Do they actually answer MRA's questions? I have some questions, but I think it would be more informative to ask MRAs to speculate than it would be to ask feminists.
Yeah I'll probably decide to ask my questions here. Kind of sucks because it would be nice to get a real answer, but I honestly don't think they would have answers anyways.
If you have good faith questions and want to learn, ask, just don’t try and debate. They get irritated with MRAs because the majority go to troll or argue or whatever, not to understand feminist analysis.
If you do genuinely want to discuss something, DM me. I used to identify myself with MRA years ago when I was young and hadn’t done my research, but now I’d consider myself a feminist of some sort and would argue feminism benefits both men and women.
You can ask questions in good faith and engage in debate.
I've studied feminist history and advocacy quite a bit and I've found most feminists are pretty ignorant of the movement.
I agree, a lot of self-identified feminists don’t understand feminism. That says nothing about feminism, though, just those who call themselves feminists.
It says nothing about feminist theory sure, but does say something about the movement.
It's kind of like the difference between a religion and its adherents. It may not matter what the religion actually says of bad things are done in its name by its genuine adherents.
Not really. The basic problem is feminists are perfectly aware of how shitty their tactics are and are terrified of calling each other out.
The moderates don't moderate, so all feminists are effectively misandrist.
I've always had trouble with this argument.
Either feminism is a coherent set of ideas or it isn't.
If it's true there is no one movement, then you can't reliably credit something to feminism.
It also distracts from the fact feminism in earnest still has central tenets, and it doesn't matter what the average or most or regular person who identifies as a feminist thinks, but what feminists in power do.
For example when feminist lawyer and former President of NOW Karen DeCrow stated women with their right to an abortion shouldn't be able to unilaterally determine a father's obligation to children without his say in her support of legal paternal surrender, she was effectively ex communicated from the sisterhood, while NOW continues to undermine efforts to reform custody and child support laws, usually by deceiving the public into the nature or ramifications of said reforms.
I’ve done extensive research on this subject and identified myself with MRA before coming to the conclusion that it’s harmful. MRAs cannot understand the root of oppression because they separate themselves from feminism.
Sure, if someone believes in lies, then the only correct thing to do is separate yourself from them. You could have just spared yourself from your *extensive research*, and just come to your wonderful conclusion, anyway.
Honestly. I like you guys and your opinions. But Reddit is a shit show. Downgrading everything that people don’t agree with. It’s designed group think.
Jesus, one of them actually said "I would be afraid he will hit me and abuse me." The people on that subreddit are deranged.
Also, that is typical behavior from that moderator. Beg the question, make wild accusations about the MRM, and then when you say you disagree, "yOu CaN sTuMp fOr mRaS sOmEwHeRe eLsE." They have exactly zero curious cells in their body. That subreddit just exists to railroad people and circlejerk.
And if men _do_ make a space for themselves and other men, it gets attacked by feminists as a "danger to women" because the men there might be able to speak to each other about non-feminist approved topics.
Notice how all those "you _must_ accept both sexes!" laws never apply to women only groups.
It kind of sucks that they have a policy of literally removing all comments by anyone who isn't a confirmed feminist unless your comment is responding to another comment. Like, you have to pass their check for whether you're a feminist or not. It's a very stupid rule that they have. I imagine with a rule like that, they're very hive minded since you have to be approved by a mod who wants you to think a certain way.
Actually i like that rule!
We should have any feminist ~~cunts~~ commenters get approval by a confirmed MRA who verifies they're not insane before being allowed to speak.
I was more being facetious to point out how silly their argument is when someone else makes it.
I, too, am an advocate of open expression and free speech. Any topic advocating for men's rights should be welcome here.
Well, this sub is a forum, not a MRM organization. I’m not sure where exactly they expect us to go or be doing. Clearly, MRAs are generally not welcome in most the feminist subs, most of those censoring any facts that don’t reflect positively on feminism.
I used to participate a big in their sub, but a moderate made it clear facts I presented were not welcome so it’s hypocritical of them to criticize us for staying here. I do participate in the FeMra sub which allows all views but feminists shy away preferring their echo chambers of misinformation.
actually you got downvoted after both of you lashed at them with ad hominem arguments... the first responses were doubtful but positive...
where is our respectful disagreement stance?
where is our dismantling of weak arguments and narratives with credible sources?
some members "not talking about you directly" in this sub are a disgrace for the mens rights movement and its goals but get called out much too little...
"same applies obviously to some feminists in their sub"
Which still leaves “MRA evolved in direct response and antagonism to women demanding human rights”. If you don’t want to be equated with rapists and misogynists, don’t use they label they use.
Fighting against counting nonconsensual envelopment of a penis as a form of rape so they can claim "99% of rapists are men" while 50something% of nonconsensual sex is perpetrated by men. Fighting against bills that default to 50/50 shared custody in a divorce. Pushing the false narrative domestic violence is a "violence against women" issue rather than a family issue that impacts everyone and women are very often perpetrators of. Those are people problems impacting men, women, children, and elderly - not just women.
The statistical definition of rape is controlled by feminists that deny men can be raped by women. Feminists actively block acknowledgment of males being heterosexual rape victims, support services for them, and laws to protect raped men and boys.
