Scott Adams, Men's Rights-- Misogyny?

In what way does Manboobz endorse genocide? I mean, I saw some batshit insanity that site poked fun at where women's refusal to date Nice Guys was equated to genocide, but that's about it.

edited 25th Oct '13 11:30:49 AM by Iaculus

What? You're giving up just like that?

I'll be sure to ask for it periodically.

So again, your original argument is moot.

Yes you did. You have several examples that you "can't find the article for" above.

Yes, but you lumped them in with "feminists", which is my point. It's the same type of political posturing that you see when ONE lawmaker affiliated with a party does something and the opposite side immediately says "Liberals" or "Conservatives" en masse.

You meant the one that was sponsored by AVFM? The site that Tobias posted a clear example of its creator having a vitriolic hatred of feminists?

Especially when someone who actually attended the lectures asked a few people why the lectures were so heavily focused on skewed statistics, and pretty much got non-answers or silence as a response.

Not really. I've had too much of the opposite experience, in my contact with feminists.

And, indeed, the one where this charming song was played:

I don't know what offends me more. The primary-school level lyricism or the bizarre anti-feminist paranoia and anti-intellectualism.

WRONG! Instead we must hunt like MEN, we must kill deer with our bare MANLY hands, and carry it back to our MANLY house to feed our MANLY children, for we are the MEN of the house!

edited 25th Oct '13 11:55:45 AM by Achaemenid

What's so bad about cooking, laundry, and reading? I would expect all men to be able to do those, and as a stay-at-home dad I would expect the first two to be his responsibility...

Something I've just thought of (may be a bit controversial): Feminism and the MRM are, at their cores, Not So Different.

Both are derived from these simple premises:

1. Inequality exists in society.
2. Inequality is a bad thing.
3. Inequality can be changed.

In theory, they should not be as diametrically opposed as they seem to be. When it comes to gender inequality, all sides have reasonable points- Men are generally dominant in society, but in abuse cases and child custody disputes, men are often treated unfairly From the trans* and non-binary side, there are a huge number of inequalities faced by trans* and non-binary people. We have many tropes relating to these issues, and they had to come from somewhere.

In practice, a lot of MRA-types talk about 'emasculation' and 'matriarchy' to describe a positive development in society. Some feminists do, in fact, hate men. 'Cisphobia' is a thing. The problem isn't inherent with these movements. If anything, it's people that are the problem.

Exactly the point I was making.

Here you go. They got out of their way to find articles which are less offensive and still got one where a male birth-helper is called all kinds of slurs for the horrible crime of being male while doing his job and annother where they called for castration of men who made computers.

Hello, grotesque misinterpretation! The male midwife thing◊ was the forumites getting annoyed at the man in question stating that women should 'embrace birthing pain'. Which is a pretty clueless, insensitive thing to say, and does not appear to fall under his job description. The castration thing◊ was a rant about how men who make computer viruses (not computers) deserve to be castrated, which Manboobz describes as 'a bit extreme, but probably not meant to be taken literally'. Indeed, there's not a huge material difference between it and the other graphic revenge fantasies posted on the Internet when someone's computer gets infected. Sexist, yeah, but hardly 'MUAHAHA I WILL LITTER THE GROUND WITH THE SKULLS OF THE PENIS-HAVERS BECAUSE THEY ARE PENIS-HAVERS'. It's also hard to describe it as 'genocide' unless you believe obnoxious script-kiddies to be a distinct 'ethnic, racial, caste, religious, or national group'.

edited 25th Oct '13 12:33:24 PM by Iaculus

I just want to note that it was Iaculus that posted that link and quote to discredit A Voice For Men. I think it's a great link and quote for demonstrating just how much frothing hate this website has, and would be happy to take the credit for it, but credit where it's due.

Laws discriminating against women are few and far between? Okay. Let's talk about female genital mutilation, a practice that is alive and well today. How about witch hunts? India kills 150 to 200 women per year for being witches. Foot binding, at least, finally died out in 1949, so mark that one in the win column. And, of course, women are still prohibited from serving in combat roles in the United States military.

Also, citation needed on those welfare programs.

If you were talking about the U.S., then why did you use India's rape laws to back your point? You can't have your cake and eat it too. The United States has no laws that state rape cannot be committed against a man.

