Feminism: internet vs. reality

[nemesiss]

The principle "that social arrangements among men and women favour men" is a reflection of the overall state of things, not a claim that men are favoured over womenin all cases.
I can acknowledge nuance without rejecting that principle so this doesn't remotely qualify me as an antifeminist under that definition.
And for the record, I do consider myself a feminist.

Let us grab the quote again

Feminist sociologist Michael Flood argues that an antifeminist ideology rejects at least one of what he identifies as the three general principles of feminism:
1.That social arrangements among men and women are neither natural nor divinely determined.
2.That social arrangements among men and women favor men
3.That there are collective actions that can and should be taken to transform these arrangements into more just and equitable arrangements, such as those in the timelines of woman's suffrage and other rights.

It does not state anything about it being a "Reflection of the overall state of things", that is something you have read into it yourself.
So, this is the standards we are dealing with;
A: SpecialFrog acknowledges that in some cases the social arrangements favor women over men, SpecialFrog is a feminist
B: Hoff-sommers acknowledges that in some cases the social arrangements favor women over men, Hoff-sommers is an anti-feminist
good to know.

While there may be specific instances of this I don't see any evidence that it is true in general. You can hardly say that Christina Hoff-Summers has been silenced.

Richard Dawkins makes the claim that he is being silenced all the time (sometimes by feminists). Usually he makes this claim in an interview with a major media outlet.

To that i say, their attempts have not been succesfull, yet.
there is a youtube video where she explains how they tried to silence them.


i have something more recent to read:
https://www.change.org/p/cardiff-university-do-not-host-germaine-greer#petition-letter

"Germaine Greer will not give Cardiff University lecture because of abuse over views on transgender people"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/germaine-greer-will-not-give-cardiff-university-lecture-because-of-abuse-over-views-on-transgender-a6707236.html

“I’m getting fed up with this,” she said. “I’ve had things thrown at me, I’ve been accused of things I’ve never done or said.
“People seem to have no concern about evidence or indeed even about libel.”

In what sense do women have more reproductive and / or contraceptive rights?

For this example, we will assume were in a society where abortion is allowed.
It's legal where i live, but we see issues with it in america.

A woman is pregnant.
Woman wants the abortion, man wants the abortion: no issue
Woman wants the abortion, man wants to keep the child: Woman (can) get the abortion
Woman wants to keep the child, man wants the abortion: Woman can keep the child
Woman wants to keep the child, man wants to keep the child: no issue

Based on the possibilities, the system favors the woman over the man.


With regards to contraceptives, women have alot more options.
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control

True, this doesn't equate to a right. but it gives them more abilities to practice that right.

Are saying that areas where men are advantaged are largely due to rigid gender ideas? Of course I agree with that.
Which seems to mean that we agree that feminism -- in combating rigid ideas of gender -- is helping men and women, contrary to your previous claim.

i don't think we do agree on feminism and how to deal with inequality.

ˈfeməˌnizəm/ = the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.

This implies that rights of men are the standard, to which women's rights must be changed (read: increased).
The facts that the definition start with "the advocacy of women's rights" clearly states where the priority lies.


If feminism was really was about truely equality for both genders, the definition would be more along the lines of:
"The advocacy of the rights of women and men, on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality."
This is why i prefer egalitarianism over feminism and MRA.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

i don't think we do agree on feminism and how to deal with inequality.

ˈfeməˌnizəm/ = the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.

This implies that rights of men are the standard, to which women's rights must be changed (read: increased).
The facts that the definition start with "the advocacy of women's rights" clearly states where the priority lies.


If feminism was really was about truely equality for both genders, the definition would be more along the lines of:
"The advocacy of the rights of women and men, on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality."
This is why i prefer egalitarianism over feminism and MRA.

Honestly, the definition reads to me as something acknowledging a historic fact that bleeds into today. If you and I started an egalitarianism group, wrote up one hundred issues to deal with gender inequality, threw those in a hat and picked out ten, what do you believe the ratio would be?

This is beyond that fact that of course feminism is for gaining equality by raising the status if women in our societies. I have no doubts there are other movements and other ways, but this would be just one progressive movement helping to raise everyone. One would hope that by solving gender inequality issues, other issues would also be solved (or at least be easier to deal with in the future), and visa versa.

 

[SpecialFrog]

Let us grab the quote again

Feminist sociologist Michael Flood argues that an antifeminist ideology rejects at least one of what he identifies as the three general principles of feminism:
1.That social arrangements among men and women are neither natural nor divinely determined.
2.That social arrangements among men and women favor men
3.That there are collective actions that can and should be taken to transform these arrangements into more just and equitable arrangements, such as those in the timelines of woman's suffrage and other rights.

It does not state anything about it being a "Reflection of the overall state of things", that is something you have read into it yourself.

It doesn't say "all social arrangements" either. If you want to read it pedantically it says that "more than one social arrangement among men and women favours men". However, it clearly means, "on the whole".

If you want to pretend that Michael Flood thinks that a principle of feminism is that all social arrangements between men and women favour men you go on ahead.

