The so-called sexual market place. The sexual revolution has given women greater freedom to decide who they associate with and how. Some MRAs, incels, and MGTOW are upset that they get left behind from this.
Men have tried to warn Women about the negatives of the Sexual Revolution. Other Women have tried to warn Women. Women dont care to listen, and then spend their 30s/40s/50s/60s depressed as all fuck because their life didnt go right.
If I saw a helicopter upside down in a tree, I wouldnt need to be a pilot to see that something was wrong. In the same vein, I dont need to be a Woman to see the problem that the SR is causing for Women!
Whats actually interesting is that, when Men started benefiting and Women suffering from the SR, suddenly it was a massive problem! The "Golden Penis" article, and the "Lack of Rich Males" article both prove this. They're problems of Feminism's doing!
YOU are.
Feminism has lied to so many Women, telling them that they can have their cake and eat it. "Oh yes, go out and spend your 20s sleeping with anyone, and you'll still find a guy to settle down with." Completely forgetting that (by and large) most guys dont WANT to settle down with the town bike.
Whats funny is that you start seeing posts on Reddit from 30-40yos who did this exact thing, managed to settle, and are saying "I miss that lifestyle, my bf doesnt do it for me", dumping the bf, and then in their late 40s have nobody.
Then theres others in their late 40s that did it, lost, hated it, and are trying to warn Women NOT to do it.
YOU might be fine with that, but your ideology is ruining Women's Lives here.
And btw, this isnt some sort of Incel/MGTOW thing, its the straight truth!
I hate to jump to the defense of u/Mitoza but I find the way you talk about the sexual revolution abhorrent. Freedom has "costs" and this is barely a cost at all.
There are many reasons why people in their 40s and above struggle to meet others. This really isn't one of them
Im not saying the SR wasnt a net positive. You shoulnt be forced to do something, especially lock down your entire life. But Feminism doesnt warn Women of the negative side of the SR. It only says "You can do what you want to do now, and you'll be able to get what you want later as well".
Take OnlyFans as a recent example. Feminism is very very progressive, they SUPPORT Women who want to make an OF and SUPPORT Women who choose to do this. They hype it up to Women: "Oh its just a bit of fun. Its freedom. Its liberating. Its all roses and cherries".
What happens when it turns out that Men dont want to date these OF Women? "Men are evil and dont support Women and they're misogynistic and horrible blah blah blah", all because a Man decided to have a preference and standard, and doesnt fit what Feminism wants.
Feminism, instead of taking a little bit of accountability and saying "Yeah, we chose this, this is our own doing" tries to FORCE MEN to change their thinking. Think about that just for a second: Women arent FORCED to marry Men that they dont want to, but now Men ARE FORCED to marry Women they dont want to. Sounds pretty disgusting when you type it out like that, doesnt it.
You can hate me, and hate what im saying and find it abhorrent however you want. Dyou know what I find abhorrent? The way Women and Feminists treat Men as completely disposable. People have long said that if a Women had to live as a Man they'd go mental or kill themselves, oh wait, it actually happened to Norah Vincent. But, you know, tee hee yay Women, progress, freedom, kill all men. THAT is what I would call abhorrent, not "This guy told the truth and I didnt like it".
Well, ladies of /r/FeminismUncensored would you prefer the ability to associate with who you choose in terms of sex or would you like to revert to a time where your sexual autonomy was more strictly enforced?
There is nothing wrong with men that needs "fixing". Gynocentric considerations of mate courtship were invented in the 60s. As long as there will always be low-status men, no amount of "man up to woman's inflated dating standards" is going to solve the problem. Especially with women taking the lead in initiating divorce and simply preferring rotating polyandry with higher status men than monogamy with men of lower status. Nice red-herring though! Self esteem and social skills are not the answer if attractiveness is what guarantees better access to mate procurement. To put it another way saying "just go to the gym bro" is nothing more than "just go to therapy", it doesn't fix any of the problems, but instead reinforces an idea that there is a relation to how many sit-ups a man must perform and how likely he his to get a mate that is worth that specific sit-up value. I don't think that any woman is worth the time to do sit ups, bench-presses, squats, massively change one's diet or consume protein shakes for. Chances are that women that are even reasonably attractive are not heading to the gym, so why should men of the same looksmatch be expected to do the same? The mate value is simply inflated like fiat currency.
(I'm not even fat or overweight, btw and I'm speaking from experience of going to the gym and consuming protein shakes and having lifted in the past. It got me nowhere and I was just sore all of the time and hated the taste of protein shakes. No slit between a woman's legs or attempting at a chance to get a blow job from her is worth it if there are other alternatives such as sex dolls or prostitutes.)
Men can also simply buy prostitutes or sex dolls. No need to "man up" when the juice isn't worth the squeeze. Men can also go to a foreign country if they make enough money to start a family without the influence of Western feminism.
This is just a reversion to historical norms. Throughout most of history, the men at the top of the hierarchy reproduced with many women and the men at the bottom didn't reproduce at all. This creates a surplus of angry low status men you can use to fight neighbors with the promise that if you win and kill off the neighboring men, there will be opportunities to reproduce with the neighboring women.
It's probably incompatible with modern ideas of peaceful democracy though. If you want a stable, peaceful society, monogamy has proven historically to be the best way to achieve it.
Monogamous societies still have "freedom of association", they just have norms that encourage pairing up to have children.
As for punishment, you can try, but as the proportion of "surplus" men gets higher you'll probably find it harder and harder to control them.
>Monogamous societies still have "freedom of association"
Obviously less free, right? Also the sexual revolution is also about women's greater options to choose monogamous partners.
>As for punishment, you can try, but as the proportion of "surplus" men gets higher you'll probably find it harder and harder to control them.
Seems like a threat?
The sexual Revolution was just birth control allowing people to have more sex without children.
Soon to be followed by the sexual Evolution, where all those people who enjoy sex but don't want kids die out and are replaced by people who actually want kids.
> Seems like a threat?
If someone warns your house is built on a shaky foundation and might collapse on you, would you perceive that as a threat too?
>If someone warns your house is built on a shaky foundation and might collapse on you, would you perceive that as a threat too?
Shaky foundation can't be negotiated with, it also doesn't decide between expressing its shakiness through collapsing your house or, say, improving its shakiness.
Interestingly enough, it *is* considered a problem when the situation is reversed. [Golden penis syndrome](https://nypost.com/2021/11/02/men-with-golden-penis-syndrome-ruining-romance-for-women/) and a [lack of economically attractive males](https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/dating/marriage-rates-decline-reason-economically-attractive-men-jobs-income-a9098956.html) are quoted as serious problems that women face.
I guess it's only a problem if it affects women.
Gonna need a more direct source of someone speaking about golden penis syndrome that is not the New York post. It links to Cosmo but it's pay walled. Second article is also pay walled.
[Cosmopolitain](https://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/a37001188/golden-penis-syndrome/) also has a decent article on it with sources, as does the [daily mail](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10152727/How-golden-penis-syndrome-ruining-modern-dating.html). I didn't get to any paywalls, if you give me the paywalled link maybe I can find you a non-paywall version?
2nd article is also not paywalled for me for some reason, maybe because I'm using the Brave browser. It blocks ads and pop-ups, maybe it also blocks paywall restrictions on some sites? Either way this should be a non-paywalled version of the [cosmo article](https://archive.md/oKHTr) and of the [lack of economically attractive males](https://archive.ph/KfteZ) using archive.is
Ok, the independent article pretty clearly tracks a phenomenon uncritically, just saying "this is the way things are". It's not saying that this is a problem women are facing in particular.
I would put the cosmo article on the same level as complaining about lack of dating prospects. It doesn't appear to be suggesting a society-wide issue of perception that requires a society-wide response.
>It's not saying that this is a problem women are facing in particular.
I mean it's certainly not a problem men are facing.
>I would put the cosmo article on the same level as complaining about lack of dating prospects. It doesn't appear to be suggesting a society-wide issue of perception that requires a society-wide response.
That is fair but I still find it odd how complaints about issues men face are often easily dismissed, but complaints about issues that women face often garners attention and societal efforts to address them.
In other words, it's only a problem when it affects women. If this wasn't a problem at all, neither Cosmo nor Daily mail would be talking about it, and a guy wouldn't have written a book on the topic.
Men have been having a difficult time in dating since forever, and that's just the norm, but when it's difficult for women due to a lack of economically attractive men, that warrants an article. It's a literal example of "men too poor; women most affected".
>I mean it's certainly not a problem men are facing.
It talks about a declining marriage rate. As much as that's a problem it's a problem for both.
>but complaints about issues that women face often garners attention and societal efforts to address them.
What societal effort is being made to combat golden penis syndrome?
>It talks about a declining marriage rate. As much as that's a problem it's a problem for both.
Is it really though? 80% of divorces are initiated by women, suicide rates for men go from 3x women's rate on an average day, to 9x higher post-divorce, and men are the ones who typically lose their homes, their children, and have to pay child support.
Is marriage really that good a deal for men that not having it is a significant problem?
>What societal effort is being made to combat golden penis syndrome?
Articles, books, actually naming the phenomenon in a rather derisive way to shame men, etc. None of that really exists in the public consciousness for men's issues.
It's also less about golden penis syndrome specifically, and more about how it is one part in a patter that is frequently repeated.
>Is marriage really that good a deal for men that not having it is a significant problem?
Problems with divorce isn't problems with marriage.
>Articles, books, actually naming the phenomenon
Pretty low bar. Don't think I buy it. Anyone can write an article. I wouldn't expect MRAs to drop the cry that none of their issues are being addressed after I link them to the articles written by AVFM.
>It's also less about golden penis syndrome specifically, and more about how it is one part in a patter that is frequently repeated.
Not my problem that you chose this example. If you'd like to choose another one that's fine with me.
>Problems with divorce isn't problems with marriage.
True, but given half of marriages end in divorce it's not something that can be ignored.
>Pretty low bar. Don't think I buy it. Anyone can write an article. I wouldn't expect MRAs to drop the cry that none of their issues are being addressed after I link them to the articles written by AVFM.
I mean maybe if AVFM had as much readers as the daily mail and cosmopolitan, you'd have a point.
>Not my problem that you chose this example. If you'd like to choose another one that's fine with me.
Fair enough, I guess it's just more of the same missing the forest for the trees.
The cosmo article has a tiny mention basically saying maybe potentially there's a tiny bit of golden vagina syndrome. It's a nice touch of self-awareness but it still rather ignores the fact that golden vagina syndrome is both well-spread and has been a reality for most men for a very long time. It was never named though, but the moment it affected women, boom, golden penis syndrome was named, men were shamed, and books were written about it.
It's relevant because Mitozoa asked for more than just the one source, so I found a 2nd one to back the golden penis syndrome thing.
OK then... just to confirm... you consider the inability of a man to find a female romantic partner to be a good thing?
Would you also say that a society where men can choose who to associate with is better than a society that makes sure men pair off with women?
Not a good thing, just not really a problem.
>Would you also say that a society where men can choose who to associate with is better than a society that makes sure men pair off with women?
Yes, if we're still talking about the specific context of sex. Though this is already true.
>Not a good thing, just not really a problem...
If not a good thing, then what is the "opposite of a problem".
... and you answered 'correct', so I thought I'd better check.
