake of relating the story of my friend. As I also posted "I could give lots of other examples, but I am savvy enough to know that if I did so I would be characterised as a male chauvinist apologist with a litany of complaints." Bingo. Broke the rules. Labelled misogynist (indirectly, but clearly enough).

My experiences and how I interpret them are not supporting feminist politics therefore I am misogynist ? You sure played that card quick.

Feminism is not women. Let me repeat that, feminism is not women, it is a general term for various views of a gender-political philosophy .

To interpret criticism of feminism as hatred of women is a deplorable kind of propaganda and male-witch hunting.

Regarding family law courts -

In my post I stated "At the time when this was significant to me, custody to the mother was routine almost entirely regardless of the situation." That time was the mid to late 70s.

And the point is absolutely true. I have pointed out at various times that I am from Australia, and I point this out in case there are differences between here and the US. It is generally acknowledged, and can be proved if one does the research, that what I said is correct. I do not know the current figures in Australia, but I am well aware that shared custody is now common.

My information regarding divorce rates is not something I had researched before tonight. I don't research every thought and detail when I post, unless I feel there is reason to doubt what I am saying. Like most people, I develop a view of the current state of affairs from a variety of media, concensus opinions and personal observations. I can get it wrong. So can experts, who constantly disagree.

So ...

I just asked a woman psychologist working in family therapy ( I am effectively a grandfather and today was involved in a family therapy session) whether she knew if my impression of increasing marriage breakdown was correct. She suggested that I may find the data via the Australian Institute of Family Studies. So I will do a little research and correct my view if I am wrong. I have found out some interesting and relevant stuff already.

Your statement that " Divorce rates having been dropping for decades and are lower now than they were in the 70s" is worth carefully unpacking.

Divorce rates peaked massively and suddenly in the mid 70s in Australia. The rate for the last 30 years has been more or less the same, but well above the rates prior to that spike,( in the 50s and 60s and early 70s ), and of course extremely above the rates before that - here is the graph from 1900-2008 from the Australian Institute of Family Studies -

http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/info/charts/divorce/crudedivorcerate.jpg

I do not resile from my more general point about bad outcomes for children, regardless of "shared parenting" and the custody decisions based on who was the primary care-giver. That is about perceived justice for the parents and the best compromise for the children. Fine. But I have not met any kids who don't feel they were traumatised to some degree by marriage breakdown. (Why do you treat that term with derision ? I don't understand that). My grandchildren for example have shown major behaviour changes and distress since their parents separated almost two years ago.Their custody is shared almost 50-50.

And for the record, I don't hold their mother any more responsible for that separation than their father.

But their happiness and sense of security, safety and assured affection has been damaged. The attempt to refute this in the name of defending some form of gender politics is irresponsible IMO. I don't want to hang anyone for their personal errors of judgement, but I am not going to be part of a whitewash that says the kids are fine with divorce just so that the parents don't have to feel a bit of unease and maybe question their own behaviours, whatever their gender.

If you ask them how they feel they will tell you. Mummy and Daddy splitting up was very painful for them and has had a negative impact on them and their relationships. That is observable, as the family psychologist ( a feminist woman of about my age) agrees.

Regarding your last paragraph, where you celebrate the reduced suicide and abuse rates you claim society now enjoys -

This graph shows suicide rates in various countries from 1960-2007. In the USA the rate has been more or less the same (between about 10 and 13 per hundred thousand) the whole time, so your assertion that rates have dropped is incorrect-
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...jpg/525px-Suicide-deaths-per-100000-trend.jpg
info from - Suicide in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deaths per day due to child abuse and neglect -
http://www.childhelp.org/page/-/child-deaths-per-day-line_9-30-2011.jpg
info from - National Child Abuse Statistics | Childhelp

What was it you asked me - "Where are you getting your information?"
Where are you getting yours ?

Finally, this thread is titled " When will we acknowledge sexism and violence against men is just as real?".

It is not titled "Post here and dare to criticise feminist dialectic - and be labelled a misogynist !" And, by the way, the thread title does not suggest that such sexism and violence characterises women. Nor do I.

I will not be bluffed into feeling backfooted because someone has decided to insinuate something untrue about me, and use a contemporary term of demonisation.That proposition is made in a blatant attempt to discredit someone who dared to suggest that a sociopolitical movement may have zealots within its ranks.

What a shocking suggestion.

Wow, I have no idea what you're addressing with the wall of text, but it wasn't my points. At all.

And if we're talking Australia v. the U.S. we have different stats. Suicide rates have declined in America, particularly for teenagers. All of the things I mentioned in my post are from numerous U.S. studies, easily searchable.

And still - one can claim not to be misogynistic til blue in the face. It has nothing to do with you. Take a deep breath!

 

[dust1n]

I get it.

I ask again: how can women like me support you?

Apologize on behalf of your gender! I kid.

Really, and this really doesn't apply much to an intelligent woman such as yourself, don't simultaneously clear your repressive with systemically ignoring everyone elses. And, in general, don't assume a guy has an particular set of qualities.

But you know all of this stuff..

 

[dust1n]

Children have among the best lives ever, if the most obese.

Where are you getting your information?

Hmm? Children seem to be distributed between 'the best lives ever' and 'the worse ******* mess you can imagine.'

 

[dust1n]

I've just personally noted that most males (even vehemently feminist ones) dislike feminists for the sole reason of being constantly brush-aside as a being incapable of ever understanding the life of a women in America! =O, and that any thoughts on topics such as rapes, slutwalks, marriages, etc. that vary from the exact opinion of some feminist will likely be counteracted with terms as 'instigator of rape culture,' 'enabler,' 'sexist,' and 'misogoynist'.

I spoke with an old'n friend of mine who moved to New York a few years ago (I hate anyone I knew who moved to New York) online recently. In an open forum on FB, I stated, after expressing a long concern about men, rape, and the biological factors, that it's best to take caution when engaging in drunken bedplaying with males.

Her reaction: Oh, so anyone male I get in bed with is going to rape me?

Doesn't it seem a little naive to think that the world is ever going to be perfect enough that you could, night after night, in New York City, sleep drunkenly next to male strangers? I guess being cautious is a lot like being a sexist. This doesn't even count a barrage of stupidity an insensitivity rampant in the rest of the reply, in which a girl I've known for 4 years, and have read much more feminism than she ever will, called me a rape enabler in open forum. Way to open the dialect.

Then again, what do you expect when girls 18-24 (or anyone for that matter) constantly likes to speak presumptiously on topics that they do not understand, to the point that will flaunt Simone de Beauvior, never even knowing her acceptance of Sartre's affair with his own adopted daughter...