While there may be specific instances of this I don't see any evidence that it is true in general. You can hardly say that Christina Hoff-Summers has been silenced.

Richard Dawkins makes the claim that he is being silenced all the time (sometimes by feminists). Usually he makes this claim in an interview with a major media outlet.

To that i say, their attempts have not been succesfull, yet.

What do you consider "silencing" and how does this compare with criticism?

i have something more recent to read:
https://www.change.org/p/cardiff-university-do-not-host-germaine-greer#petition-letter

I don't get what Germaine Greer has anything to do with anything. Is this what you mean by silencing? Does Greer's right to free speech mean that her critics don't have it too?

In what sense do women have more reproductive and / or contraceptive rights?

A woman is pregnant.
Woman wants the abortion, man wants the abortion: no issue
Woman wants the abortion, man wants to keep the child: Woman (can) get the abortion
Woman wants to keep the child, man wants the abortion: Woman can keep the child
Woman wants to keep the child, man wants to keep the child: no issue

Based on the possibilities, the system favors the woman over the man.

No, men and women have equal rights not to be pregnant and both lack the right to demand that someone else be pregnant.

Also, trans men can sometimes still get pregnant and they have the same rights in that scenario that a woman does.

What right do women have in this scenario that men don't?

With regards to contraceptives, women have alot more options.
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control

True, this doesn't equate to a right. but it gives them more abilities to practice that right.

To an extent, this has to do with the fact that women are expected to be the ones to practice contraception in long term relationships. Vasectomies are much easier, cheaper and safer than tubal ligation but in the US, tubal ligation rates are three times as high.

But feel free to lobby for a male version of an IUD, if you like.

Are saying that areas where men are advantaged are largely due to rigid gender ideas? Of course I agree with that.
Which seems to mean that we agree that feminism -- in combating rigid ideas of gender -- is helping men and women, contrary to your previous claim.

i don't think we do agree on feminism and how to deal with inequality.

That's not the point. Do you agree that feminism seeks to combat rigid ideas of gender roles? If so, do you agree that this also benefits men?

You claimed feminism doesn't help men and yet seem to agree that rigid gender roles harm men.

ˈfeməˌnizəm/ = the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.

This implies that rights of men are the standard, to which women's rights must be changed (read: increased).
The facts that the definition start with "the advocacy of women's rights" clearly states where the priority lies.

Yes, the priority lies with helping the group which is disadvantaged by the current system.

We have these organizations called "fire departments". No one argues that they should take "fire" out of their name and spend their time dowsing all buildings equally.

If feminism was really was about truely equality for both genders, the definition would be more along the lines of:
"The advocacy of the rights of women and men, on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality."
This is why i prefer egalitarianism over feminism and MRA.

You can prefer what you like. It doesn't make your characterization of feminism correct or your opposition to it reasonable.

Edited to fix a quote tag.

 

[Laurens]

Being a fat white man, I don't know whether or not I can call myself a feminist as I simply cannot comprehend a lot of the issues that feminists raise about being female in society. How would I know what it feels like to receive comments for breast feeding in public for example? Or to be treated like I am too stupid or weak to do a certain job? I would say that I sympathize with some forms of feminism however and support a lot of the issues that feminists raise. I'm a humanist, and I feel that this encompasses feminist issues, but as I say I'm not sure if a man can or should identify as a feminist.

 

[nemesiss]

i don't think we do agree on feminism and how to deal with inequality.
If feminism was really was about truely equality for both genders, the definition would be more along the lines of:
"The advocacy of the rights of women and men, on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality."
This is why i prefer egalitarianism over feminism and MRA.

Honestly, the definition reads to me as something acknowledging a historic fact that bleeds into today. If you and I started an egalitarianism group, wrote up one hundred issues to deal with gender inequality, threw those in a hat and picked out ten, what do you believe the ratio would be?

This is beyond that fact that of course feminism is for gaining equality by raising the status if women in our societies. I have no doubts there are other movements and other ways, but this would be just one progressive movement helping to raise everyone. One would hope that by solving gender inequality issues, other issues would also be solved (or at least be easier to deal with in the future), and visa versa.

That would actually be a very interesting experiment to do.
I prefer to do it on a global level, not for just the western world. with issues listed, I would also include "Gender neutral" something that are issues for both genders but there is no huge disparity.
I'd prefer the answer to your question of the ratio to be neutral (M-GN-F: 15-70-15), but I doubt we'd be that lucky. given world affairs , I'd say it would be leaning more to female issues, where most issues deal with less developed countries.


one thing I would to challenge that inequality on some issues is per se wrong.
If there is a difference, I would like it to be reasonable, well substantiated, and acceptable for all groups.
I doubt it there will be one (hopefully), but I think we should assess issues of inequality and make sure we do not morph it into another form of inequality.
This is a problem i have with all positions; a lot focusing on the problem, not on the solution.

Being a fat white man, I don't know whether or not I can call myself a feminist as I simply cannot comprehend a lot of the issues that feminists raise about being female in society. How would I know what it feels like to receive comments for breast feeding in public for example? Or to be treated like I am too stupid or weak to do a certain job? I would say that I sympathize with some forms of feminism however and support a lot of the issues that feminists raise. I'm a humanist, and I feel that this encompasses feminist issues, but as I say I'm not sure if a man can or should identify as a feminist.