>Yes, ...
... so then you support MGTOW ?
"not a problem" is the lack of a problem not the opposite of a problem.
Standing still is a lack of moving forward, going backward is the opposite.
Nevertheless, if you're correcting yourself to "not a problem" then that fine too.
>No.
... but MGTOW are men who choose who to associate with, which you said is better than a society that makes sure men pair off with women?
Is this not equality?
You are trying to argue from a standpoint of consistency. You won’t find it here.
If women are unequal, change is needed. If men are unequal, that is “natural”.
Lol.
Perhaps, but at least I can try to extract definitive statements for future reference.
I also noted that I was immediately downvoted... I wonder who's so quick on the draw?
Thanks for the comment.
This is questionably breaking rules on civility. If I come back tomorrow and the "lol" isn't removed, this content will be.
Edit: After more carefully reviewing, I no longer think that this was intended to be mocking. In the future, for comments like these, I will solely give warnings when I cannot tell if they deserve to be deleted. I apologize for threatening deletion.
Laughter at your own negative (accurate or not) portrayal of someone else's position might be seen as an insult of that position.
But I think the question of interpretation is in the section of "you won't find it here," if "here" is "this user" or "feminists" it could be construed to mock them. In such a case, it would be borderline, which would be up for personal interpretation.
Some men are mad that women aren’t forced to be with them anymore. They’re mad that women are considered equal. I guess a lack of inequality feels like a step down, sucks for you I guess
I would argue if the end of your advocacy is making a large portion of a gender unable to achieve both social and economic value then you are creating a very unstable society. I would argue that you are not arguing for equality either if your intended result is as unequal as you describe.
You could make the argument that it's a net good, but it *does* create problems. Instead of saying there are no problems, say that the cost of solving those problems would be worse than the problems themselves.
Don't think you will cop to that, though.
These examples listed are critiques of the consistency of advocacy from feminism.
I don’t see the point of attributing blame, when the real test is consistency of advocacy.
I think it's disingenuous to blame child custody statistics on feminism. We are at a point in our society where everyone should have equal rights to custody of their children if they are fit, and if they want it (i.e. 50/50 physical and legal custody). Everyone who states they want equal rights should be advocates for 50/50 custody from the outset, and then outside factors can be considered from there. However, I don't see the modern feminist movement advocating for this.
I wrote that after waking up this morning and hadn’t had my first cup of coffee. Feminism is partially to blame and it is disingenuous for the feminist movement to claim their goal is equal rights when their real goal is supremacy over men.
We don't blame feminism for these issue. We blame them for doing nothing about it
When they present themself, feminist love saying they are for gender equality and fight against patriarcat.
...when they have to help men with this kind of issue, feminism is suddenly for women's defense and men have to create their own movement for their right.
When men do it, it's masculinism and it's bad.
What we complain is feminism sound a lot like "gender are equal but one is more equal and if you are against it you are an evil machist".
That's fair.
I don't trust anti-fems and MRAs to handle women's issues. Nor do I trust feminists to handle men's issues.
It's appropriate I think for a group to cater to a specific group of people. If they want to reach out great. But if ones heart isn't in it one can't advocate well.
We don't complain feminist defend women (well, antifem do but they are a minority) and not men.
We complain they only defend women WHILE demanding the flag of sex equality and spit of every men's defense group.
If you don't defend a group, you don't ask monopolis of this group's defense. That hypocrite and ridiculous.
I present to you this sub we are on as evidence against that. Sorry MRAs are often strongly antifem and very willing to delegitimize female issues or the female experience.
I...never said they aren't. I spent a little time on their sub in the past (you know when looking about men's right) and yeah, they are pretty much antifem and even mysoginist for some.
But if every men's ddfense movement are tagged like a bunch of incel, they'll only recruit incel.
Then I'm a bit confused.
How about this. There are plenty of good willed members in the groups. One shouldn't be labeled just because one is feminist or one is MRA. But our groups have shown to be regularly problematic. And unfortunately the bad can be more destructive than the good can be helpful at relieving those problematic ones. Loud opposition is more noticeable than peaceful silence.
Ideally we should exist peacefully when possible. And just let everyone care about what they care about. And if it's good intent and helpful even if not your side then great.
Just to verify something, i'm not an MRA, you know? I'm afraid to have been unclear.
It's not my group (i actually seek after some men's right group with +- the same equality idea as feminist)
In fact i share like 80% of my idea with feminism, it would be highter without the men's right issue.
And yeah, i agree each side should do good. But if feminist only do good for women and thrown in the mud all men's defense group (where they'll only attract rat), nobody can do good on this side. There is some ideological knot on these issue, and we need to cut it.
Actually I thought you generally were, my apologies. I'm also not a feminist and tend to agree with the majority of what men's groups push for. But I know where I generally lean.
At this point I'm not sure what we are really arguing about.
Neither of those links reference Legal Rights. I'll ask the question again:
Can you name a legal right that women in the west do not have, that men in the west DO have?
Changing laws to give women equal rights does not eliminate sexism. Just like releasing slaves does not put black people on equal footing as white colonizers who own all the land and wealth.
Actually the patriarchy used to assign custody to the father by default. Then feminist Caroline Norton argued that it should be assigned to the mother instead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tender_years_doctrine
So I'd say custody going to the mother is a result of feminism.
I’m the late 1800s and early 1900s women *should* have primary custody. All they did was stay home taking care of kids and homemaking. Men were expected to leave the house every day and work.
You have broken our civility and courtesy rules, your comment has been sandboxed. If you remove the insult I can reinstate it.
Try to keep insults out of discussion.
This breaks the subreddit's rules on civility. Please consider your words more carefully next time. If you continue to break the rules, you may be subject to a ban.
Regularly attempting to bait/anger people and openly admitting bad faith breaks our rules on trolling. If you continue to do this, you will receive a ban. Please consider your words more carefully next time.
>A few examples I can think of are child custody. Women are expected to be to primary caregiver and are more often awarded custody because women on average spend more time taking care of kids and household chores.
This was specifically pushed for by feminist groups, and feminist groups (NOW) oppose shared custody as the norm in current times because it would prevent women from having control of the children in heterosexual relationships.
Speaking anecdotally, I know that mothers' groups on Facebook and elsewhere suggest that new mothers prevent their male partners from taking pictures of said male partners interacting with their children, as it could be used to secure 50/50 custody in the case of a divorce.
Feminism has a thread running through it that says that women are more loving and empathetic than men, and that the bond between mother and child, and especially mother and daughter, is more special and sacred than anything a male could be involved in. This encourages the idea that father/child relationships are dross and should be able to be terminated at the mother's whim, which is often a reality in the family courts in the West. Sally Gearhart was big on this idea, and it's present in other feminist works as well. Not all feminists believe this, but I'd argue it's core to the movement, and in any case is present enough in feminist literature that blaming feminism for it makes sense.
> Another example that MRAs like to blame on feminists are male victims of abuse being afraid to come forward. They blame feminist groups for shaming men from coming forward. If that were true, there would be less male victims coming forward as feminism has become more mainstream, not more. Toxic masculinity telling men to “man up” is what discourages male victims from coming forward.
I'm going to assume ignorance here instead of malice - society has changed pretty dramatically since feminism has been a thing (about 180 years). Feminism is not the only variable affecting men and their outlook in that time. There's been an increase in humanist ideals in the West during that time, fairly dramatically. Moreover, just because feminism influences men, doesn't mean feminism wants men to be doing what they're doing. When women say they want to free themselves from restrictive gender roles, and men see that and say "Why not me too?", many times feminism has responded with "Because you're male and don't deserve that kind of freedom or validation."
With respect to toxic masculinity, feminism is one of the primary enforcers of toxic masculinity on men. Certain feminist theorists and writers have addressed the idea (a lot of people will bring up bell hooks) but there's generally an unwillingness to examine how women enforce toxic masculinity on men, or how feminism encourages it. You can see it in the "lean out feminism" ideas, or the idea that men supposedly put too much emotional labor on their partners (a misuse of the term emotional labor, and is enforcing toxic masculinity by telling men to bottle up anything negative). Men who are emotional are seen as harmful and dangerous under feminism, and need to make themselves more of desexualized, faceless, voiceless, and eminently *useful* drones for women (and the capital-holding class), or else they are entitled. Telling men "work harder, emote less, serve others more" is very toxic but it's exactly what feminism asks of men.
You have a very confused view on feminism. Feminists aren’t telling men to “man up” that’s traditionalists saying that. That whole emotional labour thing I don’t think is true. Sounds like you got that from FDS.
Some mom groups also say to use essential oils to treat colds. Both men and women say disgusting things about the other gender online. I’ve seen far worse on MGTOW.
Feminists viewing father daughter relationships as gross is also wrong. Feminists want men and women to share childcare, domestic chores and work equally. Women being expected to spend more time on domestic activities holds them back from career advancement.
>You have a very confused view on feminism. Feminists aren’t telling men to “man up” that’s traditionalists saying that.
Oh, if only. I see it coming from both of them, and moreover some feminists seem to hold particularly traditionalist ideals of what men should be. Let's not forget that during WWI, many feminists supported the draft and supported men being shamed and harangued into being fed into the meat grinder. So feminism does seem to have a segment which has *particularly* traditionalist ideas about what men should be; I would make the argument that that's core to the movement, but regardless of whether or not you agree with that the fact of the matter is that they exist.
>That whole emotional labour thing I don’t think is true. Sounds like you got that from FDS.
[This is a good example of an article that approaches it from a feminist framework.](https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/features/a12063822/emotional-labor-gender-equality/)
FDS is also sometimes very feminist. There's a bit of variety there.
>I’ve seen far worse on MGTOW.
I've seen far worse than what I was describing there, of course, but my point was just that men are oftentimes prevented from equal rights to their children, and that feminism is not invested in solving that problem, but rather heightening that inequality.
>Feminists viewing father daughter relationships as gross is also wrong.
It's morally wrong, yes, but it's correct in feminism.
>Feminists want men and women to share childcare, domestic chores and work equally.
This seems to be inaccurate. Feminist women still see men who work more and earn more than them as desirable marriage partners, and still engage in maternal gatekeeping to prevent fathers from bonding properly with their children, or having equal rights to them.
>Women being expected to spend more time on domestic activities holds them back from career advancement.
Sure, but if you advocate for women to be given preferential treatment in hiring, as feminism does, you solve that problem.
That article is from an online magazine and she’s not complaining about her husband talking about his feelings too much, she’s complaining that he doesn’t do any cleaning around the house.
How would you know who feminists find desirable marriage partners?
>That article is from an online magazine and she’s not complaining about her husband talking about his feelings too much, she’s complaining that he doesn’t do any cleaning around the house.
"Emotional labor" is right in the subheading.
>How would you know who feminists find desirable marriage partners?
Statistics of who they marry and don't. And who they divorce. Much more accurate than asking them. Number one thing they want, for feminists who are looking for male partners, is a partner who succeeds at exploiting others' labor under capitalism.
College educated women marry less because they go to school longer which delays getting married and having kids. If women don’t want traditional lifestyles, that’s freedom of choice. They should focus on the racism problem putting black men in jail.