If you were having a tooth removed, would it be fine for the dentist to tell you 'no you don't need anaesthetic, just man up and deal with it'?

Even that's a dodgy analogy, because the guy here is talking about a pain that he cannot personally experience. Like I said, clueless and insensitive.

Unfortunately, a lot of rape reporting in the United States actually does exclude a lot of male rape victims, because rape isn't defined as "sex without consent." It's defined as being penetrated.

• The Bureau of Justice Statistics: "Forced sexual intercourse means penetration by the offender(s)."
• The United States Department of Justice / FBI: "[Rape is] ... The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."

Note that under these definitions, women can only be considered rapists if they penetrate their victim. So a woman forces a man to have sex? As long as she doesn't penetrate him, the FBI doesn't consider it rape.

Has anyone ever considered the idea that in some ways, men and women aren't necessarily equal?

I know it sounds ugly, but I'm mainly referring to the women in combat thing. I think I'll change my opinion when I meet a woman who meets two criteria: She is A: In the military. and B: Wants to be in a combat arms job.

I'm in one of the only combat arms jobs that are co-ed(military police)

Now the problem I have is this, every female I've ever seen who is for making combat arms jobs all co-ed makes a few specific mistakes. One of which is that it's never a female who is in the military, or wants to join to be infantry. It's always some 90 pound hippie ass college student who has no intention of joining. They aren't relevant to the conversation. Every female in the military that I have ever asked has either outright said they think it's a bad idea, or at least has absolutely zero intention of ever doing any of those jobs.

Now I'm not saying there aren't any women out there who could do it or would, there are, a very, very, very small minority of them. Thing is, I don't feel it's worth it to make those changes over such a small number, and I also don't feel that the military has the integrity to keep the standards of training the same across the board. I think there needs to be a progression.

The argument I always hear is that women should be able to be special forces. There's never any talk of basic line infantry, or cav scouts, or the other combat arms jobs which make up the majority. I think it would be way more reasonable to experiment with those before we go full monte and start letting them in special operations. That's like a brand new enlistee saying he would rather start as a corporal or a sergeant, because he shouldn't have to be a private.

Besides, our physical fitness tests are still sexist as all hell.

Let me use the Air Force fitness test as an example, though the other branches follow the exact same trend:

If you are female, and you want to score 100% on your fitness test, this is what you have to have: 10:23 1.5 Mile run, 31.5 inch waist, 47 push ups, 54 sit ups.

If you are male and want 100%, you have to score this: 9:12 1.5 Mile run, 35 inch waist, 67 push ups, 58 sit ups.

So women have the advantage by a minute and 11 seconds, which is huge as anyone who runs regularly will know. They also do 20 less push ups, and 4 less sit ups. The only advantage they have is the waist measurement. Also, this is for men and women age 30 and under.

When we fix that shit, call me back about being infantry. If that works, THEN lets talk special forces. We're a meritocracy, we don't change because of PC bullshit, you have to earn your keep.

edited 25th Oct '13 1:08:51 PM by Barkey

That's actually only half true. Whilst the term "rape" specifically involves the "penetration of the mouth, vagina, or anus" with a penis (which may be a surgically constructed one) in UK law, both the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 include offences, for which an individual may be imprisoned for life, that criminalize forced envelopment (which I presume is your definition of female rape?). These are section 4 of the 2003 Act, where the offence is known as "causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent" and section 4 of the 2009 Scottish Act, where it is called "sexual coercion". Schedule 2 of the 2009 Act affirms that life imprisonment is a possible punishment, as it is for rape.

I will grant you that there is an inequality in refusing to call female rape rape, however.

edited 25th Oct '13 1:08:54 PM by Achaemenid

I grok that, but I was trying to find a gender-neutral analogy (since there isn't a male equivalent of giving birth; I've heard that passing a gallstone might come close, but that's still a much less common experience). Obviously it's made worse by that habit of a lot of men (I've know I've caught myself doing it before!) of assuming they have greater knowledge of issues affecting women than women do.

Honestly (in the UK at least, I don't know the details of other nations' laws) rape is a very restricted term (IIRC it only applies to the rapist's penis going into the victim's vagina). A lot of what we would consider rape under the modern feminist definitions is actually 'sexual assault' and other related terms under the law. I can see how this has symbolic meaning, but it's ultimately not really a big deal.