This is the issue I had, that was until I discovered that there is a (sort of) "middle ground" called egalitarianism.
I looked into it and found that this is a position that is more in line with my ideas. more so then feminism or men rights activists.
Best I can say is, keep looking for what is best for you. perhaps feminism is most line with your ideas, perhaps another is... it is something no one must force onto you, you should come to your own conclusions.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

That would actually be a very interesting experiment to do.
I prefer to do it on a global level, not for just the western world. with issues listed, I would also include "Gender neutral" something that are issues for both genders but there is no huge disparity.

Could you give me an example of a gender neutral issue? I have an idea of what this is, but I am not sure it is the same as yours. I would rather we be on the same page.

the ratio to be neutral (M-GN-F: 15-70-15), but I doubt we'd be that lucky. given world affairs , I'd say it would be leaning more to female issues, where most issues deal with less developed countries.

You are leaving out trans issues. However, the point of me asking that question was to see if you agreed that women are disenfranchised more than men today. Your agreement to this is refreshing, since (it appears to me) the majority of YouTube would disagree with us.

one thing I would to challenge that inequality on some issues is per se wrong.
If there is a difference, I would like it to be reasonable, well substantiated, and acceptable for all groups.

Agreed.

we should assess issues of inequality and make sure we do not morph it into another form of inequality.
This is a problem i have with all positions; a lot focusing on the problem, not on the solution.

What are some of your solutions?

 

[AronRa]

ˈfeməˌnizəm/ = the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.
ˈsekˌsizəm/ = prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.

To put it more simply,
Equality for women = feminism;
women's inequality = sexism.

I find these definitions to be questionable.
Firstly, the definition for sexism. why include "typically against women" it almost implies sexism against men does not exist?

Obviously yes, although it isn't typical.

Secondly, the definition for feminism.
I do see them advocating for increasing women's right.
I do not see them advocating decreasing women's right, where women have more rights then men.
I hardly, till never see them advocating for increasing men's right where women have more rights then men.

Then see my previous example where feminists have awarded greater fairness on the matter of child custody cases in family court.

It would be easier to ask you to find one video where she didn't do any of these things. In fact, I already did challenge you to find any videos where she actually promotes feminism, rather than systematically attacking it while pretending to be something she is not. Her scam is so obvious that I'm not the only one to notice it. According to RationalWiki: Christina Hoff Sommers (born 1950) is a self-declared feminist (though third-parties[1] typically refer to her as an anti-feminist) author, and philosopher, who personally coined the term "equity feminist". She believed in the feminist movement in the 70s and 80s, but made an abrupt about-turn, splitting with mainstream feminist thought in more modern times, in favour of a more conservative view on gender equality.[2] She criticizes adherents to third-wave and post-structural feminism as "gender-focused ideologues", inventing the phrase "gender feminism" to describe them (against which her "equity feminism" is placed in contrast) and characterizing them as a "movement that has abandoned equality in order to recruit for the struggle against the 'patriarchy'[3]

Yeah, so not a feminist at all, but an antifeminist apologist, attempting to systematically refute, ignore, misrepresent, hyperbolizeor otherwise dismiss or excuse every genuine issue feminists ever had. I had no cause to challenge anything in the one video you showed me, until the last point, but in some of her other videos that I've seen, she was clearly dishonest, primarily in her minimizing excuses and inappropriate ridicule As I said, she's a fraud.

Aron, Seriously.....?
You are seriously going for the "no true scottsmen" argument?
I find it deeply disappointing for read it from someone whom I thought and expected better of.

Since she is misrepresenting herself, and cannot be shown to have ever advocated for any feminist issue, then this is obviously not a 'no true scotsman' fallacy. This isn't like when one Christian tries to distance themselves from the dubious deeds of another. This is more like the way atheists react when Kirk Cameron says he was once an atheist and that he used to think the way rationalists do.

 

[AronRa]

So regardless whether you yet understand the statistics, do you believe in political, economic, and even social equality for women? Or not?

I believe in political, economic, and even social equality for women, and I also believe that it has already been achieved in the Western world or is so minute that it makes no significant difference.[/quote

Then my original assessment is correct. Remember when I said that an antifeminist is one who claims to adhere to the definition of feminism, but who then either tries to redefine feminism into misandry or they dismiss there even being any remaining issues of inequity. That's how it is still sexism. Take that one up with your fellow antifeminist, Jaclyn Glenn. She says these issues still exist. She's in the camp that reject that label because she imagines it to mean "man-hating". That is not how feminists identify themselves, and the reason that they don't is because that is not what they're about. As I said, go to any feminist organization or outlet and address them directly to prove that for yourself.

However, as I said before, there is a helluva lotta hate coming from the other side. Just look at this for example.



Why does EVERYONE hate feminism? That's an odd conundrum since almost everyone I know, male or female identifies as a feminist. I only know a handful of people at most who don't wear that label, all for stupid reasons. But it is alarming that this video got over 50,000 views in just 24 hours and very few down votes. That's disturbing. Where are all those people coming from?