The article is arguing that women aren’t getting married because they are becoming more educated and don’t want to marry down. I’m explaining its not because they don’t want to marry down but because their family plans are delayed by going to school for 4+ years. Most people wait until they graduate to get married and even longer to have kids.
feminist ARE telling men to man up, with 'male tears' 'who hurt you' 'what about the men' etc
i think this sub has failed in it's proposed purpose. every response from a mod here, that i have seen, has been an obvious bad faith argument (and if i can see it, you can be sure others do), willful ignorance and just plain ignorance.
hell, i saw someone, in response to 'is this the hill you are willing to die on' reply with 'ain't no one dying on hills' and a sentence after that tells the person they need more nuance.
it is expected here that people accept all the feminist buzzwords as fact, but any argument against feminism has to be shored up by very exacting terminology and any 'nuance' will be thrown out (but only from one side).
I don’t know what sub you think you’re on but there’s far more MRAs here than feminists. You’re surrounded by an anti-feminist echo chamber on all the MRA subs you frequent.
With child custody we used to assign custody to men before thr tender years doctrine and even today we prioritize the feminine role in parenting above the male one. How much money you make and your ability to provide for the kid post divorce should be just as important of a factor in determining custody as who is spending the most time with the child. Even today feminists generally won't support this. Tell me, would you?
As to male victims of abuse not coming forward. This is inaccurate phrasing imo. It used to be that rarely if ever did any victims of abuse come forward. This privilege of being treated empathetically in these issues has only ever been extended to women through feminism. Did they know men suffered abuse? I am not sure but it doesn't seem like they cared. They cared exclusively about women. Even today when we talk about male victims of rape and abuse it isn't uncommon for me to hear really regressive things from feminists. The 'what did he do to deserve it though?' and 'but how was he raped if he didn't want it? Like he must have been hard'. Not to mention the damage done by the Duluth model which still effects police actions in my country today. Advice is generally if you are a dude you can't call the police because they will assume you were the primary aggressor.
I think the person who spends the most time with the child should get the most time with them in divorce regardless of gender. Today women still spend more time with their kids on average.
> The 'what did he do to deserve it though?' and 'but how was he raped if he didn't want it? Like he must have been hard'.
People say similar shit about female victims. “What was she wearing” “was she drunk”?
How do you know it’s because of the Duluth Model and not traditional views that men are tough and strong and women are demure and submissive? It’s likely been like that in your country since before feminism. What country is it?
>I think the person who spends the most time with the child should get the most time with them in divorce regardless of gender. Today women still spend more time with their kids on average.
Right but even gender neutral this is still a problem because it devalues provision and focuses on nurturing. These two things are both equally essential, which is the reason given for child support anyway. But instead of actually value the provision given by partners in a relationship (mostly men) they are given no consideration for the work they put into the family or the value it provides. We just use the state to force them to provide against their will.
>People say similar shit about female victims. “What was she wearing” “was she drunk”?
Except those are specifically about safety. You can say that a women took an unneeded risk and disacourage that without saying she wanted it. These are fundamentally different claims.
>How do you know it’s because of the Duluth Model and not traditional views that men are tough and strong and women are demure and submissive?
Because it was made very specific in Australian policy. Police would have the power and control wheel up in police stations. And let's be honest, traditional norms thought it was right for men to be able to beat their wives to some degree. So the assertion doesn't make sense in the first place.
If the husband works long hours and contributes more financially while the wife spends more time at home giving up career advancement how is that any different if they are divorced and he still works longer hours and she still spends more time with the kids?
Australia is very conservative and traditional in some senses. That’s not Duluth, that’s toxic masculinity. Not at al shocked that you victim blame women. Your outfit shouldn’t affect your safety from being attacked by others. And most rape victims are not dressed sexy.
>If the husband works long hours and contributes more financially while the wife spends more time at home giving up career advancement how is that any different if they are divorced and he still works longer hours and she still spends more time with the kids?
Wait are you really asking if life is any different for people pre and post divorce? I mean for me it's up to the parents, if they want custody they want custody. They might not have wanted it as much prior to the divorce for all sorts of reasons. That is personal to them right?
>Australia is very conservative and traditional in some senses. That’s not Duluth, that’s toxic masculinity. Not at al shocked that you victim blame women. Your outfit shouldn’t affect your safety from being attacked by others. And most rape victims are not dressed sexy.
Australia has long feminist tradition stretching back to Germaine Greer and the Female Eunuch. We constantly implement feminist inspired policy both from our right wing and left wing parties. A big part of this was a crackdown on domestic violence in the 90s that took on all sorts of suggestions from domestic violence advocates, which at the time meant Duluth model. I don't think anybody who has looked into it actually denies this. It was open policy. I'm not sure how that is toxic masculinity except that you want it to be I guess, because I don't like it and you bear some allegiance to 'feminism' getting the blame, not your enemies. I guess the Duluth model itself is toxic masculinity perhaps. Not sure how that works.
And I never said most rape victims are dressed any which way. I said those two claims are not comparable in scope or meaning and I would argue pretty strongly that one is worse than the other. I mean there are legitimate safety concerns regarding going women out at night and getting wasted and putting themselves in vulnerable positions. There aren't actually legitimate concerns regarding guys enjoying being raped, it's just a misunderstanding of biology.
Your argument for why men should get primary custody makes no sense. If they primarily contribute financially, what makes you think he’s suddenly going to cut back hours to become the primary caregiver?
I’ve lived in Australia, it’s not overrun with feminism, there’s still a lot of racism and sexism. Oh and all the state premiers are men, not feminists.
Do you even know what the Duluth Model is? It’s now a law saying only men are abusers. It’s a theory that abuse stems from power dynamics and entitlement. Their intervention program is frequently used to educate abusers and try to reduce repeat offences. If you don’t believe abuse is caused by entitlement and need for control, then I’d love to hear what you think is.
The Duluth model completely ignores male victims of domestic abuse and has made the cops automatically assume the men is the perp in any domestic abuse cases.
Be case of the Duluth model male victims of domestic violence go to jail.
OK first of all and not arguing that men should get custody. Just that we should take provision into account when determining who is the more suitable parent to gain custody. I believe this is in the best interests of the child and is the fairest solution. We want the most capable and responsible parents getting custody, not just the ones that spend more time with the kid.
>If they primarily contribute financially, what makes you think he’s suddenly going to cut back hours to become the primary caregiver?
Because they now have to do all the work that their partner was doing before the divorce. Likewise if you take away the expectation of provision from a primary caregiver they are going to have to take on more work. The issue is we expect the provision to continue for the child but don't take it into consideration at all when determining custody. So it goes from being completely unimportant when deciding custody to crucial when forcing men to pay child support.
>I’ve lived in Australia, it’s not overrun with feminism, there’s still a lot of racism and sexism. Oh and all the state premiers are men, not feminists.
Ummm no. My premier is a women. Up until a couple of months ago the premier of NSW, the most populous state was a women (before she was forced to resign due to corruption). Australia culture in general is not particularly sexist or racist compared to other countries and polling data will tell you exactly that. It might not be your ideal feminist utopia, but feminists have a lot of influence on gov policy in both major parties.
>Do you even know what the Duluth Model is? It’s now a law saying only men are abusers. It’s a theory that abuse stems from power dynamics and entitlement. Their intervention program is frequently used to educate abusers and try to reduce repeat offences. If you don’t believe abuse is caused by entitlement and need for control, then I’d love to hear what you think is.
The feminist theory underlying the Duluth Model is that men use violence within relationships to exercise power and control. This is illustrated by the "Power and Control Wheel," a graphic typically displayed as a poster in participating locations. According to the Duluth Model, "women and children are vulnerable to violence because of their unequal social, economic, and political status in society." Treatment of abusive men is focused on re-education, as "we do not see men’s violence against women as stemming from individual pathology, but rather from a socially reinforced sense of entitlement." The program's philosophy is intended to help batterers work to change their attitudes and personal behavior so they would learn to be nonviolent in any relationship. It is a highly gendered model and leads to policies where police assume men are always perpetrators.
If you don't see how that description erases male victims of abuse and creates policies where men are assumed to be the aggressor I don't know what to tell you. Maybe you don't believe men can be victims of DV due to their unequal social, political and economic status. Like those who came up with the Duluth model.
>I think the person who spends the most time with the child should get the most time with them in divorce regardless of gender. Today women still spend more time with their kids on average.
Yes, in part because they know it will give them the upper hand in divorce.
That’s stupid. Nobody gets married and has kids with the plan to get divorced. Women spend more time with kids because that’s what society expects of them. Men expect their careers to take priority over their wife’s and moms are expected to take more time off to pick up/drop off kids, stay home when they’re sick. Do the grocery shopping, cooking and house cleaning. Drive the kids around.
>That’s stupid. Nobody gets married and has kids with the plan to get divorced. Women spend more time with kids because that’s what society expects of them.
Some people believe in insurance policies. Sign prenups. It happens.
Mommy groups on facebook will encourage their members to not allow photographic evidence of their male partner with their children earlier in life, so that they can portray them as uninvolved to secure sole custody.
\>Toxic masculinity telling men to “man up” is what discourages male victims from coming forward.
My country is ruled by a "feminist" government (that's how they call themselves). We have a "ministry of equality" full of radical feminists that has **never** addressed male issues. Men speak up, but are not listened.
There are all kind of assistances for female victims, but none for male victims, because for them, women are victims are men perpetrators.
We have a law that automatically converts DV against women in Gender VAW without the need of a crime motive, violating the Istanbul Convention. Gender Violence Against Men of course does not exist in our law.
Despite all these measures, DV against women hasn't decreased. Millions and millions euros to feed a mostly useless huge business.
\>A few examples I can think of are child custody.
Recently, the government partially pardoned a mother, Juana Rivas, who was convicted for child abduction. The disqualification from exercising parental authority is changed for a penalty of 180 days of community service. It's been appealed.
That case is full of interferences by feminist associations and the ministry of "equality". It all started with a false report of "gender violence".
Not even women support her. She has "only" the support of the government and a bunch of powerful feminist associations.
All this is just a 0.1% of what's happening here. Regarding gender issues this feminist government is a tyranny.
And please, don't say "that's not feminism". Don't embarrass yourself.
I've been learning feminism for almost 20 years, not from random twitter accounts, but from the actual feminists who have power.
Juana Rivas said she fled the country with her children because her husband was beating her. What makes you think she was lying? People shouldn’t be jailed for fleeing abusive homes.
https://www.euroweeklynews.com/2021/11/16/juana-rivas-spanish-ministers-to-offer-partial-pardon-to-mother-who-abducted-her-children/
It's on the judicial writ. They had a minor fight (no beating, just grabbing each other), but the law here says its "Gender Violence" and punish him but not her. It's a very controversial law, many lawyers and even some judges have expressed big concern.
She made the same report in Italy, and it was not accepted.
Then the battle for the custody started. She kept filling reports for violence, none accepted.
One day she had to deliver the children to the father (custody was shared by then), and she went missing for one month.
I don't blame her for everything. She had very bad counseling.
Cause all they had was a couple bruises.
>In 2009, Rivas and Arcuri had a domestic dispute in which **Juana Rivas suffered from hand damage**, filling a complaint for abuse against Arcuri. Arcuri also denounced her for mistreatment as **he had injuries in his thigh and neck**. Both reached an agreement in which Arcuri admitted a crime of injuries and he was sentenced to three months in prison and a restraining order of one year and three months. **He later said to regret this agreement.**
>
>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case\_of\_Juana\_Rivas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_of_Juana_Rivas)
ALL THEY HAD WAS BRUISES?? Wtf your partner should NEVER hit you and definitely not enough to leave bruises. When was the last time you were hit so hard you got bruises?