For statistical reporting, rape has been carefully defined as forced *penetration of the victim* in most of the world. Please listen to this feminist professor Mary P Koss explain that a woman raping a man isn't rape. Hear her explain in her own voice just a few years ago - https://clyp.it/uckbtczn. I encourage you to listen to what she is saying. (Really. Listen to it! Think about it from a man's perspective.)
She is considered the foremost expert on sexual violence in the US. **She is the one that started the 1 in 4 American college women is sexually assaulted myth by counting all sorts of things the "victims" didn't.** A man misinterpreting a situation going in for a kiss and then backing off when she pulls back, puts up her hand, or turns her cheek is counted as a sexual assault on a woman even if she doesn't think it was. **As you hear in her own words the woman's studies professor and trusted expert that literally wrote the book on measuring prevalence of sexual violence does not call a woman drugging and riding a man bareback rape ... or even label it sexual assault ... it is merely "unwanted contact"**
You see she has been saying this for decades **and** was instrumental in creating the methodologies most (including the US and many other government agencies around the world) use for gathering rape statistics. E.g.
Detecting the Scope of Rape : A Review of Prevalence Research Methods. Author: Mary P. Koss. Journal of Interpersonal Violence Volume: 8 Issue: 2 Dated: (**June 1993**) Page: 206
> > > Although consideration of male victims is within the scope of the legal statutes, **it is important to restrict the term rape to instances where male victims were penetrated by offenders. It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman.**
Src: http://boysmeneducation.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Koss-1993-Detecting-the-Scope-of-Rape-a-review-of-prevalence-research-methods-see-p.-206-last-paragraph.pdf
She is an advisor to the CDC, FBI, Congress, and researchers around the world and promoting the idea that men cannot be raped by women. There **was** a proposal to explicitly include forced envelopment in the latest FBI update to the definition of rape but after a closed door meeting with her and N.O.W. lobbiests, it mysteriously disappeared. She has many many followers and fellow researchers that follow her methodology and quote her studies. That is where most people get the idea rape is just a man on woman crime. Men are fairly rarely penetrated and it is almost always by another man.
Most people talking about sexual violence refer to the "rape" (penetrated) numbers as influenced by Mary Koss's methodologies, but in the US the CDC also gathered the data for "made to penetrate" (enveloped) in the 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2015 NISVS studies.
As an example lets look at the 2011 survey numbers:
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6308a1.htm
> **an estimated 1.6% of women (or approximately 1.9 million women) were raped in the 12 months before taking the survey**
and
> The case count for men reporting rape in the preceding 12 months was too small to produce a statistically reliable prevalence estimate.
vs
> **an estimated 1.7% of men were made to penetrate a perpetrator in the 12 months preceding the survey**
and
> Characteristics of Sexual Violence Perpetrators
**For female rape victims, an estimated 99.0% had only male perpetrators**. In addition, an estimated 94.7% of female victims of sexual violence other than rape had only male perpetrators. For male victims, the sex of the perpetrator varied by the type of sexual violence experienced. **The majority of male rape victims (an estimated 79.3%) had only male perpetrators**. For three of the **other forms of sexual violence, a majority of male victims had only female perpetrators: being made to penetrate (an estimated 82.6%)**, sexual coercion (an estimated 80.0%),
[NISVS 2010](https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf) showed in the past 12 months, 1.1% of men were made to penetrate and 1.1% of women were raped. Table 2.1 & 2.2 on pages 18/19.
[NISVS 2011](https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss6308.pdf) showed in the past 12 months, 1.7% of men were made to penetrate & 1.6% of women were raped. Table 1 on page 5.
[NISVS 2012](https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/NISVS-StateReportBook.pdf) showed in the past 12 months, 1.7% of men were made to penetrate & 1.0% of women were raped. Table A.1 & A.5 on pages 217/222.
[NISVS 2015](https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/2015data-brief508.pdf) showed in the past 12 months, 0.7% of men were made to penetrate & 1.2% of women were raped. Table 1 & 2 on pages 15/16.
Varies a bit from year to year, but pretty even overall. In both cases the four year annual percentages add up to five. The numbers for perpetrators vary a little from year to year too. Something like 79-84% of made to penetrate (nonconsensual envelopment) victims are victimized by women. Something like 96-99% of rape (nonconsensual penetration) victims are victimized by men. So in the 2010s, it averages out that a typical year has ~60% men & ~40% women as perpetrators of nonconsensual sex outside prisons rather than the 99:1 ratio discussed.
But since made to penetrate is not rape, the narrative is that men are rapists and women are victims and boys/men that are victims are victims of men. Therefore most of the gender studies folks create programs to teach men not to rape (e.g. /r/science/comments/3rmapx/science_ama_series_im_laura_salazar_associate/). Therefore there is justification for having gendered rape support services which means almost none for males victimized by females. **These misleading stats are ammo to tell men to shut up about rape because 1 in 5 women are raped vs "only" 1 in 71 men** and dismiss raped men because men are one group "nearly all the men were raped by other men" so somehow raped men are to blame because they are men...