Notice also that they identify me as "an Atheism Plus heavyweight" even though I have always objected to A+ since the very beginning. They also say that I admitted to being sexist with the statement that "I don't think I was ever sexist". Remember what I said before, I only ever mentioned feminism one time on stage and I have been relentlessly dogged for it ever since -in the comments section of every video I ever upload. That is ironic since I only mentioned it then in an attempt to reduce the level of unwarranted hatred already welling at that time. It has only gotten worse since then.

I no longer have any time for this discussion, I'm sorry to say. I'm way too pressed with other tasks and deadlines lately. But I leave you with this, if you really cared about whether women have equal rights and deserve equal treatment, then it wouldn't matter whether you thought those goals had yet been achieved; you'd still call yourself feminist. Besides that, even if that had been achieved in the west, you know that it still hasn't been in Islamic countries. So what is your excuse then?

 

[Laurens]

As a quick response to the above. I would happily call myself a feminist, but part of me feels like it's not a label I have the authority bestow upon myself. Being male I cannot comprehend a lot of the issues that face women in society. Of course I can empathize and understand on an intellectual level, but I will never know what it is like to experience them. Thus I feel somewhat as though my privilege precludes me from bestowing the label upon myself. I suppose what I mean to say is I would fully accept it if women feel that men cannot be feminists for the aforementioned reasons (as some do), and therefore am reluctant to proclaim anything other than: I support what feminists are trying to achieve in society.

 

[nemesiss]

That would actually be a very interesting experiment to do.
I prefer to do it on a global level, not for just the western world. with issues listed, I would also include "Gender neutral" something that are issues for both genders but there is no huge disparity.

Could you give me an example of a gender neutral issue? I have an idea of what this is, but I am not sure it is the same as yours. I would rather we be on the same page.

a example of it, would spousal abuse.
given the numbers, it indicates that in general it happens equally to men and women.
True, some forms of abuse happen more often to one specific gender then the other, but overall it's relatively equal

the ratio to be neutral (M-GN-F: 15-70-15), but I doubt we'd be that lucky. given world affairs , I'd say it would be leaning more to female issues, where most issues deal with less developed countries.

You are leaving out trans issues. However, the point of me asking that question was to see if you agreed that women are disenfranchised more than men today. Your agreement to this is refreshing, since (it appears to me) the majority of YouTube would disagree with us.

Well, that's the problem with the trans issue. Is it an man? is it a woman? is it neither? is it something in between? when is someone done transitioning? can someone fully transition? what gender is it then?
It's is not that I do not think transpeople have their own issues, i'm not convinced we have a clear enough understanding of it to adequately deal with it in a manner that is and can be productive enough.

As for the why women are more disenfranchised, I do not think it has to be with men actively (or subconsciously) oppressing women. it think it has more to do with environment and access to resources.
The way "patriachy" often is described, it sounds like its the subsidiary of the iluminati and I do not think that is an accurate reflection of local and global affairs.

one thing I would to challenge that inequality on some issues is per se wrong.
If there is a difference, I would like it to be reasonable, well substantiated, and acceptable for all groups.

Agreed.

we should assess issues of inequality and make sure we do not morph it into another form of inequality.
This is a problem i have with all positions; a lot focusing on the problem, not on the solution.

What are some of your solutions?

Let's use an example for this:
It was at a Q&A about combating misogyny, with regards to the behaviour of boys and girls in the classroom, where Judy Haiven suggested that "Women should be heard first in the classroom"
Its somewhere mentioned in this youtube video, but I do not know when... it lacks an index on the questionnaires.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDKIHqYG92E
http://unews.ca/ladies-first-smu-prof-suggests-classroom-rule/

If it so that women are heard first, this is not a solution.
By doing this, you only change the inequality, not solve it.
Gender is not be the driving factor on who should or should not speak.
Everyone has to have equal speaking time and right and the moderator (in classes often the teacher) is the one who has to make certain this is applied.


As for the video of Sargon of Akkad,
I agree that calling AronRa a "an Atheism Plus heavyweight" is wrong.
A heavyweight? yes
Atheist? yes
Atheism plus? No!

I think it's does characterize AronRa into something he is not.
But the quote he did use, seem to be used very prevalent in the discussion on how men and women ought to interact.
Being called a sexist, as an insult, seems to be part of the game.
At best, it is just an unfortunate coincidence and AronRa is being used as an example.

I have to confess, a conversation between Sargon of Akkad and AronRa sounds like a very interesting and thought-provoking discussion, regardless of the issue.


As for the issue of thinking feminists to be man-haters and MRA's to be women-haters.
It think it's non-productive and only creates drama where there should not be.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Although there are a number of things in the above discussion on which I could comment, I'll limit myself to one.

The term "trans-gender" is unclear - at least, in my experience.

I've seen it used in two different ways:

1) Hermaphrodites - those born with the genitalia of both sexes;
2) Gender-reassignment - those who have completed, or are in the process of going through, gender-reassignment.

I'm never quite sure to what someone is referring when they use this term.