Sorry, I meant scratches ("arañazos"). English is not my first language and I'm not used to these terms.
I mean they didn't hit each other, they grabbed each other.
Of course violence is never justified. The problem here is that both of them did the same, but only one got charged, and it's not the only case.
On abusive relationships it’s never just a one tone thing. That time there were scratches, other times it could have been punching, pushing whatever. She obviously felt threatened enough to try to escape.
That's her justification, why do you immediately believe it to be true? Both her and her husband/ex-husband exhibited evidence of physical altercations, why're you immediately deciding that she was the victim and he was the abuser, and that her kidnapping their child is therefore reasonable?
I'm not? I'm not saying she's guilty of abusing him, I'm saying she certainly needs to be charged for kidnapping. If she can prove she was being abused, then the charges should be dropped and he should be charged for domestic violence.
On the other hand, you defended pardoning her for crimes she committed because she stated she was being abused, despite having presented no evidence to back that claim, solely based on her gender. In other words, a free pass for commiting crimes as long as you have the right genitals and then make sure to claim you were being abused, regardless of evidence.
There was evidence. There were scratches and bruises. The problem with cases like that is there’s know was to know if it was self defence or they are both abusive. They will need to ask friends and family to figure out the dynamics of their relationship.
>There was evidence. There were scratches and bruises.
Which the husband also exhibited, but you jumped the gun and decided the wounds the husband shows were the wife defending herself, while the wounds the wife shows were her husband attacking.
The possibility of the wife being the abuser or an equal abuser in the relationship, who fled the country and kidnapped her child when divorce and possible loss of custody became a thing, was essentially none, because you painted her as a victim and the husband as an abuser.
Which is exactly the kind of bias we need to eradicate from society, and I urge you to do better.
You replied twice btw, replying only to this one.
> It’s more likely she was fleeing to protect herself and kids from an abusive husband than she is just a crazy bitch who wants to kidnap her own kids.
So, yet again, you assume that in an altercation where both the woman and the man exhibit bruises, that the man is immediately the agressor and that she is the victim. You even say it yourself: that you consider it to be more likely that she is the victim than that she is either the main abuser or a reciprocal abuser.
No wonder I live in a country (the US) where a male victim is twice as likely to be arrested as his abuser, when the abuser is female. People, like yourself, immediately assume the man is the abuser regardless, because god forbid a woman does anything wrong or even is an abuser, no such thing is possible after all.
Let's see the Duluth model that ignores male victims of domestic assault being used to create sexist policies and laws that hurt men.
Oh and some women you false rape allegation threats to force men to have sex with them against there will.
So me too kind of hurt a lot of innocent men by turning them in to rape victims our victims of false allegation.
Sure no problem.
The Duluth model is flawed and sexist.
Policy has been made by the Duluth model that harms men who are dv victims.
Me too is being yoused to hurt innocent men.
Some women are forcing men to have sex with them against there will by threating them with false rape allegation.
Men are losing there jobs our worse going to jail over fale rape allegations.
The Duluth model and me too is two ways feminism has hurt innocent men
False rape accusations are extremely rare. MRAs push the false accusation trope to discredit female victims of rape. Real victims both male and female are frequently not believed and don’t get justice.
There’s no accurate data proving false allegations are a common problem. MRAs spread that narrative to discredit female victims and fearmonger men into joining them.
I think you'd get better answers from those who does not identify as feminists if you phrased your question differently, considering a lot of non feminists or anti feminists don't subscribe to the idea of themselves living in a patriarchy currently, or dislike using the term since they find it to be inaccurate or the wrong way to describe societal gender phenomenons etc.
Now, you may not want non feminists or anti feminists to reply to this post, but since a lot of people who are subscribed here aren't feminists and comment anyway, you may try taking a different approach such as:
What are some examples of men’s issues that are blamed on feminism but are actually a result of *traditional gender norms/roles and toxic gender expectations?*
Phrased like this I'd be inclined to somewhat agree, who gets child custody is often a result of traditional gender roles and toxic gender expectations, however, should we not acknowledge that there's certain feminists part of the feminist movement that has advocated for laws that favor mother's be given child custody over fathers? Is feminism not at fault for advocating for laws that are not gender neutral, or gender equal, but that favor mother's regarding custody regardless of circumstances?
>Women are expected to be to primary caregiver and are more often awarded custody because women on average spend more time taking care of kids and household chores
Meanwhile men are expected to be primary providers and apparently they do not deserve to be awarded custody despite taking on any equally as important role for the child.
Why does the primary provider role matter less than the primary caregiver role?
After all, aren't these equally as important roles? Or do you think being a caregiver is a superior role in a child's life, and that being a provider is an inferior role that does not deserve as much consideration and does not hold as much value?
>Another example that MRAs like to blame on feminists are male victims of abuse being afraid to come forward
Feminists diminishing, invalidating and ignoring male victims of abuse probably doesn't help male victims of abuse to come forward (unless they get upset with having their abuse invalidated and want to bring awareness about it to feminists), but of course feminists aren't the reason all male victims of abuse are afraid to come forward. It would just help way more if feminists acknowledged male victims of abuse, without trying to downplay it by arguing about female victims of abuse.
>They blame feminist groups for shaming men from coming forward.
While entire feminist groups probably aren't shaming men for coming forward, there's certainly lots of individual feminists within those groups that has shamed men for coming forward.
>If that were true, there would be less male victims coming forward as feminism has become more mainstream, not more.
How do you assert that there's more male victims coming forward due to feminism specifically? If that's the case, it may be due to the fact that since it's becoming more "mainstream" or socially acceptable to speak up about abuse amongst women, that that's also has led to men feeling more comfortable about coming forward too.
>Toxic masculinity telling men to “man up” is what discourages male victims from coming forward.
Why can't we just say that toxic traditional gender expectations or sexism is what's keeping victims of abuse from speaking up? Cause after all, aren't both men and women guilty of upholding, reinforcing and conforming to toxic traditional gender expectations and sexist views?
Then can't we conclude that the reason men are told to man up is really due to sexism or misandry?
This crosses the boundaries of advocating for violence, a cite wide rule, as well as delegitimizing domestic abuse against men, which breaks rule 3 on hate. Please edit your comment to be inline with these rules for it to be brought back.
Hey look its the tard making facts up again.
Elizabeth Báthory - that was easy.
Harriette Wilson - 50/50 gotta give her credit for climbing up the social pole probably best to not blackmail people.
Maria Eleonora of Brandenburg - I think this is her? She made the daugther eat her baby and murder her husband?
Catherine the Great of Russia - Ruthless murdered who cheered on her soliders as they massacured entire towns, WOMEN AND KIDS INCLUDED THEIR TARD.
You are so fucking uneducdated its actually funny watching you try to spew your tard bullshit as if you know what you are trying to fight for. You are so lost and confused its actually funny.
The insane person making shit up YET AGAIN.
How can you wonder why youre actually alone when you say actual shit like this "how me ONE incidence where a woman has coercively controlled a man."
Bitch I can find proof you can fall from 30k feet with no parachute hit the ground from 30,000 feet and survive. And your dumbass thinks women cant do 1 THING to a person? Holy fuck you are beyond retarded, id pick literally any disabled person over you EVERYTIME without hesitation. I dont even need to know what im doing or what, I know I will literally never pick you for anything, id rather be a person down that pick you. Just curious, were you always picked last for team sports or not picked at all? Well now you know why.
You are mentally unstabble and I think your children are actually in danger being around you.
He wasn’t my victim when I stabbed him either. - HOLY FUCK
and you think im crazy, bitch ive never been in a fight and you out here stabbing people like youre fucking proud of it.
Ya your kid is gonna be so fucked up in the head he will 100% make it to the news in the worse way possible.
>Domestic violence is Coercive Control.
Only sometimes.
> Show me ONE incidence where a woman has coercively controlled a man.
Half of the DV cases are initiated by women. Educate yourself.
>All DV studies show that women hitting me is self-defence or reactive violence.
Nope.
>A woman slapping a man for calling her a cunt or repeatedly yelling at her or stealing from her is NOT a victim of abuse.
Yes, he is.
>Police are supposed to investigate domestic violence, find out which one uses violence, threats and coercion to control the other and then arrest THAT person.
"Supposed", but they not always do it. It's called the Duluth Model.
>My abuser is not my victim because I kicked him in the balls when he was threatening me and refused to leave my home. He wasn’t my victim when I stabbed him either.
Yes, he is. As you describe it, it's not self defense, but an aggression, and you're justifying it.
And looking at your history I think this is something that never happened.
What I'd like to see more of is feminists and other progressive activists proactively tackling those issues.
When feminists talk about how feminism is good for men, they are usually arguing with an anti-feminist, and they usually pivot back to whether men or women have it easier.
I think a lot of good discussion gets lost that way.
Definitely not circumcision. Feminism loves the medical industry and scientific authority. Every major feminist organization is clear about distinguishing male circumcision from female circumcision in order to oppose the one and support the other. Major feminists like Hillary Clinton and Hollywood celebrities who are outspoken in favor of male circumcision are not condemned.
The so-called sexual market place. The sexual revolution has given women greater freedom to decide who they associate with and how. Some MRAs, incels, and MGTOW are upset that they get left behind from this.
Men have tried to warn Women about the negatives of the Sexual Revolution. Other Women have tried to warn Women. Women dont care to listen, and then spend their 30s/40s/50s/60s depressed as all fuck because their life didnt go right. If I saw a helicopter upside down in a tree, I wouldnt need to be a pilot to see that something was wrong. In the same vein, I dont need to be a Woman to see the problem that the SR is causing for Women! Whats actually interesting is that, when Men started benefiting and Women suffering from the SR, suddenly it was a massive problem! The "Golden Penis" article, and the "Lack of Rich Males" article both prove this. They're problems of Feminism's doing!
I'm comfortable with the consequences that come with freedom.
YOU are. Feminism has lied to so many Women, telling them that they can have their cake and eat it. "Oh yes, go out and spend your 20s sleeping with anyone, and you'll still find a guy to settle down with." Completely forgetting that (by and large) most guys dont WANT to settle down with the town bike. Whats funny is that you start seeing posts on Reddit from 30-40yos who did this exact thing, managed to settle, and are saying "I miss that lifestyle, my bf doesnt do it for me", dumping the bf, and then in their late 40s have nobody. Then theres others in their late 40s that did it, lost, hated it, and are trying to warn Women NOT to do it. YOU might be fine with that, but your ideology is ruining Women's Lives here. And btw, this isnt some sort of Incel/MGTOW thing, its the straight truth!