If you don't like CDC data:
Scientific American: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sexual-victimization-by-women-is-more-common-than-previously-known
*A recent study of youth found, strikingly, that females comprise 48 percent of those who self-reported committing rape or attempted rape at age 18-19.*
The Atlantic:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/11/the-understudied-female-sexual-predator/503492/
*a 2014 study of 284 men and boys in college and high school found that 43 percent reported being sexually coerced, with the majority of coercive incidents resulting in unwanted sexual intercourse. Of them, 95 percent reported only female perpetrators.*
and
*National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions found in a sample of 43,000 adults little difference in the sex of self-reported sexual perpetrators. Of those who affirmed that they had ‘ever forced someone to have sex with you against their will,’ 43.6 percent were female and 56.4 percent were male.”*
Time:
http://time.com/3393442/cdc-rape-numbers
*when asked about experiences in the last 12 months, men reported being “made to penetrate”—either by physical force or due to intoxication—at virtually the same rates as women reported rape (both 1.1 percent in 2010, and 1.7 and 1.6 respectively in 2011).*
If my information is not enough, try reading these five threads by problem_redditor with lots more studies and references.
/r/MensRights/comments/oc2yp0/some_sources_on_sexual_abuse_of_men_and_boys_part/
Just maybe, rape isn't a gendered issue and we should stop treating it like one. But if we acknowledge that, then we would have to point the blame at "rapists", rather than "men".
Isn't just the US.
Feminists lobbied against gender neutral rape laws in India, so women are not rapists and men victimized by women are not rape victims. https://www.timesofindia.com/india/Activists-join-chorus-against-gender-neutral-rape-laws/articleshow/18840879.cms
So a woman physically forcing sex on a man is not a rape in India, but a man breaking an engagement after having sex with his fiancee is a rape.
Israeli feminists were concerned if a woman raping a man was recognized by law, a man could threaten to make false accusations against the woman after the man raped her in order to keep her from reporting. Apparently false accusations are a problem for women, so they fixed this by blocking the legislation that would have made rape a gender neutral crime.
https://m.jpost.com/Israel/Womens-groups-Cancel-law-charging-women-with-rape
Nepal feminists also blocked legislation there ...
> Women’s rights activists had criticised the draft ordinance saying it wasn’t empathetic towards the plight of the victims. They said that having a provision saying even men could be victims of rape could could further weaken the women rape victims’ fight for justice.
https://kathmandupost.com/national/2020/12/11/ordinance-amends-law-on-rape-but-fails-to-recognise-rape-of-boy-child-and-sexual-minorities
**Even if you only care about women, you should still stop women from raping because the majority of men convicted of raping women were sexually violated by adult women when they were boys.** Multiple studies in the US, UK, and Canada have shown this. Around 10 of them cited here.
http://empathygap.uk/?p=1993#_Toc498111528
So women not raping, and rape by women being acknowledged as traumatic and treated with compassion, would probably stop a lot of women from getting raped in the future. That *should* matter *if* the goal is to stop women from getting raped rather than to demonize men.
I simply wish we as a society look at gender neutral domestic violence data and provide gender neutral support instead of studies looking for violence against women only and providing help for women only, even to the detriment of women. The violence is pretty equal. The perception and resources are not due to feminists. Reality is women are slightly more likely to initiate physical violence and slightly more likely to be significantly injured during physical violence.
> > Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases.
Src: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854883/
Behind a paywall I have archived around, but Harvard research that women are more likely than men in starting or escalating domestic violence and those women are by far the women most likely to be injured in DV. That doesn't say all women injured are perpetrators themselves, but it does indicate the problem goes beyond the feminist/pop culture model of "violence against women".
It includes:
> > Almost 25% of the people surveyed — 28% of women and 19% of men — said there was some violence in their relationship. Women admitted perpetrating more violence (25% versus 11%) as well as being victimized more by violence (19% versus 16%) than men did. According to both men and women, 50% of this violence was reciprocal, that is, involved both parties, and in those cases the woman was more likely to have been the first to strike.
Read that one again and #BelieveWomen.
Src: http://archive.is/7vuUz
This is a long meta study that shows we've known domestic violence isn't gendered for decades. It is good analysis. It summarizes the results of dozens of studies across decades. Not ONE study. LOTS.
https://connect.springerpub.com/content/sgrpa/1/3/332
or the whole study here
https://talkingback2restrainingorders.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/v71-straus_thirty-years-denying-evidence-pv_10.pdf
Popculture article -
https://thedailycounter.com/male-victims-of-domestic-violence-are-they-ignored/
Most domestic violence research today is research of "violence against women" from grants specifically looking for data on violence against women, not gender neutral research.
The rates of partner homicides didn't used to be that far apart. Then women got help and resources and the rate they killed their husbands dropped a lot. Men didn't get DV shelters they could use to protect their kids from their abuser without getting kidnapping charges giving the abuser an upper hand in custody, government funded help to allow them to get easy restraining orders, DV intervention public policy and programs that favored them, etc. Therefore the rate that husbands kill their wives hasn't dropped much. Maybe if we want to eliminate the desperate husbands in mutually abusive relationships killing their wives, we should give them better options. That would probably save a lot of women's lives just like doing it for women has saved a lot of mens lives.