On a related note, there's some confusion on gender in the above discussion.

Here are the possibilities:

Sex (physical): Male, Female, Hermaphrodite (born with genitalia of both sexes), Asexual (born without any discernible genitalia);
Sexual Orientation: Heterosexual, Homosexual, Bisexual, Asexual (though having genitalia, are literally unable to experience sexual arousal);
Gender: Male, Female.

Note that there are only two genders - male and female: hermaphrodites (and those who undergo gender-reassignment surgery) and all other combinations of physical/sexual orientation perceive themselves to be either male or female.

There's no such thing as androgynous (both) or neutral ("it"), just "him" or "her".

Kindest regards,

James

 

[SpecialFrog]

There is good reason to be suspicious of the studies that show that men and women are equal perpetrators of domestic violence. Studies that show this tend to follow one type of methodology (called Conflict Tactics Scale or CTS). Studies using other methodologies tend to disagree significantly with the outcomes. Even the creators of the CTS methodology dispute its interpretation by MRAs.

More detail in this article.

A core principle of skepticism is that one should be the most suspicious of claims one would like to be true.

Also, trans men are men and trans women are women. Though they are also trans men and trans women and thus have issues not shared with cis men and cis women just as gay men and women have issues not shared with heterosexual men and women. It's complex but not difficult.

A hermaphrodie is an organism that can reproduce in either the male or female role. No humans are in this category and this term is generally considered offensive when applied to humans.

Some humans are intersex, having been born with some characteristics from each sex.

Basically, any criteria you use to decide "male" and "female" has outliers. Here is a good article on this.

Finally, while there are certainly advocates for men's issues who are not "woman-haters", it is easy to demonstrate that this is a defining characteristic of the "MRA" movement.

Similarly, it is easy to demonstrate that "man-hating" is not a defining characteristic of the feminist movement.

It is also a false equivalence to pretend that the two are somehow related and that MRA misogyny implies feminist misandry and vice versa.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

The term "hermaphrodite" used to be used to refer to those born with both sexes' genitalia - thanks for reminding me of the modern term.

Regardless, I've seen the term "trans-gender" used for both inter-sex and gender-reassignment.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[SpecialFrog]

Greetings,

The term "hermaphrodite" used to be used to refer to those born with both sexes' genitalia - thanks for reminding me of the modern term.

Regardless, I've seen the term "trans-gender" used for both inter-sex and gender-reassignment.

Kindest regards,

James

It's possible some people use "trans-gender" that way but my impression is that no one who self-identifies as trans-gender uses it that way. I could be wrong. I probably know just enough in this area to be at risk of the Dunning-Kruger effect if I'm not careful.

But of course, someone can be trans-gender and intersex if they identify as a different gender than the one they were assigned at birth.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Greetings,

The term "hermaphrodite" used to be used to refer to those born with both sexes' genitalia - thanks for reminding me of the modern term.

Regardless, I've seen the term "trans-gender" used for both inter-sex and gender-reassignment.

Kindest regards,

James

It's possible some people use "trans-gender" that way but my impression is that no one who self-identifies as trans-gender uses it that way. I could be wrong. I probably know just enough in this area to be at risk of the Dunning-Kruger effect if I'm not careful.

But of course, someone can be trans-gender and intersex if they identify as a different gender than the one they were assigned at birth.

I haven't heard of anyone who's born inter-sex having gender-reassignment surgery - mostly it's biologically male/female switching genders to align with how they perceive themselves.

Having said that, I'd have thought gender-reassignment would be the obvious choice for those born inter-sex - assuming they choose to do so.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[SpecialFrog]

I haven't heard of anyone who's born inter-sex having gender-reassignment surgery - mostly it's biologically male/female switching genders to align with how they perceive themselves.

Having said that, I'd have thought gender-reassignment would be the obvious choice for those born inter-sex - assuming they choose to do so.

Trans-gender doesn't inherently involve re-assignment surgery. It only requires someone to identify as a different gender from the one which they were assigned at birth. There is a spectrum of stages of transition and people are considered trans men and women even at early stages (or even if they never have full re-assignment surgery).

Intersex people may or may not feel that the doctor who assigned them a sex got it wrong and even if they do, may not fall into a type of intersex category for which surgery is desirable or viable.

This article isn't a bad intro, despite being HuffPo.

Edited to add: Monday was Intersex Awareness Day so this conversation is topical if off-topic.

 

[nemesiss]

There is good reason to be suspicious of the studies that show that men and women are equal perpetrators of domestic violence. Studies that show this tend to follow one type of methodology (called Conflict Tactics Scale or CTS). Studies using other methodologies tend to disagree significantly with the outcomes. Even the creators of the CTS methodology dispute its interpretation by MRAs.