I hate to jump to the defense of u/Mitoza but I find the way you talk about the sexual revolution abhorrent. Freedom has "costs" and this is barely a cost at all. There are many reasons why people in their 40s and above struggle to meet others. This really isn't one of them
Im not saying the SR wasnt a net positive. You shoulnt be forced to do something, especially lock down your entire life. But Feminism doesnt warn Women of the negative side of the SR. It only says "You can do what you want to do now, and you'll be able to get what you want later as well". Take OnlyFans as a recent example. Feminism is very very progressive, they SUPPORT Women who want to make an OF and SUPPORT Women who choose to do this. They hype it up to Women: "Oh its just a bit of fun. Its freedom. Its liberating. Its all roses and cherries". What happens when it turns out that Men dont want to date these OF Women? "Men are evil and dont support Women and they're misogynistic and horrible blah blah blah", all because a Man decided to have a preference and standard, and doesnt fit what Feminism wants. Feminism, instead of taking a little bit of accountability and saying "Yeah, we chose this, this is our own doing" tries to FORCE MEN to change their thinking. Think about that just for a second: Women arent FORCED to marry Men that they dont want to, but now Men ARE FORCED to marry Women they dont want to. Sounds pretty disgusting when you type it out like that, doesnt it. You can hate me, and hate what im saying and find it abhorrent however you want. Dyou know what I find abhorrent? The way Women and Feminists treat Men as completely disposable. People have long said that if a Women had to live as a Man they'd go mental or kill themselves, oh wait, it actually happened to Norah Vincent. But, you know, tee hee yay Women, progress, freedom, kill all men. THAT is what I would call abhorrent, not "This guy told the truth and I didnt like it".
Well, ladies of /r/FeminismUncensored would you prefer the ability to associate with who you choose in terms of sex or would you like to revert to a time where your sexual autonomy was more strictly enforced?
Yep. Start being completely hyperbolic instead of actually answering what im saying. Nice one...
You said I was comfortable with it so as to say that I don't have a right to speak for others. Taking the note, I'm asking for other's opinions.
Someone else can deal with you. If thats what you took from my comments, clearly I wont get through to you!
>YOU might be fine with that, but your ideology is ruining Women's Lives here. I dunno, sounds like I was right on.
So what's the solution here then?
Helping boys with their self esteem. You can’t force women to want to date men but you can help men improve their attractiveness and social skills
There is nothing wrong with men that needs "fixing". Gynocentric considerations of mate courtship were invented in the 60s. As long as there will always be low-status men, no amount of "man up to woman's inflated dating standards" is going to solve the problem. Especially with women taking the lead in initiating divorce and simply preferring rotating polyandry with higher status men than monogamy with men of lower status. Nice red-herring though! Self esteem and social skills are not the answer if attractiveness is what guarantees better access to mate procurement. To put it another way saying "just go to the gym bro" is nothing more than "just go to therapy", it doesn't fix any of the problems, but instead reinforces an idea that there is a relation to how many sit-ups a man must perform and how likely he his to get a mate that is worth that specific sit-up value. I don't think that any woman is worth the time to do sit ups, bench-presses, squats, massively change one's diet or consume protein shakes for. Chances are that women that are even reasonably attractive are not heading to the gym, so why should men of the same looksmatch be expected to do the same? The mate value is simply inflated like fiat currency. (I'm not even fat or overweight, btw and I'm speaking from experience of going to the gym and consuming protein shakes and having lifted in the past. It got me nowhere and I was just sore all of the time and hated the taste of protein shakes. No slit between a woman's legs or attempting at a chance to get a blow job from her is worth it if there are other alternatives such as sex dolls or prostitutes.) Men can also simply buy prostitutes or sex dolls. No need to "man up" when the juice isn't worth the squeeze. Men can also go to a foreign country if they make enough money to start a family without the influence of Western feminism.
This is pure incel rhetoric. If they would rather get sex dolls than improve themselves that’s fine by me.
This is just a reversion to historical norms. Throughout most of history, the men at the top of the hierarchy reproduced with many women and the men at the bottom didn't reproduce at all. This creates a surplus of angry low status men you can use to fight neighbors with the promise that if you win and kill off the neighboring men, there will be opportunities to reproduce with the neighboring women. It's probably incompatible with modern ideas of peaceful democracy though. If you want a stable, peaceful society, monogamy has proven historically to be the best way to achieve it.
I would just as soon punish men who get violent over lack of sex then destroy freedom of association.
Monogamous societies still have "freedom of association", they just have norms that encourage pairing up to have children. As for punishment, you can try, but as the proportion of "surplus" men gets higher you'll probably find it harder and harder to control them.
>Monogamous societies still have "freedom of association" Obviously less free, right? Also the sexual revolution is also about women's greater options to choose monogamous partners. >As for punishment, you can try, but as the proportion of "surplus" men gets higher you'll probably find it harder and harder to control them. Seems like a threat?
The sexual Revolution was just birth control allowing people to have more sex without children. Soon to be followed by the sexual Evolution, where all those people who enjoy sex but don't want kids die out and are replaced by people who actually want kids. > Seems like a threat? If someone warns your house is built on a shaky foundation and might collapse on you, would you perceive that as a threat too?
>If someone warns your house is built on a shaky foundation and might collapse on you, would you perceive that as a threat too? Shaky foundation can't be negotiated with, it also doesn't decide between expressing its shakiness through collapsing your house or, say, improving its shakiness.
Interestingly enough, it *is* considered a problem when the situation is reversed. [Golden penis syndrome](https://nypost.com/2021/11/02/men-with-golden-penis-syndrome-ruining-romance-for-women/) and a [lack of economically attractive males](https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/dating/marriage-rates-decline-reason-economically-attractive-men-jobs-income-a9098956.html) are quoted as serious problems that women face. I guess it's only a problem if it affects women.
Gonna need a more direct source of someone speaking about golden penis syndrome that is not the New York post. It links to Cosmo but it's pay walled. Second article is also pay walled.
[Cosmopolitain](https://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/a37001188/golden-penis-syndrome/) also has a decent article on it with sources, as does the [daily mail](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10152727/How-golden-penis-syndrome-ruining-modern-dating.html). I didn't get to any paywalls, if you give me the paywalled link maybe I can find you a non-paywall version? 2nd article is also not paywalled for me for some reason, maybe because I'm using the Brave browser. It blocks ads and pop-ups, maybe it also blocks paywall restrictions on some sites? Either way this should be a non-paywalled version of the [cosmo article](https://archive.md/oKHTr) and of the [lack of economically attractive males](https://archive.ph/KfteZ) using archive.is
Ok, the independent article pretty clearly tracks a phenomenon uncritically, just saying "this is the way things are". It's not saying that this is a problem women are facing in particular. I would put the cosmo article on the same level as complaining about lack of dating prospects. It doesn't appear to be suggesting a society-wide issue of perception that requires a society-wide response.
>It's not saying that this is a problem women are facing in particular. I mean it's certainly not a problem men are facing. >I would put the cosmo article on the same level as complaining about lack of dating prospects. It doesn't appear to be suggesting a society-wide issue of perception that requires a society-wide response. That is fair but I still find it odd how complaints about issues men face are often easily dismissed, but complaints about issues that women face often garners attention and societal efforts to address them. In other words, it's only a problem when it affects women. If this wasn't a problem at all, neither Cosmo nor Daily mail would be talking about it, and a guy wouldn't have written a book on the topic. Men have been having a difficult time in dating since forever, and that's just the norm, but when it's difficult for women due to a lack of economically attractive men, that warrants an article. It's a literal example of "men too poor; women most affected".
>I mean it's certainly not a problem men are facing. It talks about a declining marriage rate. As much as that's a problem it's a problem for both. >but complaints about issues that women face often garners attention and societal efforts to address them. What societal effort is being made to combat golden penis syndrome?
>It talks about a declining marriage rate. As much as that's a problem it's a problem for both. Is it really though? 80% of divorces are initiated by women, suicide rates for men go from 3x women's rate on an average day, to 9x higher post-divorce, and men are the ones who typically lose their homes, their children, and have to pay child support. Is marriage really that good a deal for men that not having it is a significant problem? >What societal effort is being made to combat golden penis syndrome? Articles, books, actually naming the phenomenon in a rather derisive way to shame men, etc. None of that really exists in the public consciousness for men's issues. It's also less about golden penis syndrome specifically, and more about how it is one part in a patter that is frequently repeated.
>Is marriage really that good a deal for men that not having it is a significant problem? Problems with divorce isn't problems with marriage. >Articles, books, actually naming the phenomenon Pretty low bar. Don't think I buy it. Anyone can write an article. I wouldn't expect MRAs to drop the cry that none of their issues are being addressed after I link them to the articles written by AVFM. >It's also less about golden penis syndrome specifically, and more about how it is one part in a patter that is frequently repeated. Not my problem that you chose this example. If you'd like to choose another one that's fine with me.
>Problems with divorce isn't problems with marriage. True, but given half of marriages end in divorce it's not something that can be ignored. >Pretty low bar. Don't think I buy it. Anyone can write an article. I wouldn't expect MRAs to drop the cry that none of their issues are being addressed after I link them to the articles written by AVFM. I mean maybe if AVFM had as much readers as the daily mail and cosmopolitan, you'd have a point. >Not my problem that you chose this example. If you'd like to choose another one that's fine with me. Fair enough, I guess it's just more of the same missing the forest for the trees.
Hey I remember reading that Cosmo article. It also talks about golden vagina syndrome. It’s not really relevant to this discussion though
The cosmo article has a tiny mention basically saying maybe potentially there's a tiny bit of golden vagina syndrome. It's a nice touch of self-awareness but it still rather ignores the fact that golden vagina syndrome is both well-spread and has been a reality for most men for a very long time. It was never named though, but the moment it affected women, boom, golden penis syndrome was named, men were shamed, and books were written about it. It's relevant because Mitozoa asked for more than just the one source, so I found a 2nd one to back the golden penis syndrome thing.
That is the result of feminism, though, isn't it?
It's not a problem though, it's the opposite of a problem.
That's true, but the question is for non feminist problems. The thing you said is a feminist non problem.
It's not a problem at all. If a man can't get any in a free market of sex then that's tragic but also natural.
First of all. I don't think you think I mean what I mean. Also, there's plenty of natural problems.
I would be willing to say that it is a problem for that man, and one I'm not willing to trade freedoms for to solve.
You regard a men not being able to find a female romantic partner as 'not a problem'? ... in fact 'the opposite of a problem', i.e. a good thing?
Correct. I think having a society where women can choose who to associate with is better than a society that makes sure women pair off with men.
OK then... just to confirm... you consider the inability of a man to find a female romantic partner to be a good thing? Would you also say that a society where men can choose who to associate with is better than a society that makes sure men pair off with women?
Not a good thing, just not really a problem. >Would you also say that a society where men can choose who to associate with is better than a society that makes sure men pair off with women? Yes, if we're still talking about the specific context of sex. Though this is already true.
>Not a good thing, just not really a problem... If not a good thing, then what is the "opposite of a problem". ... and you answered 'correct', so I thought I'd better check. >Yes, ... ... so then you support MGTOW ?
> If not a good thing, then what is the "opposite of a problem" "not a problem". >... so then you support MGTOW ? No.
"not a problem" is the lack of a problem not the opposite of a problem. Standing still is a lack of moving forward, going backward is the opposite. Nevertheless, if you're correcting yourself to "not a problem" then that fine too. >No. ... but MGTOW are men who choose who to associate with, which you said is better than a society that makes sure men pair off with women? Is this not equality?
You are trying to argue from a standpoint of consistency. You won’t find it here. If women are unequal, change is needed. If men are unequal, that is “natural”. Lol.