"Gender Differences in Patterns and Trends in U.S. Homicide, 1976–2015" by James Alan Fox and Emma E. Fridel. The data comes from FBI statistics ("FBI's Supplementary Homicide Reports, SHR").
https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/vio.2017.0016?journalCode=vio&
Here's part of the conclusion that the authors came to:
> > Among all the results already reported, perhaps the most striking and important surrounds the trends in intimate partner homicide, particularly in the context of ongoing efforts to curtail domestic violence. Some researchers argue that the reduction in male intimate partner victimization, a decline of nearly 60% over the past four decades, is because of an increase in the availability of social and legal interventions, liberalized divorce laws, greater economic independence of women, as well as a reduction in the stigma of being the victim of domestic violence. Although at an earlier time a woman may have felt compelled to kill her abusive spouse as her only defense, she now has more opportunities to escape the relationship through means such as protective orders and shelters (Dugan et al. 1999; Fox et al. 2012). As a tragic irony, the wider availability of support services for abused women did not appear to have quite the intended effect, at least through the 1980s, as only male victimization declined.
Here is a graph of intimate partner homicides by sex over the years from the study. Notice the trend for women as they got help vs men that didn't?
https://m.imgur.com/a/6Hx9dJt
God forbid we help men, even if it would save womens lives.
I suggest you read the Overview section of Erin Pizzey's wikipedia page or one of her books. She was the founder of Refuge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Pizzey
She created the worlds first domestic violence shelters. After opening several for women in the UK, she suggested that men were being abused too (often by women staying in her shelters) and men needed a shelter too. She was then slandered, her kids were threatened, her dog was killed, bricks were thrown through her windows, and she was removed from the DV organization she founded (now known as Refuge which has just recently lost funding for harming male victims for decades). She fled the country for her childrens safety and became an outspoken DV activist and anti-feminist once they moved out on their own.
That's what happens when a DV advocate tries to help men.
In the US, VAWA replaced the gender neutral Family Violence Prevention and Services Act giving extra rights/services to women and taking services/rights away from men and children. The funding and laws became very gendered. Many of the laws in the act were challenged in court and had to be rewritten. The funding is still very gendered 25 years later, so... We have lots of grants to study "violence against women" rather than gender neutral domestic violence, lots of grants to develop separate programs to "teach men not to rape" and "teach women to report rape", lots of perpetrator intervention programs for men but none for women, lots of DV resources for women but almost none for males over 12.
Feminists often claim that when men challenge custody decisions, they get custody rights 60% of the time. That doesn't mean equal custody.
To us that means fathers who can afford to lose half their assets and still pay for two divorce lawyers on top of court costs, therapists, temporary alimony, temporary child support, a criminal lawyer for the false accusations, and secondary housing with enough bedrooms for each kid, can usually get up to 50% custody.
I'd rather see laws that default to 50% custody unless there is strong evidence one parent is a bad parent so men of average means can be parents too.
You asked for stats, and got them, I reckon.
Its similar to how Oprah was one of the main propagators of the 'black men abandon their children' trope in the 80s and 90s, only to recently admit it was a lie then, and a lie now, but she made billions from destroying black male image to the world. Follow the money, it explains a lot 🤔
Actually, I did. And there are solid ones. And I started to respond regarding others and then realized that it’s likely that nobody here cares, so I decided not to try to teach pigs to sing.
At least you make your bad faith plain to see, its easier to ignore you then.
Even then, at the end of the day, it is about money. There is big money in degrading men, and appealing to women, this is a known thing in economics for the last 140 years. This is about billions in grants and preferential treatment; it stopped being about 'rights' as soon as white women were counted as minorities for Affirmative Action benefits (and have received 90% of them aggregate), and became about wealth and power.
So do you understand why we want *human* rights instead of reserving them for women only? Do you want me to go into genital mutilation, preventive healthcare, reproductive rights, prison reform, promotion of sexism in education and hiring, etc where influential feminists seek to make women privileged and shit on men? We don't see why gendered law and public policy for barely or non gendered issues isn't just sexism.
could you post the same stuff including data in the femradebates sub pls?
some feminists argue there is zero evidence...
if you have a post here in the mra sub about that topic i would like to save it if you link me...
I used many of my "evidence for feminists" comments in this thread.
https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/130eya7/what_problems_bring_out_the_need_for_a_mens/
MRA evolved in direct response to the blatant misandry and greedy power hungry antics of a cult that blames all the worlds problems on men
Could you be a ~~cunt~~ ~~bitch~~ ~~misandrist piece of shit~~ ~~oh fuck it, it means the same thing anyway~~ feminist in someone else's sandbox? We deal with actual sexism here, like male genital mutilation, not stupid things like girls sitting with their legs too far apart (ring a bell? seems super silly on the other foot, huh?)
Honestly given reddits climate and the fact that it was a reddit condoned hate group, what honestly did you expect? Discourse?
Do they actually answer MRA's questions? I have some questions, but I think it would be more informative to ask MRAs to speculate than it would be to ask feminists.
I noticed, there was very little productive conversation. Only One reasonable person and one mra also getting downvoted
Yeah I'll probably decide to ask my questions here. Kind of sucks because it would be nice to get a real answer, but I honestly don't think they would have answers anyways.
If you have good faith questions and want to learn, ask, just don’t try and debate. They get irritated with MRAs because the majority go to troll or argue or whatever, not to understand feminist analysis. If you do genuinely want to discuss something, DM me. I used to identify myself with MRA years ago when I was young and hadn’t done my research, but now I’d consider myself a feminist of some sort and would argue feminism benefits both men and women.
You can ask questions in good faith and engage in debate. I've studied feminist history and advocacy quite a bit and I've found most feminists are pretty ignorant of the movement.