More detail in this article.

after a quote google search to find out what the CTS entails, i don't see reason to be suspicious of it though i do see reasons to be critical of it.
and here is something that i find interesting about it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_tactics_scale

The conflict tactics scale (CTS),created by Murray A. Straus in 1979, is the "most widely used instrument in research on family violence."... As of 2005, the CTS has been used in about 600 peer reviewed scientific or scholarly papers, including longitudinal birth-cohort studies. National surveys conducted in the USA include two National Family Violence Surveys (1975 and 1985), the National Violence Against Women Survey (1998), which, according to Straus, used a "feminist version" of the CTS in order to minimize data on female perpetration of intimate partner violence (IPV), and the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being. A major international survey to use the CTS was the 2006 International Dating Violence Study, which investigated IPV amongst 13,601 college students across thirty-two different countries.
...
However, the CTS is one of the most widely criticized domestic violence measurement instruments due to its exclusion of context variables and motivational factors in understanding acts of violence. The National Institute of Justice cautions that the CTS may not be appropriate for IPV research "because it does not measure control, coercion, or the motives for conflict tactics."

if you think this some stunt by someone to under mine feminism, I suggest this reading material.
http://criminal-justice.iresearchnet.com/crime/domestic-violence/conflict-tactics-scales-cts/
I would suggest a careful read of the sections titled "Symmetry of Measurement" and "Limitations of the Conflict Tactics Scales"

Finally, while there are certainly advocates for men's issues who are not "woman-haters", it is easy to demonstrate that this is a defining characteristic of the "MRA" movement.
Similarly, it is easy to demonstrate that "man-hating" is not a defining characteristic of the feminist movement.
It is also a false equivalence to pretend that the two are somehow related and that MRA misogyny implies feminist misandry and vice versa.

yes, it is indeed a difficult task to go to google and type in "feminists hate men" instead of "mra hates women".
But in all seriousness, it is not help to label MRAs as misogynists or feminists as misandrists.
we have issues to deal with and such labels only stifle the conversation that we should be having.

A core principle of skepticism is that one should be the most suspicious of claims one would like to be true.

i agree with that statement.

What do you consider "silencing" and how does this compare with criticism?

For silencing, i use the following definitions:

1. To make silent or bring to silence: silenced the crowd with a gesture.
2. To curtail the expression of; suppress: silencing all criticism; silenced their opponents.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/silencing

in a discussion if you use to make certain everyone has a chance to speak, i'm ok with that.
im against it if you try to use it from someone from speaking at all, which seems to become more prevelant.
i do not see a direct link between the words "silencing" and "criticism", so im not sure what your question means.

if you mean using silencing to surpress criticism, i'm against that.

 

[SpecialFrog]

There is good reason to be suspicious of the studies that show that men and women are equal perpetrators of domestic violence. Studies that show this tend to follow one type of methodology (called Conflict Tactics Scale or CTS). Studies using other methodologies tend to disagree significantly with the outcomes. Even the creators of the CTS methodology dispute its interpretation by MRAs.

More detail in this article.

after a quote google search to find out what the CTS entails, i don't see reason to be suspicious of it though i do see reasons to be critical of it.

I said there is reeason to be suspicious of the studies, not necessarily the CTS. The CTS is a tool. There is nothing wrong with using it so long as you know its limitations.

And did you read the article I linked? While that wikipedia quote by Strauss may be accurate this one quote doesn't address the various reasons why we should be suspicious of those results. In fact, some of the criticisms in the article I linked are reflected in that criminal justice link you provided, including issues around underreporting, excluding some types of violence, etc.

Here is another article with quotes from Gelles.

t is misogynistic to paint the entire issue of domestic violence with a broad brush and make it appears as though men are victimized by their partners as much as women. It is not a simple case of simple numbers.

Finally, while there are certainly advocates for men's issues who are not "woman-haters", it is easy to demonstrate that this is a defining characteristic of the "MRA" movement.
Similarly, it is easy to demonstrate that "man-hating" is not a defining characteristic of the feminist movement.
It is also a false equivalence to pretend that the two are somehow related and that MRA misogyny implies feminist misandry and vice versa.

But in all seriousness, it is not help to label MRAs as misogynists or feminists as misandrists.
we have issues to deal with and such labels only stifle the conversation that we should be having.

Again, you are pretending that there is some kind of equivalence between these two claims (and they are claims, not labels).

It is helpful to speak accurately about a group and what it does. While there are valid criticisms to be made of some feminists and feminist groups, feminism does actual work to help issues facing women and men. Self-identified "MRA" individuals and groups do nothing to help anyone.

It is not helpful to pretend that the MRA movement is not reactionary and misogynist.

What do you consider "silencing" and how does this compare with criticism?

For silencing, i use the following definitions:

1. To make silent or bring to silence: silenced the crowd with a gesture.
2. To curtail the expression of; suppress: silencing all criticism; silenced their opponents.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/silencing

in a discussion if you use to make certain everyone has a chance to speak, i'm ok with that.
im against it if you try to use it from someone from speaking at all, which seems to become more prevelant.
i do not see a direct link between the words "silencing" and "criticism", so im not sure what your question means.

if you mean using silencing to surpress criticism, i'm against that.

I don't see what any of that has to do with the situations of Greer, Dawkins or Hoff-Sommers.

Am I being silenced by not being invited to speak at university functions? Is this lack of invitation an infringement on my rights to free speech?

Is it "silencing" creationists by not letting their ideas be taught to public school students?