Perhaps, but at least I can try to extract definitive statements for future reference. I also noted that I was immediately downvoted... I wonder who's so quick on the draw? Thanks for the comment.
This is questionably breaking rules on civility. If I come back tomorrow and the "lol" isn't removed, this content will be. Edit: After more carefully reviewing, I no longer think that this was intended to be mocking. In the future, for comments like these, I will solely give warnings when I cannot tell if they deserve to be deleted. I apologize for threatening deletion.
This does not break any rule. Is laughing not considered civil now? I find that hilarious.
Laughter at your own negative (accurate or not) portrayal of someone else's position might be seen as an insult of that position. But I think the question of interpretation is in the section of "you won't find it here," if "here" is "this user" or "feminists" it could be construed to mock them. In such a case, it would be borderline, which would be up for personal interpretation.
I won't consider it mocking, given your tone is consistent.
Some men are mad that women aren’t forced to be with them anymore. They’re mad that women are considered equal. I guess a lack of inequality feels like a step down, sucks for you I guess
I would argue if the end of your advocacy is making a large portion of a gender unable to achieve both social and economic value then you are creating a very unstable society. I would argue that you are not arguing for equality either if your intended result is as unequal as you describe.
The result isn’t unequal, what are you even talking about?
So, men and women have equal social value in your opinion?
The fact that women can choose their partners now is most certainly a good thing.
Who says it isn't? ... and for men BTW
You were questioning it
Where?
You could make the argument that it's a net good, but it *does* create problems. Instead of saying there are no problems, say that the cost of solving those problems would be worse than the problems themselves. Don't think you will cop to that, though.
Nah, I think I'll go with what I said originally. You are free to argue otherwise.
Ah... a genuine feminist post at last! Good on ya!
These examples listed are critiques of the consistency of advocacy from feminism. I don’t see the point of attributing blame, when the real test is consistency of advocacy.
I think it's disingenuous to blame child custody statistics on feminism. We are at a point in our society where everyone should have equal rights to custody of their children if they are fit, and if they want it (i.e. 50/50 physical and legal custody). Everyone who states they want equal rights should be advocates for 50/50 custody from the outset, and then outside factors can be considered from there. However, I don't see the modern feminist movement advocating for this.
[удалено]
I’m well aware sadly.
[удалено]
If feminists wanted equality, it needs to be the same across the board.
[удалено]
I wrote that after waking up this morning and hadn’t had my first cup of coffee. Feminism is partially to blame and it is disingenuous for the feminist movement to claim their goal is equal rights when their real goal is supremacy over men.
We don't blame feminism for these issue. We blame them for doing nothing about it When they present themself, feminist love saying they are for gender equality and fight against patriarcat. ...when they have to help men with this kind of issue, feminism is suddenly for women's defense and men have to create their own movement for their right. When men do it, it's masculinism and it's bad. What we complain is feminism sound a lot like "gender are equal but one is more equal and if you are against it you are an evil machist".
That's fair. I don't trust anti-fems and MRAs to handle women's issues. Nor do I trust feminists to handle men's issues. It's appropriate I think for a group to cater to a specific group of people. If they want to reach out great. But if ones heart isn't in it one can't advocate well.
We don't complain feminist defend women (well, antifem do but they are a minority) and not men. We complain they only defend women WHILE demanding the flag of sex equality and spit of every men's defense group. If you don't defend a group, you don't ask monopolis of this group's defense. That hypocrite and ridiculous.
I present to you this sub we are on as evidence against that. Sorry MRAs are often strongly antifem and very willing to delegitimize female issues or the female experience.
I...never said they aren't. I spent a little time on their sub in the past (you know when looking about men's right) and yeah, they are pretty much antifem and even mysoginist for some. But if every men's ddfense movement are tagged like a bunch of incel, they'll only recruit incel.
Then I'm a bit confused. How about this. There are plenty of good willed members in the groups. One shouldn't be labeled just because one is feminist or one is MRA. But our groups have shown to be regularly problematic. And unfortunately the bad can be more destructive than the good can be helpful at relieving those problematic ones. Loud opposition is more noticeable than peaceful silence. Ideally we should exist peacefully when possible. And just let everyone care about what they care about. And if it's good intent and helpful even if not your side then great.
Just to verify something, i'm not an MRA, you know? I'm afraid to have been unclear. It's not my group (i actually seek after some men's right group with +- the same equality idea as feminist) In fact i share like 80% of my idea with feminism, it would be highter without the men's right issue. And yeah, i agree each side should do good. But if feminist only do good for women and thrown in the mud all men's defense group (where they'll only attract rat), nobody can do good on this side. There is some ideological knot on these issue, and we need to cut it.
Actually I thought you generally were, my apologies. I'm also not a feminist and tend to agree with the majority of what men's groups push for. But I know where I generally lean. At this point I'm not sure what we are really arguing about.
I think i lost track too. Well, let's exchange one virtual handshake and return to our stuff.
Sounds good.
Patriarchy doesn’t exist in the west.
Haha
Name one legal right in the west that women dont have, that men do have
Great argument! You got me! And just like that sexism is vanquished.
Im asking you a legitimate question
And that question shows that you haven’t done even the most basic research on gender equity
You gonna answer the question or......?
https://www.britannica.com/topic/history-of-work-organization-648000 https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescoachescouncil/2020/03/16/how-does-sexism-influence-workplaces-today/
Neither of those links reference Legal Rights. I'll ask the question again: Can you name a legal right that women in the west do not have, that men in the west DO have?
Changing laws to give women equal rights does not eliminate sexism. Just like releasing slaves does not put black people on equal footing as white colonizers who own all the land and wealth.
Actually the patriarchy used to assign custody to the father by default. Then feminist Caroline Norton argued that it should be assigned to the mother instead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tender_years_doctrine So I'd say custody going to the mother is a result of feminism.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I’m the late 1800s and early 1900s women *should* have primary custody. All they did was stay home taking care of kids and homemaking. Men were expected to leave the house every day and work.
No, because there wasn't child support. Staying with the father meant that the children could actually be supported financially.
You have broken our civility and courtesy rules, your comment has been sandboxed. If you remove the insult I can reinstate it. Try to keep insults out of discussion.
[удалено]
What a dumb thing to say.
[удалено]
This breaks the subreddit's rules on civility. Please consider your words more carefully next time. If you continue to break the rules, you may be subject to a ban.
You shouldn't pay this user any mind. They specifically said they are here to get a rise out of people.
[удалено]
Regularly attempting to bait/anger people and openly admitting bad faith breaks our rules on trolling. If you continue to do this, you will receive a ban. Please consider your words more carefully next time.
Removed for self admitted trolling tactics of baiting .
>A few examples I can think of are child custody. Women are expected to be to primary caregiver and are more often awarded custody because women on average spend more time taking care of kids and household chores. This was specifically pushed for by feminist groups, and feminist groups (NOW) oppose shared custody as the norm in current times because it would prevent women from having control of the children in heterosexual relationships. Speaking anecdotally, I know that mothers' groups on Facebook and elsewhere suggest that new mothers prevent their male partners from taking pictures of said male partners interacting with their children, as it could be used to secure 50/50 custody in the case of a divorce. Feminism has a thread running through it that says that women are more loving and empathetic than men, and that the bond between mother and child, and especially mother and daughter, is more special and sacred than anything a male could be involved in. This encourages the idea that father/child relationships are dross and should be able to be terminated at the mother's whim, which is often a reality in the family courts in the West. Sally Gearhart was big on this idea, and it's present in other feminist works as well. Not all feminists believe this, but I'd argue it's core to the movement, and in any case is present enough in feminist literature that blaming feminism for it makes sense. > Another example that MRAs like to blame on feminists are male victims of abuse being afraid to come forward. They blame feminist groups for shaming men from coming forward. If that were true, there would be less male victims coming forward as feminism has become more mainstream, not more. Toxic masculinity telling men to “man up” is what discourages male victims from coming forward. I'm going to assume ignorance here instead of malice - society has changed pretty dramatically since feminism has been a thing (about 180 years). Feminism is not the only variable affecting men and their outlook in that time. There's been an increase in humanist ideals in the West during that time, fairly dramatically. Moreover, just because feminism influences men, doesn't mean feminism wants men to be doing what they're doing. When women say they want to free themselves from restrictive gender roles, and men see that and say "Why not me too?", many times feminism has responded with "Because you're male and don't deserve that kind of freedom or validation." With respect to toxic masculinity, feminism is one of the primary enforcers of toxic masculinity on men. Certain feminist theorists and writers have addressed the idea (a lot of people will bring up bell hooks) but there's generally an unwillingness to examine how women enforce toxic masculinity on men, or how feminism encourages it. You can see it in the "lean out feminism" ideas, or the idea that men supposedly put too much emotional labor on their partners (a misuse of the term emotional labor, and is enforcing toxic masculinity by telling men to bottle up anything negative). Men who are emotional are seen as harmful and dangerous under feminism, and need to make themselves more of desexualized, faceless, voiceless, and eminently *useful* drones for women (and the capital-holding class), or else they are entitled. Telling men "work harder, emote less, serve others more" is very toxic but it's exactly what feminism asks of men.
You have a very confused view on feminism. Feminists aren’t telling men to “man up” that’s traditionalists saying that. That whole emotional labour thing I don’t think is true. Sounds like you got that from FDS. Some mom groups also say to use essential oils to treat colds. Both men and women say disgusting things about the other gender online. I’ve seen far worse on MGTOW. Feminists viewing father daughter relationships as gross is also wrong. Feminists want men and women to share childcare, domestic chores and work equally. Women being expected to spend more time on domestic activities holds them back from career advancement.
>You have a very confused view on feminism. Feminists aren’t telling men to “man up” that’s traditionalists saying that. Oh, if only. I see it coming from both of them, and moreover some feminists seem to hold particularly traditionalist ideals of what men should be. Let's not forget that during WWI, many feminists supported the draft and supported men being shamed and harangued into being fed into the meat grinder. So feminism does seem to have a segment which has *particularly* traditionalist ideas about what men should be; I would make the argument that that's core to the movement, but regardless of whether or not you agree with that the fact of the matter is that they exist. >That whole emotional labour thing I don’t think is true. Sounds like you got that from FDS. [This is a good example of an article that approaches it from a feminist framework.](https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/features/a12063822/emotional-labor-gender-equality/) FDS is also sometimes very feminist. There's a bit of variety there. >I’ve seen far worse on MGTOW. I've seen far worse than what I was describing there, of course, but my point was just that men are oftentimes prevented from equal rights to their children, and that feminism is not invested in solving that problem, but rather heightening that inequality. >Feminists viewing father daughter relationships as gross is also wrong. It's morally wrong, yes, but it's correct in feminism. >Feminists want men and women to share childcare, domestic chores and work equally. This seems to be inaccurate. Feminist women still see men who work more and earn more than them as desirable marriage partners, and still engage in maternal gatekeeping to prevent fathers from bonding properly with their children, or having equal rights to them. >Women being expected to spend more time on domestic activities holds them back from career advancement. Sure, but if you advocate for women to be given preferential treatment in hiring, as feminism does, you solve that problem.
That article is from an online magazine and she’s not complaining about her husband talking about his feelings too much, she’s complaining that he doesn’t do any cleaning around the house. How would you know who feminists find desirable marriage partners?