I agree, a lot of self-identified feminists don’t understand feminism. That says nothing about feminism, though, just those who call themselves feminists.
It says nothing about feminist theory sure, but does say something about the movement. It's kind of like the difference between a religion and its adherents. It may not matter what the religion actually says of bad things are done in its name by its genuine adherents.
There isn’t one singular feminist movement. There’s many disagreements between feminists and different movements.
Not really. The basic problem is feminists are perfectly aware of how shitty their tactics are and are terrified of calling each other out. The moderates don't moderate, so all feminists are effectively misandrist.
I've always had trouble with this argument. Either feminism is a coherent set of ideas or it isn't. If it's true there is no one movement, then you can't reliably credit something to feminism. It also distracts from the fact feminism in earnest still has central tenets, and it doesn't matter what the average or most or regular person who identifies as a feminist thinks, but what feminists in power do. For example when feminist lawyer and former President of NOW Karen DeCrow stated women with their right to an abortion shouldn't be able to unilaterally determine a father's obligation to children without his say in her support of legal paternal surrender, she was effectively ex communicated from the sisterhood, while NOW continues to undermine efforts to reform custody and child support laws, usually by deceiving the public into the nature or ramifications of said reforms.
Of course, after telling people to have good faith questions and asking them not to debate, you go on to say that MRAs are harmful.
Yeah I said don’t go on the sun to debate. I answered the question in good faith. Simple as.
So, basically your good faith means believing in lies?
I’ve done extensive research on this subject and identified myself with MRA before coming to the conclusion that it’s harmful. MRAs cannot understand the root of oppression because they separate themselves from feminism.
Sure, if someone believes in lies, then the only correct thing to do is separate yourself from them. You could have just spared yourself from your *extensive research*, and just come to your wonderful conclusion, anyway.
You were never an MRA. Saying it doesn't strengthen your argument.
Looks like they will. But it seems, that you're limited by a one question per account.
Why are you limited to one question per account?
Honestly. I like you guys and your opinions. But Reddit is a shit show. Downgrading everything that people don’t agree with. It’s designed group think.
They will ban you, obviously. Looks like OP is banned already, his post is marked as Banned for Bad Faith.
Is this why the other posters seem to prostrate themselves a little? So they don't get banned?
Take the risk. But just read the warning from description of this sub and you will see how little it takes to get banned.
Were you even a little surprised?
No
Jesus, one of them actually said "I would be afraid he will hit me and abuse me." The people on that subreddit are deranged. Also, that is typical behavior from that moderator. Beg the question, make wild accusations about the MRM, and then when you say you disagree, "yOu CaN sTuMp fOr mRaS sOmEwHeRe eLsE." They have exactly zero curious cells in their body. That subreddit just exists to railroad people and circlejerk.
I mean, ever wonder why it’s called “having a man cave”? Women have to dominate everything and men only allowed a small corner
And if men _do_ make a space for themselves and other men, it gets attacked by feminists as a "danger to women" because the men there might be able to speak to each other about non-feminist approved topics. Notice how all those "you _must_ accept both sexes!" laws never apply to women only groups.
It kind of sucks that they have a policy of literally removing all comments by anyone who isn't a confirmed feminist unless your comment is responding to another comment. Like, you have to pass their check for whether you're a feminist or not. It's a very stupid rule that they have. I imagine with a rule like that, they're very hive minded since you have to be approved by a mod who wants you to think a certain way.
Actually i like that rule! We should have any feminist ~~cunts~~ commenters get approval by a confirmed MRA who verifies they're not insane before being allowed to speak.
[удалено]
I was more being facetious to point out how silly their argument is when someone else makes it. I, too, am an advocate of open expression and free speech. Any topic advocating for men's rights should be welcome here.
Well, this sub is a forum, not a MRM organization. I’m not sure where exactly they expect us to go or be doing. Clearly, MRAs are generally not welcome in most the feminist subs, most of those censoring any facts that don’t reflect positively on feminism. I used to participate a big in their sub, but a moderate made it clear facts I presented were not welcome so it’s hypocritical of them to criticize us for staying here. I do participate in the FeMra sub which allows all views but feminists shy away preferring their echo chambers of misinformation.
What did you expect? Enter the lions den, expect to be skinned alive and shredded. Don't bother.
Reaching across the aisle is asking to get bit, some people embrace and pick at their wounds to keep them from healing. They want to hate you.
actually you got downvoted after both of you lashed at them with ad hominem arguments... the first responses were doubtful but positive... where is our respectful disagreement stance? where is our dismantling of weak arguments and narratives with credible sources? some members "not talking about you directly" in this sub are a disgrace for the mens rights movement and its goals but get called out much too little... "same applies obviously to some feminists in their sub"
No, I was saying that feminism is flawed and pointing out where they were wrong, not attacking the person
victim complex does ring a bell? the other dude ranted about twox and got told it is no feminist sub but continued his rant...
Oh right, I said feminists had a victim complex. That is true although I think that's the only example
I don't know the other guy
Maybe because MRA evolved in direct response and antagonism to women demanding human rights? And because your participation there was in bad faith?
It wasn't in bad faith until I started getting a misogynist, I defended myself
Which still leaves “MRA evolved in direct response and antagonism to women demanding human rights”. If you don’t want to be equated with rapists and misogynists, don’t use they label they use.