Greer is being criticized for things she says. She is allowed to say them but free speech doesn't mean that there are no consequences to what you say. Students are perfectly free to object to their tuition money being used to pay her to speak at their university. Universities shouldn't fire / expel staff / students for agreeing or disagreeing with Greer. But they don't have to give her money and officially-sanctioned time either.

And as I have asked previously, do you agree that feminism seeks to combat rigid ideas of gender roles? If so, do you agree that this also benefits men?

 

[nemesiss]

There is good reason to be suspicious of the studies that show that men and women are equal perpetrators of domestic violence. Studies that show this tend to follow one type of methodology (called Conflict Tactics Scale or CTS). Studies using other methodologies tend to disagree significantly with the outcomes. Even the creators of the CTS methodology dispute its interpretation by MRAs.

More detail in this article.

after a quote google search to find out what the CTS entails, i don't see reason to be suspicious of it though i do see reasons to be critical of it.

I said there is reason to be suspicious of the studies, not necessarily the CTS. The CTS is a tool. There is nothing wrong with using it so long as you know its limitations.

And did you read the article I linked? While that wikipedia quote by Strauss may be accurate this one quote doesn't address the various reasons why we should be suspicious of those results. In fact, some of the criticisms in the article I linked are reflected in that criminal justice link you provided, including issues around underreporting, excluding some types of violence, etc.

Here is another article with quotes from Gelles.

t is misogynistic to paint the entire issue of domestic violence with a broad brush and make it appears as though men are victimized by their partners as much as women. It is not a simple case of simple numbers.

i'm not sure where you got that quote, but i think you are being mislead.
When searching for who Gelles was, this is the person we are talking about: Richard James Gelles.
here is an interesting fact:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_James_Gelles
Gelles reports personal attacks (such as death threats against him and his colleagues and bomb threats phoned in to their conferences) related to their findings that the rate of assault by women on male partners is about the same as the rate by men on female partners.

This seems to contradict that quote you posted.

additionally,
http://breakingthescience.org/RichardGelles_MissingPersonsOfDV.php

The most controversial finding, as it would turn out, was that the rate of adult female-to-adult male intimate violence was the same as the rate of male-to-female violence. Not only that, but the rate of abusive female-to-male violence was the same as the rate of abusive male-to-female violence. When my colleague Murray Straus presented these findings in 1977 at a conference on the subject of battered women, he was nearly hooted and booed from the stage. When my colleague Suzanne Steinmetz published a scholarly article, "The battered husband syndrome," in 1978, the editor of the professional journal published, in the same issue, a critique of Suzanne's article.

The response to our finding that the rate of female-to-male family violence was equal to the rate of male-to-female violence not only produced heated scholarly criticism, but intense and long-lasting personal attacks. All three of us received death threats. Bomb threats were phoned in to conference centers and buildings where we were scheduled to present. Suzanne received the brunt of the attacks - individuals wrote and called her university urging that she be denied tenure; calls were made and letters were written to government agencies urging that her grant funding be rescinded. All three of us became "non persons" among domestic violence advocates. Invitations to conferences dwindled and dried up. Advocacy literature and feminist writing would cite our research, but not attribute it to us. Librarians publicly stated they would not order or shelve our books.

here is an interesting question for you to answer.
For whom would such findings be detrimental? who would go so far as sending death threats?
this is not an accusation, just a question.

Finally, while there are certainly advocates for men's issues who are not "woman-haters", it is easy to demonstrate that this is a defining characteristic of the "MRA" movement.
Similarly, it is easy to demonstrate that "man-hating" is not a defining characteristic of the feminist movement.
It is also a false equivalence to pretend that the two are somehow related and that MRA misogyny implies feminist misandry and vice versa.

But in all seriousness, it is not help to label MRAs as misogynists or feminists as misandrists.
we have issues to deal with and such labels only stifle the conversation that we should be having.

[/quote]

Again, you are pretending that there is some kind of equivalence between these two claims (and they are claims, not labels).

It is helpful to speak accurately about a group and what it does. While there are valid criticisms to be made of some feminists and feminist groups, feminism does actual work to help issues facing women and men. Self-identified "MRA" individuals and groups do nothing to help anyone.

It is not helpful to pretend that the MRA movement is not reactionary and misogynist.

and is also not helpful to slander a group.
As for it being the MRA movement being reactionairy, i do not see that as a problem.
ANY movement is reactionairy. what it's reactioning to is a different matter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_rights_movement
Men's rights activists have said that they believe that feminism has overshot its objective and harmed men

if this is indeed true, the claim that feminism is a movement for equality for women and men is false.

On the same wiki page, they listed several issues.
in my opinion, this are interesting points for discussion, and i actually hope that the MRA are wrong on those points.
Given the more i've been digging ino the matters, it's seems likely that they are true. my best hope is that these points are imbelished and less severe then described.

I don't see what any of that has to do with the situations of Greer, Dawkins or Hoff-Sommers.

Am I being silenced by not being invited to speak at university functions? Is this lack of invitation an infringement on my rights to free speech?

Is it "silencing" creationists by not letting their ideas be taught to public school students?