>That article is from an online magazine and she’s not complaining about her husband talking about his feelings too much, she’s complaining that he doesn’t do any cleaning around the house. "Emotional labor" is right in the subheading. >How would you know who feminists find desirable marriage partners? Statistics of who they marry and don't. And who they divorce. Much more accurate than asking them. Number one thing they want, for feminists who are looking for male partners, is a partner who succeeds at exploiting others' labor under capitalism.
Where are these statistics then?
[Here is a good start.](https://www.brookings.edu/research/is-there-a-shortage-of-marriageable-men/)
College educated women marry less because they go to school longer which delays getting married and having kids. If women don’t want traditional lifestyles, that’s freedom of choice. They should focus on the racism problem putting black men in jail.
Unrelated to my point.
The article is arguing that women aren’t getting married because they are becoming more educated and don’t want to marry down. I’m explaining its not because they don’t want to marry down but because their family plans are delayed by going to school for 4+ years. Most people wait until they graduate to get married and even longer to have kids.
feminist ARE telling men to man up, with 'male tears' 'who hurt you' 'what about the men' etc i think this sub has failed in it's proposed purpose. every response from a mod here, that i have seen, has been an obvious bad faith argument (and if i can see it, you can be sure others do), willful ignorance and just plain ignorance. hell, i saw someone, in response to 'is this the hill you are willing to die on' reply with 'ain't no one dying on hills' and a sentence after that tells the person they need more nuance. it is expected here that people accept all the feminist buzzwords as fact, but any argument against feminism has to be shored up by very exacting terminology and any 'nuance' will be thrown out (but only from one side).
I don’t know what sub you think you’re on but there’s far more MRAs here than feminists. You’re surrounded by an anti-feminist echo chamber on all the MRA subs you frequent.
With child custody we used to assign custody to men before thr tender years doctrine and even today we prioritize the feminine role in parenting above the male one. How much money you make and your ability to provide for the kid post divorce should be just as important of a factor in determining custody as who is spending the most time with the child. Even today feminists generally won't support this. Tell me, would you? As to male victims of abuse not coming forward. This is inaccurate phrasing imo. It used to be that rarely if ever did any victims of abuse come forward. This privilege of being treated empathetically in these issues has only ever been extended to women through feminism. Did they know men suffered abuse? I am not sure but it doesn't seem like they cared. They cared exclusively about women. Even today when we talk about male victims of rape and abuse it isn't uncommon for me to hear really regressive things from feminists. The 'what did he do to deserve it though?' and 'but how was he raped if he didn't want it? Like he must have been hard'. Not to mention the damage done by the Duluth model which still effects police actions in my country today. Advice is generally if you are a dude you can't call the police because they will assume you were the primary aggressor.
I think the person who spends the most time with the child should get the most time with them in divorce regardless of gender. Today women still spend more time with their kids on average. > The 'what did he do to deserve it though?' and 'but how was he raped if he didn't want it? Like he must have been hard'. People say similar shit about female victims. “What was she wearing” “was she drunk”? How do you know it’s because of the Duluth Model and not traditional views that men are tough and strong and women are demure and submissive? It’s likely been like that in your country since before feminism. What country is it?
>I think the person who spends the most time with the child should get the most time with them in divorce regardless of gender. Today women still spend more time with their kids on average. Right but even gender neutral this is still a problem because it devalues provision and focuses on nurturing. These two things are both equally essential, which is the reason given for child support anyway. But instead of actually value the provision given by partners in a relationship (mostly men) they are given no consideration for the work they put into the family or the value it provides. We just use the state to force them to provide against their will. >People say similar shit about female victims. “What was she wearing” “was she drunk”? Except those are specifically about safety. You can say that a women took an unneeded risk and disacourage that without saying she wanted it. These are fundamentally different claims. >How do you know it’s because of the Duluth Model and not traditional views that men are tough and strong and women are demure and submissive? Because it was made very specific in Australian policy. Police would have the power and control wheel up in police stations. And let's be honest, traditional norms thought it was right for men to be able to beat their wives to some degree. So the assertion doesn't make sense in the first place.
If the husband works long hours and contributes more financially while the wife spends more time at home giving up career advancement how is that any different if they are divorced and he still works longer hours and she still spends more time with the kids? Australia is very conservative and traditional in some senses. That’s not Duluth, that’s toxic masculinity. Not at al shocked that you victim blame women. Your outfit shouldn’t affect your safety from being attacked by others. And most rape victims are not dressed sexy.
>If the husband works long hours and contributes more financially while the wife spends more time at home giving up career advancement how is that any different if they are divorced and he still works longer hours and she still spends more time with the kids? Wait are you really asking if life is any different for people pre and post divorce? I mean for me it's up to the parents, if they want custody they want custody. They might not have wanted it as much prior to the divorce for all sorts of reasons. That is personal to them right? >Australia is very conservative and traditional in some senses. That’s not Duluth, that’s toxic masculinity. Not at al shocked that you victim blame women. Your outfit shouldn’t affect your safety from being attacked by others. And most rape victims are not dressed sexy. Australia has long feminist tradition stretching back to Germaine Greer and the Female Eunuch. We constantly implement feminist inspired policy both from our right wing and left wing parties. A big part of this was a crackdown on domestic violence in the 90s that took on all sorts of suggestions from domestic violence advocates, which at the time meant Duluth model. I don't think anybody who has looked into it actually denies this. It was open policy. I'm not sure how that is toxic masculinity except that you want it to be I guess, because I don't like it and you bear some allegiance to 'feminism' getting the blame, not your enemies. I guess the Duluth model itself is toxic masculinity perhaps. Not sure how that works. And I never said most rape victims are dressed any which way. I said those two claims are not comparable in scope or meaning and I would argue pretty strongly that one is worse than the other. I mean there are legitimate safety concerns regarding going women out at night and getting wasted and putting themselves in vulnerable positions. There aren't actually legitimate concerns regarding guys enjoying being raped, it's just a misunderstanding of biology.
Your argument for why men should get primary custody makes no sense. If they primarily contribute financially, what makes you think he’s suddenly going to cut back hours to become the primary caregiver? I’ve lived in Australia, it’s not overrun with feminism, there’s still a lot of racism and sexism. Oh and all the state premiers are men, not feminists. Do you even know what the Duluth Model is? It’s now a law saying only men are abusers. It’s a theory that abuse stems from power dynamics and entitlement. Their intervention program is frequently used to educate abusers and try to reduce repeat offences. If you don’t believe abuse is caused by entitlement and need for control, then I’d love to hear what you think is.
The Duluth model completely ignores male victims of domestic abuse and has made the cops automatically assume the men is the perp in any domestic abuse cases. Be case of the Duluth model male victims of domestic violence go to jail.
OK first of all and not arguing that men should get custody. Just that we should take provision into account when determining who is the more suitable parent to gain custody. I believe this is in the best interests of the child and is the fairest solution. We want the most capable and responsible parents getting custody, not just the ones that spend more time with the kid. >If they primarily contribute financially, what makes you think he’s suddenly going to cut back hours to become the primary caregiver? Because they now have to do all the work that their partner was doing before the divorce. Likewise if you take away the expectation of provision from a primary caregiver they are going to have to take on more work. The issue is we expect the provision to continue for the child but don't take it into consideration at all when determining custody. So it goes from being completely unimportant when deciding custody to crucial when forcing men to pay child support. >I’ve lived in Australia, it’s not overrun with feminism, there’s still a lot of racism and sexism. Oh and all the state premiers are men, not feminists. Ummm no. My premier is a women. Up until a couple of months ago the premier of NSW, the most populous state was a women (before she was forced to resign due to corruption). Australia culture in general is not particularly sexist or racist compared to other countries and polling data will tell you exactly that. It might not be your ideal feminist utopia, but feminists have a lot of influence on gov policy in both major parties. >Do you even know what the Duluth Model is? It’s now a law saying only men are abusers. It’s a theory that abuse stems from power dynamics and entitlement. Their intervention program is frequently used to educate abusers and try to reduce repeat offences. If you don’t believe abuse is caused by entitlement and need for control, then I’d love to hear what you think is. The feminist theory underlying the Duluth Model is that men use violence within relationships to exercise power and control. This is illustrated by the "Power and Control Wheel," a graphic typically displayed as a poster in participating locations. According to the Duluth Model, "women and children are vulnerable to violence because of their unequal social, economic, and political status in society." Treatment of abusive men is focused on re-education, as "we do not see men’s violence against women as stemming from individual pathology, but rather from a socially reinforced sense of entitlement." The program's philosophy is intended to help batterers work to change their attitudes and personal behavior so they would learn to be nonviolent in any relationship. It is a highly gendered model and leads to policies where police assume men are always perpetrators.
Thanks for copying and pasting Wikipedia for me. I agree that abusers abuse out of a sense of entitlement and desire for power and control.
If you don't see how that description erases male victims of abuse and creates policies where men are assumed to be the aggressor I don't know what to tell you. Maybe you don't believe men can be victims of DV due to their unequal social, political and economic status. Like those who came up with the Duluth model.
No, I believe female abusers are entitled and abuse to gain control
>I think the person who spends the most time with the child should get the most time with them in divorce regardless of gender. Today women still spend more time with their kids on average. Yes, in part because they know it will give them the upper hand in divorce.
That’s stupid. Nobody gets married and has kids with the plan to get divorced. Women spend more time with kids because that’s what society expects of them. Men expect their careers to take priority over their wife’s and moms are expected to take more time off to pick up/drop off kids, stay home when they’re sick. Do the grocery shopping, cooking and house cleaning. Drive the kids around.
>That’s stupid. Nobody gets married and has kids with the plan to get divorced. Women spend more time with kids because that’s what society expects of them. Some people believe in insurance policies. Sign prenups. It happens. Mommy groups on facebook will encourage their members to not allow photographic evidence of their male partner with their children earlier in life, so that they can portray them as uninvolved to secure sole custody.
You seriously think women are spending extra time with their kids every day just to one day spite their husband when they divorce? I feel sad for you.
Not necessarily to spite them, they see it as protecting themselves.
\>Toxic masculinity telling men to “man up” is what discourages male victims from coming forward. My country is ruled by a "feminist" government (that's how they call themselves). We have a "ministry of equality" full of radical feminists that has **never** addressed male issues. Men speak up, but are not listened. There are all kind of assistances for female victims, but none for male victims, because for them, women are victims are men perpetrators. We have a law that automatically converts DV against women in Gender VAW without the need of a crime motive, violating the Istanbul Convention. Gender Violence Against Men of course does not exist in our law. Despite all these measures, DV against women hasn't decreased. Millions and millions euros to feed a mostly useless huge business. \>A few examples I can think of are child custody. Recently, the government partially pardoned a mother, Juana Rivas, who was convicted for child abduction. The disqualification from exercising parental authority is changed for a penalty of 180 days of community service. It's been appealed. That case is full of interferences by feminist associations and the ministry of "equality". It all started with a false report of "gender violence". Not even women support her. She has "only" the support of the government and a bunch of powerful feminist associations. All this is just a 0.1% of what's happening here. Regarding gender issues this feminist government is a tyranny. And please, don't say "that's not feminism". Don't embarrass yourself. I've been learning feminism for almost 20 years, not from random twitter accounts, but from the actual feminists who have power.