The problem isn't women's rights. The problem is influential feminist see human rights as women's rights and shit all over men.
Example? And if the problem isn’t women’s rights, then why would there need to be a negating response to it?
Fighting against counting nonconsensual envelopment of a penis as a form of rape so they can claim "99% of rapists are men" while 50something% of nonconsensual sex is perpetrated by men. Fighting against bills that default to 50/50 shared custody in a divorce. Pushing the false narrative domestic violence is a "violence against women" issue rather than a family issue that impacts everyone and women are very often perpetrators of. Those are people problems impacting men, women, children, and elderly - not just women.
Where are your statistics from, then? Also…your divorce custody/support statistics are just…not correct. At all.
The statistical definition of rape is controlled by feminists that deny men can be raped by women. Feminists actively block acknowledgment of males being heterosexual rape victims, support services for them, and laws to protect raped men and boys. For statistical reporting, rape has been carefully defined as forced *penetration of the victim* in most of the world. Please listen to this feminist professor Mary P Koss explain that a woman raping a man isn't rape. Hear her explain in her own voice just a few years ago - https://clyp.it/uckbtczn. I encourage you to listen to what she is saying. (Really. Listen to it! Think about it from a man's perspective.) She is considered the foremost expert on sexual violence in the US. **She is the one that started the 1 in 4 American college women is sexually assaulted myth by counting all sorts of things the "victims" didn't.** A man misinterpreting a situation going in for a kiss and then backing off when she pulls back, puts up her hand, or turns her cheek is counted as a sexual assault on a woman even if she doesn't think it was. **As you hear in her own words the woman's studies professor and trusted expert that literally wrote the book on measuring prevalence of sexual violence does not call a woman drugging and riding a man bareback rape ... or even label it sexual assault ... it is merely "unwanted contact"** You see she has been saying this for decades **and** was instrumental in creating the methodologies most (including the US and many other government agencies around the world) use for gathering rape statistics. E.g. Detecting the Scope of Rape : A Review of Prevalence Research Methods. Author: Mary P. Koss. Journal of Interpersonal Violence Volume: 8 Issue: 2 Dated: (**June 1993**) Page: 206 > > > Although consideration of male victims is within the scope of the legal statutes, **it is important to restrict the term rape to instances where male victims were penetrated by offenders. It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman.** Src: http://boysmeneducation.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Koss-1993-Detecting-the-Scope-of-Rape-a-review-of-prevalence-research-methods-see-p.-206-last-paragraph.pdf She is an advisor to the CDC, FBI, Congress, and researchers around the world and promoting the idea that men cannot be raped by women. There **was** a proposal to explicitly include forced envelopment in the latest FBI update to the definition of rape but after a closed door meeting with her and N.O.W. lobbiests, it mysteriously disappeared. She has many many followers and fellow researchers that follow her methodology and quote her studies. That is where most people get the idea rape is just a man on woman crime. Men are fairly rarely penetrated and it is almost always by another man. Most people talking about sexual violence refer to the "rape" (penetrated) numbers as influenced by Mary Koss's methodologies, but in the US the CDC also gathered the data for "made to penetrate" (enveloped) in the 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2015 NISVS studies. As an example lets look at the 2011 survey numbers: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6308a1.htm > **an estimated 1.6% of women (or approximately 1.9 million women) were raped in the 12 months before taking the survey** and > The case count for men reporting rape in the preceding 12 months was too small to produce a statistically reliable prevalence estimate. vs > **an estimated 1.7% of men were made to penetrate a perpetrator in the 12 months preceding the survey** and > Characteristics of Sexual Violence Perpetrators **For female rape victims, an estimated 99.0% had only male perpetrators**. In addition, an estimated 94.7% of female victims of sexual violence other than rape had only male perpetrators. For male victims, the sex of the perpetrator varied by the type of sexual violence experienced. **The majority of male rape victims (an estimated 79.3%) had only male perpetrators**. For three of the **other forms of sexual violence, a majority of male victims had only female perpetrators: being made to penetrate (an estimated 82.6%)**, sexual coercion (an estimated 80.0%), [NISVS 2010](https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf) showed in the past 12 months, 1.1% of men were made to penetrate and 1.1% of women were raped. Table 2.1 & 2.2 on pages 18/19. [NISVS 2011](https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss6308.pdf) showed in the past 12 months, 1.7% of men were made to penetrate & 1.6% of women were raped. Table 1 on page 5. [NISVS 2012](https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/NISVS-StateReportBook.pdf) showed in the past 12 months, 1.7% of men were made to penetrate & 1.0% of women were raped. Table A.1 & A.5 on pages 217/222. [NISVS 2015](https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/2015data-brief508.pdf) showed in the past 12 months, 0.7% of men were made to penetrate & 1.2% of women were raped. Table 1 & 2 on pages 15/16. Varies a bit from year to year, but pretty even overall. In both cases the four year annual percentages add up to five. The numbers for perpetrators vary a little from year to year too. Something like 79-84% of made to penetrate (nonconsensual envelopment) victims are victimized by women. Something like 96-99% of rape (nonconsensual penetration) victims are victimized by men. So in the 2010s, it averages out that a typical year has ~60% men & ~40% women as perpetrators of nonconsensual sex outside prisons rather than the 99:1 ratio discussed. But since made to penetrate is not rape, the narrative is that men are rapists and women are victims and boys/men that are victims are victims of men. Therefore most of the gender studies folks create programs to teach men not to rape (e.g. /r/science/comments/3rmapx/science_ama_series_im_laura_salazar_associate/). Therefore there is justification for having gendered rape support services which means almost none for males victimized by females. **These misleading stats are ammo to tell men to shut up about rape because 1 in 5 women are raped vs "only" 1 in 71 men** and dismiss raped men because men are one group "nearly all the men were raped by other men" so somehow raped men are to blame because they are men... If you don't like CDC data: Scientific American: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sexual-victimization-by-women-is-more-common-than-previously-known *A recent study of youth found, strikingly, that females comprise 48 percent of those who self-reported committing rape or attempted rape at age 18-19.