Misogynism

Luthien wrote:

Adder wrote: Ignorance is bliss. Fighting for it is bigotry.

Well, ignorance can be bliss, but, it can also be harmful. This is because if you knew people were saying things about you, but you were ignorant of whether they were good or bad things, that could lead to unnecessary stress. Also, if you mean by 'Fighting for it' you are talking about an intolerance of those who would oppose their point of view, you would be correct. But, if you mean to say that they are indeed fighting others who would take something of theirs away, that's entirely something different. To me, that's just arrogance. In other words, conceit, pride, self-importance, etc.

It's just the semantics of it that get me.

It's in relevance to the post about Gaddaffi's use of systematic rape for his own pleasure. He was ignorant to the plight of his victims so he did not consider what he was doing was wrong.... ignorance is bliss. A lot of the mens movement techniques are biased, divisive and basically corrupt. Some of the radical feminists probably do the same, but that is such a small part of feminism its irrelevant.

Luthien wrote:

Also, women are more likely to use weapons in a dispute, regardless of the man's size, according to statistics. Either side would be wrong for resorting to violence, but, even if the man did nothing and the woman was attacking the man with a weapon, the police are more likely to arrest or take away the man.

Nah, he's not right. He is making gender generalizations and misusing statistics to create an unrealistic representation of reality - which interestingly is what this thread is about. It's the debate equivalent of throwing stones at each other. People could fill forums full of statistics supporting both extreme positions of the argument, and get absolutely nowhere.... except surrounded by statistics.

Statistics can be interpreted incorrectly because the factors which dictate them are limited and do not reflect the reality for which they can be linked too.... and so if someone is trying to twist numbers to paint a certain picture the question has to be asked; what's the motive for that and it unfortunately sheds a new light onto all his arguments as being deliberately biased. A Jedi seeks truth, not illusion for argumentative gain (imo).

I think the best position to consider the argument is from one of reality and understanding of both sides, and what I'm seeing is a merging of a valid data set with a larger more compelling inappropriate data set.... seemingly to make one situation look worse then it really is. The valid data is the over-reaction of feminism which might discriminate against men unfairly, and the other one is the broader concept of a male victim in society and it being linked to women.

I'd rather efforts were focused on resolving the problem, and not creating new ones.

True. I see that the entirety of both sides have consisted of mere generalizations and statistics. As I see it, the statistics are just the bones of the truth. Where is the flesh of the statistics to show what actually happened (as you stated in a different, more eloquent way)? It's nearly impossible to base arguments on statistics alone, so people put their own personal spin on them, which isn't what I was attempting to do.

Ren, privilege involves access to power. So while men have more access to higher positions in their careers, political positions, positions in media, etc., they can still be harmed by the idea that femininity is bad because they don't tend to show anything that can be seen as weakness, which includes not asking for help for mental illnesses, abuse, etc. Privilege isn't all or nothing. It is about who has more access to power in a society, and in this society it is men.

Women are a majority, and yet they are still extremely underrepresented in higher paying fields, at the tops of their fields, in media, in politics. That is where the patriarchy is. Where women lack access to power despite being a majority. Again, you're acting like I'm blaming men for this. I'm not. I'm blaming a societal system, which women take part in as well.

Women do have more protection against rape, because women are more likely to get raped and men are more likely to be rapists. Men do have some protections. Women can be and are convicted of sexual assault against men, men do have crisis centers, etc. No, they don't have as many, but why would they if there aren't as many men getting raped?

Men and women are equally likely to commit assault first, but women more often suffer fatalities at the hands of their partners.

I found a statistic for you to back up your assertion that women are more likely to abuse children, since everyone jumps on me for making things up but nobody else wants to back up their own statements. I'm having trouble finding anything that looks like an accurate statistic regarding child custody cases. Even sources that should be reliable don't agree with each other at all. The statistics are all skewed one way or another. Although it should be mentioned that most custody cases are settled out of court, and those that are settled in court look at what is best for the child. Mothers tend to spend more time parenting in marriages, which adds to the fact that they are often awarded custody.

Luthien, women are more likely to use weapons in domestic violence , but men aren't more likely to be arrested than women when the woman is the offender. They are more likely to be arrested with the woman if the woman is the primary offender.

Again, you have to ask why. Is it because society hates men? Or is it because society thinks women are weak and can't imagine women actually being able to do any harm? This is related to the idea that men are stronger, which adds to the idea that they are more fit for power. Again, feminism fights against this.