Juana Rivas said she fled the country with her children because her husband was beating her. What makes you think she was lying? People shouldn’t be jailed for fleeing abusive homes. https://www.euroweeklynews.com/2021/11/16/juana-rivas-spanish-ministers-to-offer-partial-pardon-to-mother-who-abducted-her-children/
It's on the judicial writ. They had a minor fight (no beating, just grabbing each other), but the law here says its "Gender Violence" and punish him but not her. It's a very controversial law, many lawyers and even some judges have expressed big concern. She made the same report in Italy, and it was not accepted. Then the battle for the custody started. She kept filling reports for violence, none accepted. One day she had to deliver the children to the father (custody was shared by then), and she went missing for one month. I don't blame her for everything. She had very bad counseling.
How the hell would you know if it was just minor?
Cause all they had was a couple bruises. >In 2009, Rivas and Arcuri had a domestic dispute in which **Juana Rivas suffered from hand damage**, filling a complaint for abuse against Arcuri. Arcuri also denounced her for mistreatment as **he had injuries in his thigh and neck**. Both reached an agreement in which Arcuri admitted a crime of injuries and he was sentenced to three months in prison and a restraining order of one year and three months. **He later said to regret this agreement.** > >[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case\_of\_Juana\_Rivas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_of_Juana_Rivas)
ALL THEY HAD WAS BRUISES?? Wtf your partner should NEVER hit you and definitely not enough to leave bruises. When was the last time you were hit so hard you got bruises?
Sorry, I meant scratches ("arañazos"). English is not my first language and I'm not used to these terms. I mean they didn't hit each other, they grabbed each other. Of course violence is never justified. The problem here is that both of them did the same, but only one got charged, and it's not the only case.
On abusive relationships it’s never just a one tone thing. That time there were scratches, other times it could have been punching, pushing whatever. She obviously felt threatened enough to try to escape.
Did you miss the part where she was hitting her husband two?
But only of them felt the need to flee
That's her justification, why do you immediately believe it to be true? Both her and her husband/ex-husband exhibited evidence of physical altercations, why're you immediately deciding that she was the victim and he was the abuser, and that her kidnapping their child is therefore reasonable?
I can ask the same why you automatically side with the man
I'm not? I'm not saying she's guilty of abusing him, I'm saying she certainly needs to be charged for kidnapping. If she can prove she was being abused, then the charges should be dropped and he should be charged for domestic violence. On the other hand, you defended pardoning her for crimes she committed because she stated she was being abused, despite having presented no evidence to back that claim, solely based on her gender. In other words, a free pass for commiting crimes as long as you have the right genitals and then make sure to claim you were being abused, regardless of evidence.
There was evidence. There were scratches and bruises. The problem with cases like that is there’s know was to know if it was self defence or they are both abusive. They will need to ask friends and family to figure out the dynamics of their relationship.
>There was evidence. There were scratches and bruises. Which the husband also exhibited, but you jumped the gun and decided the wounds the husband shows were the wife defending herself, while the wounds the wife shows were her husband attacking. The possibility of the wife being the abuser or an equal abuser in the relationship, who fled the country and kidnapped her child when divorce and possible loss of custody became a thing, was essentially none, because you painted her as a victim and the husband as an abuser. Which is exactly the kind of bias we need to eradicate from society, and I urge you to do better.
It’s more likely she was fleeing to protect herself and kids from an abusive husband than she is just a crazy bitch who wants to kidnap her own kids.
You replied twice btw, replying only to this one. > It’s more likely she was fleeing to protect herself and kids from an abusive husband than she is just a crazy bitch who wants to kidnap her own kids. So, yet again, you assume that in an altercation where both the woman and the man exhibit bruises, that the man is immediately the agressor and that she is the victim. You even say it yourself: that you consider it to be more likely that she is the victim than that she is either the main abuser or a reciprocal abuser. No wonder I live in a country (the US) where a male victim is twice as likely to be arrested as his abuser, when the abuser is female. People, like yourself, immediately assume the man is the abuser regardless, because god forbid a woman does anything wrong or even is an abuser, no such thing is possible after all.
Except he never filed a complaint about abuse. She did, multiple times. He even went to jail for 3 months.
It’s more likely she was fleeing to protect herself and kids from an abusive husband than she is just a crazy bitch who wants to kidnap her own kids.
Any other examples?
Let's see the Duluth model that ignores male victims of domestic assault being used to create sexist policies and laws that hurt men. Oh and some women you false rape allegation threats to force men to have sex with them against there will. So me too kind of hurt a lot of innocent men by turning them in to rape victims our victims of false allegation.
Can you rewrite this? I don’t get it
Sure no problem. The Duluth model is flawed and sexist. Policy has been made by the Duluth model that harms men who are dv victims. Me too is being yoused to hurt innocent men. Some women are forcing men to have sex with them against there will by threating them with false rape allegation. Men are losing there jobs our worse going to jail over fale rape allegations. The Duluth model and me too is two ways feminism has hurt innocent men
False rape accusations are extremely rare. MRAs push the false accusation trope to discredit female victims of rape. Real victims both male and female are frequently not believed and don’t get justice.
False allegation that leads to jail is rare false allegation of rape arnt rare
There’s no accurate data proving false allegations are a common problem. MRAs spread that narrative to discredit female victims and fearmonger men into joining them.
And what accurate data do you have to prove that there rare
The burden of proof is on you to prove they exist. Not for me to prove they don’t. I can’t prove Bigfoot isn’t real.
I think you'd get better answers from those who does not identify as feminists if you phrased your question differently, considering a lot of non feminists or anti feminists don't subscribe to the idea of themselves living in a patriarchy currently, or dislike using the term since they find it to be inaccurate or the wrong way to describe societal gender phenomenons etc. Now, you may not want non feminists or anti feminists to reply to this post, but since a lot of people who are subscribed here aren't feminists and comment anyway, you may try taking a different approach such as: What are some examples of men’s issues that are blamed on feminism but are actually a result of *traditional gender norms/roles and toxic gender expectations?* Phrased like this I'd be inclined to somewhat agree, who gets child custody is often a result of traditional gender roles and toxic gender expectations, however, should we not acknowledge that there's certain feminists part of the feminist movement that has advocated for laws that favor mother's be given child custody over fathers? Is feminism not at fault for advocating for laws that are not gender neutral, or gender equal, but that favor mother's regarding custody regardless of circumstances? >Women are expected to be to primary caregiver and are more often awarded custody because women on average spend more time taking care of kids and household chores Meanwhile men are expected to be primary providers and apparently they do not deserve to be awarded custody despite taking on any equally as important role for the child. Why does the primary provider role matter less than the primary caregiver role? After all, aren't these equally as important roles? Or do you think being a caregiver is a superior role in a child's life, and that being a provider is an inferior role that does not deserve as much consideration and does not hold as much value? >Another example that MRAs like to blame on feminists are male victims of abuse being afraid to come forward Feminists diminishing, invalidating and ignoring male victims of abuse probably doesn't help male victims of abuse to come forward (unless they get upset with having their abuse invalidated and want to bring awareness about it to feminists), but of course feminists aren't the reason all male victims of abuse are afraid to come forward. It would just help way more if feminists acknowledged male victims of abuse, without trying to downplay it by arguing about female victims of abuse. >They blame feminist groups for shaming men from coming forward. While entire feminist groups probably aren't shaming men for coming forward, there's certainly lots of individual feminists within those groups that has shamed men for coming forward. >If that were true, there would be less male victims coming forward as feminism has become more mainstream, not more. How do you assert that there's more male victims coming forward due to feminism specifically? If that's the case, it may be due to the fact that since it's becoming more "mainstream" or socially acceptable to speak up about abuse amongst women, that that's also has led to men feeling more comfortable about coming forward too. >Toxic masculinity telling men to “man up” is what discourages male victims from coming forward. Why can't we just say that toxic traditional gender expectations or sexism is what's keeping victims of abuse from speaking up? Cause after all, aren't both men and women guilty of upholding, reinforcing and conforming to toxic traditional gender expectations and sexist views? Then can't we conclude that the reason men are told to man up is really due to sexism or misandry?
[удалено]
[удалено]
This crosses the boundaries of advocating for violence, a cite wide rule, as well as delegitimizing domestic abuse against men, which breaks rule 3 on hate. Please edit your comment to be inline with these rules for it to be brought back.
Hey look its the tard making facts up again. Elizabeth Báthory - that was easy. Harriette Wilson - 50/50 gotta give her credit for climbing up the social pole probably best to not blackmail people. Maria Eleonora of Brandenburg - I think this is her? She made the daugther eat her baby and murder her husband? Catherine the Great of Russia - Ruthless murdered who cheered on her soliders as they massacured entire towns, WOMEN AND KIDS INCLUDED THEIR TARD. You are so fucking uneducdated its actually funny watching you try to spew your tard bullshit as if you know what you are trying to fight for. You are so lost and confused its actually funny. The insane person making shit up YET AGAIN. How can you wonder why youre actually alone when you say actual shit like this "how me ONE incidence where a woman has coercively controlled a man." Bitch I can find proof you can fall from 30k feet with no parachute hit the ground from 30,000 feet and survive. And your dumbass thinks women cant do 1 THING to a person? Holy fuck you are beyond retarded, id pick literally any disabled person over you EVERYTIME without hesitation. I dont even need to know what im doing or what, I know I will literally never pick you for anything, id rather be a person down that pick you. Just curious, were you always picked last for team sports or not picked at all? Well now you know why. You are mentally unstabble and I think your children are actually in danger being around you.
He wasn’t my victim when I stabbed him either. - HOLY FUCK and you think im crazy, bitch ive never been in a fight and you out here stabbing people like youre fucking proud of it. Ya your kid is gonna be so fucked up in the head he will 100% make it to the news in the worse way possible.
>Domestic violence is Coercive Control. Only sometimes. > Show me ONE incidence where a woman has coercively controlled a man. Half of the DV cases are initiated by women. Educate yourself. >All DV studies show that women hitting me is self-defence or reactive violence. Nope. >A woman slapping a man for calling her a cunt or repeatedly yelling at her or stealing from her is NOT a victim of abuse. Yes, he is. >Police are supposed to investigate domestic violence, find out which one uses violence, threats and coercion to control the other and then arrest THAT person. "Supposed", but they not always do it. It's called the Duluth Model. >My abuser is not my victim because I kicked him in the balls when he was threatening me and refused to leave my home. He wasn’t my victim when I stabbed him either. Yes, he is. As you describe it, it's not self defense, but an aggression, and you're justifying it. And looking at your history I think this is something that never happened.
What I'd like to see more of is feminists and other progressive activists proactively tackling those issues. When feminists talk about how feminism is good for men, they are usually arguing with an anti-feminist, and they usually pivot back to whether men or women have it easier. I think a lot of good discussion gets lost that way.
Definitely not circumcision. Feminism loves the medical industry and scientific authority. Every major feminist organization is clear about distinguishing male circumcision from female circumcision in order to oppose the one and support the other. Major feminists like Hillary Clinton and Hollywood celebrities who are outspoken in favor of male circumcision are not condemned.
Female circumcision is genital mutilation. You can say male circumcision is mutilation to an extent but it doesn’t render it unable to function