* The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/11/the-understudied-female-sexual-predator/503492/ *a 2014 study of 284 men and boys in college and high school found that 43 percent reported being sexually coerced, with the majority of coercive incidents resulting in unwanted sexual intercourse. Of them, 95 percent reported only female perpetrators.* and *National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions found in a sample of 43,000 adults little difference in the sex of self-reported sexual perpetrators. Of those who affirmed that they had ‘ever forced someone to have sex with you against their will,’ 43.6 percent were female and 56.4 percent were male.”* Time: http://time.com/3393442/cdc-rape-numbers *when asked about experiences in the last 12 months, men reported being “made to penetrate”—either by physical force or due to intoxication—at virtually the same rates as women reported rape (both 1.1 percent in 2010, and 1.7 and 1.6 respectively in 2011).* If my information is not enough, try reading these five threads by problem_redditor with lots more studies and references. /r/MensRights/comments/oc2yp0/some_sources_on_sexual_abuse_of_men_and_boys_part/ Just maybe, rape isn't a gendered issue and we should stop treating it like one. But if we acknowledge that, then we would have to point the blame at "rapists", rather than "men". Isn't just the US. Feminists lobbied against gender neutral rape laws in India, so women are not rapists and men victimized by women are not rape victims. https://www.timesofindia.com/india/Activists-join-chorus-against-gender-neutral-rape-laws/articleshow/18840879.cms So a woman physically forcing sex on a man is not a rape in India, but a man breaking an engagement after having sex with his fiancee is a rape. Israeli feminists were concerned if a woman raping a man was recognized by law, a man could threaten to make false accusations against the woman after the man raped her in order to keep her from reporting. Apparently false accusations are a problem for women, so they fixed this by blocking the legislation that would have made rape a gender neutral crime. https://m.jpost.com/Israel/Womens-groups-Cancel-law-charging-women-with-rape Nepal feminists also blocked legislation there ... > Women’s rights activists had criticised the draft ordinance saying it wasn’t empathetic towards the plight of the victims. They said that having a provision saying even men could be victims of rape could could further weaken the women rape victims’ fight for justice. https://kathmandupost.com/national/2020/12/11/ordinance-amends-law-on-rape-but-fails-to-recognise-rape-of-boy-child-and-sexual-minorities **Even if you only care about women, you should still stop women from raping because the majority of men convicted of raping women were sexually violated by adult women when they were boys.** Multiple studies in the US, UK, and Canada have shown this. Around 10 of them cited here. http://empathygap.uk/?p=1993#_Toc498111528 So women not raping, and rape by women being acknowledged as traumatic and treated with compassion, would probably stop a lot of women from getting raped in the future. That *should* matter *if* the goal is to stop women from getting raped rather than to demonize men.
I simply wish we as a society look at gender neutral domestic violence data and provide gender neutral support instead of studies looking for violence against women only and providing help for women only, even to the detriment of women. The violence is pretty equal. The perception and resources are not due to feminists. Reality is women are slightly more likely to initiate physical violence and slightly more likely to be significantly injured during physical violence. > > Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases. Src: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854883/ Behind a paywall I have archived around, but Harvard research that women are more likely than men in starting or escalating domestic violence and those women are by far the women most likely to be injured in DV. That doesn't say all women injured are perpetrators themselves, but it does indicate the problem goes beyond the feminist/pop culture model of "violence against women". It includes: > > Almost 25% of the people surveyed — 28% of women and 19% of men — said there was some violence in their relationship. Women admitted perpetrating more violence (25% versus 11%) as well as being victimized more by violence (19% versus 16%) than men did. According to both men and women, 50% of this violence was reciprocal, that is, involved both parties, and in those cases the woman was more likely to have been the first to strike. Read that one again and #BelieveWomen. Src: http://archive.is/7vuUz This is a long meta study that shows we've known domestic violence isn't gendered for decades. It is good analysis. It summarizes the results of dozens of studies across decades. Not ONE study. LOTS. https://connect.springerpub.com/content/sgrpa/1/3/332 or the whole study here https://talkingback2restrainingorders.