Adder and Luthien think we are focusing too much on statistics, but my points are just brushed aside when I don't back them up. People accused me of making things up with no proof. Then I offer proof, and all of a sudden that isn't what people want either.

Well, it's not that I don't appreciate that you back up your points with statistics and lots of information, because I do, greatly. It's one of the things that validates your position. I understand that. But, in my opinion (can't overemphasize here), we can look at statistics all day and not know the truth of the matter, especially in each situation which they happened. I can concede to your position on it, mostly, and I agree that society, as a whole, dwells on the notion that women are physically weaker, in general. But, once again, in my opinion, I don't think that it values women any less because of it. While I know that you didn't state anything about women having any less value in society, except where it statistically happens in the corporate, political, or media setting, I feel that's what you're getting at, in a round-a-bout way. Women are just as valuable to the societal fabric as men. We wouldn't know what masculinity is if not for femininity. The emphasis is being placed upon how society views femininity and hyper-masculinity and how it's being taught through our younger generations. I, personally, view hyper-masculinity as comedic and unnecessary; it just gives me a chuckle because it makes the person using it seem like they're compensating for something. While I value your input, because it was the reason I even jumped into this post, I do think you are trying a bit too hard to convert people's minds to your mindset, or to see and understand your stance. In my humble opinion, I don't think you really needed to do so, but it's good to be able to see both sides of the debate. My input may not have had the same impact because I was coming at it with personal experience. I suppose that the reason I have a difficult time completely agreeing with you is because I just don't see what you're talking about in my own life experiences. There's not a doubt in my mind that what you state is fact, I just don't see the point of it all when I can't apply it to my own experiences. Maybe I'm blind to it, but maybe I'm not. I have seen some of the things you talked about, just not at the level you presented them. Let me know if I can clarify anything I've stated as I don't prepare all of my arguments in advance.

Also, nice find on the NIJ site. Very interesting, indeed.

This is going absolutely nowhere. now adder is accusing me of things I'm actually arguing against. And using arguments made against dead people under strange circumstances and wild assumptions (I mean dude, really?).

So I'll say this instead:

It is my opinion that people can have taste (choice of sexuality)
It is my opinion that people (inc me) can worry about the impact of anything on children
It is my opinion that people (inc me) can call things by their name
It is my opinion that people can worry and speculate about rising suicide rates in parts of the population.
I also feel this opinion is backed by our Doctrine.

The fact is what Brenna did was a personal attack, also known as ad-hominem fallacy. Basically, arguments werent debated, "personalities" were. (And we have rules against that)

Instead of acting on it like I did with FraterDavid not long ago, it was my hope people would use the opportunity of another wild thread to put some wild ideas out there.

I mean, guys, this is the kind of thread where you can put all morals aside and look at them from a different angle. everyone's just throwing pre-made arguments around instead, and after 26 pages I see absolutely nothing that is remotely thought-provoking.

This place has become so dull.

ren wrote: This is going absolutely nowhere.

concur.

Absolutely nothing thought provoking. That is truly a sad sentiment Ren, as many of the posts have been made by you. I see your point however and agree that things are going nowhere way too fast.

I believe that there has been some thought in this thread, but that people haven't been truly questioning their own morals and conduct. Why does everything have to be about society? Why can't things be about individual day-to-day life as we see it?

People seem to think that they will improve their life by solving what they see as the problems of society. In my eyes the problem starts with the self.

If society were to dictate tomorrow that men should stay at home ninety-nine percent of the time to raise children and all fields in the workforce were ninety-nine percent women and that I had a one-hundredth of a percent of a chance to get the job I wanted, would I simply sit back and say,
"Alright guess I'm just a man and can't do anything about it"?
No.

Would I say,
"This is ridiculously wrong, men should be the ones with all the benefits, women shouldn't have to be the workers society needs to change til I'm happy"?
No.

I would go about my life trying my best to improve my situation, get what I want out of life, and help out the people I come across on the way. I would lead through example, not through force and I wouldn't let anyone get in the way of me living the life that I think is right.

May the Force be with you,
Rai

In the end what is good without bad, what is wrong without right, but what society has created everything to be. Feminism is something that society has created but without us humans(self) there would be no society. So in the end what we think of something is what it will become. If people begin to agree then things can happen. but if it is you against the world then let the world be against you and you stay with your beliefs unless the world makes a good point in why they are against you. So in all honesty yeah this thread is kinda going nowhere since we are all just going to argue only to try and get ourselves across. The only thing that is keeping this thread going is that there is no acceptance at least that is how i see it as.