You're seriously reaching now.

Anyway, are you aware of the concept of safe spaces?

edited 25th Oct '13 1:13:09 PM by imadinosaur

No it isn't.

I think MRA's are like White supremacist who shout racism whenever they lose or imagine the loss of a privilege.

edited 25th Oct '13 1:14:17 PM by Antiteilchen

Obviously not. But they weren't doing that.

Specifically, it means that your opinion is suspect until proven otherwise. The problem here is that you say these things as fact, but it takes a lot of effort to get any verification for it. And even when you do, some of the sources you've provided have even argued the opposite of what you were claiming.

So yeah, your credibility needs work.

That wasn't the point I was addressing, which was your defense of MR As but condemnation of feminists.

Um...not really. This is what you originally said.

The problem with that is, that's not "usually". That's one example—of a position I can't find a single source that indicates the larger feminist movement supports it. So if this is "usual", what else you got?

Okay? That in no way invalidates the MRM being hateful.

Moving on...

I don't necessarily agree with that, though. Because according to this article, looking at the typical methods of suicide (non-immediately-lethal for women and firearms for men), if your goal is to address the disparity between genders, you might need to compare the two.

But that doesn't mean he's wrong, either. I'm just saying, though. If something I perceived as a hate group (like, say, Westboro Baptist Church) held a discussion about marriage rights, I'd probably attend. I couldn't blame other LGBTQ people for not doing so, though.

When your opinion is about generalizing an entire group as a whole, and my experience explicitly counters that generation, and when your credibility, as I mentioned before, severely needs work?

Yeah.

edited 28th Oct '13 6:46:46 AM by KingZeal

@Besserwisser

I don't know if you caught my post about the UK's rape laws, but the UK does have offences that criminalize a range of behaviour that includes female rape. In England, the perpetrator is liable, upon conviction on indictment, to life imprisonment. In Scotland, the sentencing guidelines are broader, allowing "Up to life imprisonment or a fine or both", presumably because the Scottish offence is seen to be broader.

I fully agree it is not fair to call female rape "sexual coercion", but the means to criminalize it are there in UK law. If it were up to me, I'd simply fold "causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent" and "sexual coercion" into "rape", but it is inaccurate to say that female rape is not criminal behavior in the UK.

EDIT: I saw your post addressing me. I will post the relevant sections momentarily. I may not be able to provide links; I'll look on legislation.gov.uk, but I sourced them through a pay-for legal database I access through a work ID, and a physical book.

OTHER EDIT:

Here you are. Please note; while the English legislation uses the male pronoun, it is to be applied in a gender-neutral way. Most English statutes are like that:

Section 4 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003:

Section 4 of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009. NB: the link includes sections 3-9. Section "4. Sexual Coercion" is what we're looking at, though. Happily, Scots statutes are gender neutral.

The Scottish. penalties are set out in Schedule 2 of the Scotland Act. Upon conviction in indictment (i.e, after a jury trial)^note "Summary conviction" is when a defendant has been tried in a lower court without a jury; serious cases wouldn't be tried there. The Scotland Act is weaker; rather than the life sentence imposed in England, Scotland allows (upon conviction on indictment) life imprisonment or a fine or both. You will notice there is another column, about summary convictions: Ignore that; summary procedure is juryless procedure, and rape would not be tried in such proceedings.

What I cannot recall off the top of my head are any instances of women being prosecuted and sentenced under these laws. That's not to say they don't exist, simply that I don't know about them. I can have a look online if you want - the trouble is, unless you're willing to shell out £460 for the relevant hardbacks, court decisions aren't publicly available, so I will have to have a look through paywalled databases.

Now, the law is still unequal. Female-on-male rape is not called such, nor do the offences that cover it benefit from the mandatory assignment to the High Court of Justiciary that rape cases have. I fully agree it is not fair to call female rape "sexual coercion", but the means to bring it to trial are there in UK law. If it were up to me, I'd simply fold "causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent" and "sexual coercion" into "rape", but it is inaccurate to say that female rape is not criminal behavior in the UK.

edited 25th Oct '13 2:09:05 PM by Achaemenid