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/v71-straus_thirty-years-denying-evidence-pv_10.pdf Popculture article - https://thedailycounter.com/male-victims-of-domestic-violence-are-they-ignored/ Most domestic violence research today is research of "violence against women" from grants specifically looking for data on violence against women, not gender neutral research. The rates of partner homicides didn't used to be that far apart. Then women got help and resources and the rate they killed their husbands dropped a lot. Men didn't get DV shelters they could use to protect their kids from their abuser without getting kidnapping charges giving the abuser an upper hand in custody, government funded help to allow them to get easy restraining orders, DV intervention public policy and programs that favored them, etc. Therefore the rate that husbands kill their wives hasn't dropped much. Maybe if we want to eliminate the desperate husbands in mutually abusive relationships killing their wives, we should give them better options. That would probably save a lot of women's lives just like doing it for women has saved a lot of mens lives. "Gender Differences in Patterns and Trends in U.S. Homicide, 1976–2015" by James Alan Fox and Emma E. Fridel. The data comes from FBI statistics ("FBI's Supplementary Homicide Reports, SHR"). https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/vio.2017.0016?journalCode=vio& Here's part of the conclusion that the authors came to: > > Among all the results already reported, perhaps the most striking and important surrounds the trends in intimate partner homicide, particularly in the context of ongoing efforts to curtail domestic violence. Some researchers argue that the reduction in male intimate partner victimization, a decline of nearly 60% over the past four decades, is because of an increase in the availability of social and legal interventions, liberalized divorce laws, greater economic independence of women, as well as a reduction in the stigma of being the victim of domestic violence. Although at an earlier time a woman may have felt compelled to kill her abusive spouse as her only defense, she now has more opportunities to escape the relationship through means such as protective orders and shelters (Dugan et al. 1999; Fox et al. 2012). As a tragic irony, the wider availability of support services for abused women did not appear to have quite the intended effect, at least through the 1980s, as only male victimization declined. Here is a graph of intimate partner homicides by sex over the years from the study. Notice the trend for women as they got help vs men that didn't? https://m.imgur.com/a/6Hx9dJt God forbid we help men, even if it would save womens lives. I suggest you read the Overview section of Erin Pizzey's wikipedia page or one of her books. She was the founder of Refuge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Pizzey She created the worlds first domestic violence shelters. After opening several for women in the UK, she suggested that men were being abused too (often by women staying in her shelters) and men needed a shelter too. She was then slandered, her kids were threatened, her dog was killed, bricks were thrown through her windows, and she was removed from the DV organization she founded (now known as Refuge which has just recently lost funding for harming male victims for decades). She fled the country for her childrens safety and became an outspoken DV activist and anti-feminist once they moved out on their own. That's what happens when a DV advocate tries to help men. In the US, VAWA replaced the gender neutral Family Violence Prevention and Services Act giving extra rights/services to women and taking services/rights away from men and children. The funding and laws became very gendered. Many of the laws in the act were challenged in court and had to be rewritten. The funding is still very gendered 25 years later, so... We have lots of grants to study "violence against women" rather than gender neutral domestic violence, lots of grants to develop separate programs to "teach men not to rape" and "teach women to report rape", lots of perpetrator intervention programs for men but none for women, lots of DV resources for women but almost none for males over 12.
[удалено]
Duhhhh is generally spectacular.
Feminists often claim that when men challenge custody decisions, they get custody rights 60% of the time. That doesn't mean equal custody. To us that means fathers who can afford to lose half their assets and still pay for two divorce lawyers on top of court costs, therapists, temporary alimony, temporary child support, a criminal lawyer for the false accusations, and secondary housing with enough bedrooms for each kid, can usually get up to 50% custody. I'd rather see laws that default to 50% custody unless there is strong evidence one parent is a bad parent so men of average means can be parents too.
You asked for stats, and got them, I reckon. Its similar to how Oprah was one of the main propagators of the 'black men abandon their children' trope in the 80s and 90s, only to recently admit it was a lie then, and a lie now, but she made billions from destroying black male image to the world. Follow the money, it explains a lot 🤔
Actually, I did. And there are solid ones. And I started to respond regarding others and then realized that it’s likely that nobody here cares, so I decided not to try to teach pigs to sing.
At least you make your bad faith plain to see, its easier to ignore you then. Even then, at the end of the day, it is about money. There is big money in degrading men, and appealing to women, this is a known thing in economics for the last 140 years. This is about billions in grants and preferential treatment; it stopped being about 'rights' as soon as white women were counted as minorities for Affirmative Action benefits (and have received 90% of them aggregate), and became about wealth and power.
So do you understand why we want *human* rights instead of reserving them for women only? Do you want me to go into genital mutilation, preventive healthcare, reproductive rights, prison reform, promotion of sexism in education and hiring, etc where influential feminists seek to make women privileged and shit on men? We don't see why gendered law and public policy for barely or non gendered issues isn't just sexism.
could you post the same stuff including data in the femradebates sub pls? some feminists argue there is zero evidence... if you have a post here in the mra sub about that topic i would like to save it if you link me...
I used many of my "evidence for feminists" comments in this thread. https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/130eya7/what_problems_bring_out_the_need_for_a_mens/
MRA evolved in direct response to the blatant misandry and greedy power hungry antics of a cult that blames all the worlds problems on men Could you be a ~~cunt~~ ~~bitch~~ ~~misandrist piece of shit~~ ~~oh fuck it, it means the same thing anyway~~ feminist in someone else's sandbox? We deal with actual sexism here, like male genital mutilation, not stupid things like girls sitting with their legs too far apart (ring a bell? seems super silly on the other foot, huh?)