Greer is being criticized for things she says. She is allowed to say them but free speech doesn't mean that there are no consequences to what you say. Students are perfectly free to object to their tuition money being used to pay her to speak at their university. Universities shouldn't fire / expel staff / students for agreeing or disagreeing with Greer. But they don't have to give her money and officially-sanctioned time either.

There is a place where creationism can be taught in public schools, it's in religion studies. not biology.
As for silencing, read the quote above from Mr. Gelles about what happened to him and his colleague Suzanne Steinmetz.

And as I have asked previously, do you agree that feminism seeks to combat rigid ideas of gender roles? If so, do you agree that this also benefits men?

Based on your responses, i have yet to be convinced that feminism indeed seeks to combat rigid ideas of gender roles.
To be honest, you are convincing me that feminism is defending a specific (rigid) gender role; namely that "women are victims, men are the perpetrators".

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Could you give me an example of a gender neutral issue? I have an idea of what this is, but I am not sure it is the same as yours. I would rather we be on the same page.

a example of it, would spousal abuse.
given the numbers, it indicates that in general it happens equally to men and women.
True, some forms of abuse happen more often to one specific gender then the other, but overall it's relatively equal

Actually, I was thinking this exact same thing, but for a completely different reason when I asked for an example. You think this should be addressed because the rates at which it happens are roughly equal. I believe spousal/partner abuse should be an issue we need to focus on and have authorities take far more seriously for the simple fact that it is causing harm (and we need to de-stigmatize being a victim of it so more people will come forward with it). I believe this should be a major issue to address, not because the numbers are equal, but because you are helping decrease the suffering of people in those terrible situations. I feel examples like this are things that should be moved to the forefront of any feminist or egalitarian movement. Seeing as how both fall under humanism and one of humanism’s focuses is to decrease human suffering, addressing spousal/partner abuse should be a high priority. Beyond this, making it a gender-neutral issue seems easy, since all one needs to do is actually take the accusations of the possible victim seriously (no matter what their gender or orientation is).

You are leaving out trans issues. However, the point of me asking that question was to see if you agreed that women are disenfranchised more than men today. Your agreement to this is refreshing, since (it appears to me) the majority of YouTube would disagree with us.

Well, that's the problem with the trans issue. Is it an man? is it a woman? is it neither? is it something in between? when is someone done transitioning? can someone fully transition? what gender is it then?
It's is not that I do not think transpeople have their own issues, i'm not convinced we have a clear enough understanding of it to adequately deal with it in a manner that is and can be productive enough.

Do you honestly believe that we should wait until something is clear enough before addressing it? Furthermore, do you honestly believe that someone transitioning into another gender is somehow in limbo and should not be identified with the gender they see themselves as? Beyond that, when do you think an issue is clear enough for one to start addressing an issue? I mean at the very least, one would think we could try to repeal laws that allow cis people a legal out in an abuse/murder of a trans person. Thus, even if you are correct, and this issue were as unclear as you think it is, there are steps that could be taken and help them as well. In addition, if you do not know what gender one identifies themselves as; it is far more polite to use “them” and not “it” to refer to them. I mean, say what you want, but do not be upset when people judge you based on what you have said.

As for the why women are more disenfranchised, I do not think it has to be with men actively (or subconsciously) oppressing women. it think it has more to do with environment and access to resources.
The way "patriachy" often is described, it sounds like its the subsidiary of the iluminati and I do not think that is an accurate reflection of local and global affairs.

I do agree with you that patriarchy is often described as some form of illuminati, where white cis men gather and think of their next evil to release onto the world. That is why I do not often use that term in my discussions. Too much baggage, even though I do know what patriarchy actually refers to, so would use it in a far more formal context.

Now, you claim that men are not subconsciously oppressing women, but it has to do with access to resources. I would agree with you that (at least in the west) for the most part, men are not consciously oppressing anyone. Than what is left if they are not actively suppressing resources? Are you not familiar with the literature on implicit biases? Someone on the surface can know that it is wrong to treat women or minorities poorly, but subconsciously still have biases that make them act in ways to “other” women or minorities. It appears that everyone has these to one extent or another and one has to actively work against them. As James Randi loves to point out, the moment you believe you stopped making assumptions, is the moment you have fooled yourself.

What are some of your solutions?

Let's use an example for this:
It was at a Q&A about combating misogyny, with regards to the behaviour of boys and girls in the classroom, where Judy Haiven suggested that "Women should be heard first in the classroom"
Its somewhere mentioned in this youtube video, but I do not know when... it lacks an index on the questionnaires.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDKIHqYG92E
http://unews.ca/ladies-first-smu-prof-suggests-classroom-rule/

If it so that women are heard first, this is not a solution.
By doing this, you only change the inequality, not solve it.
Gender is not be the driving factor on who should or should not speak.
Everyone has to have equal speaking time and right and the moderator (in classes often the teacher) is the one who has to make certain this is applied.

All things being equal, I agree with you. It should be the teacher’s job to insure that everyone is treated fairly and questions are answered and asked equally among the student body. Now, in the real world (at least in the U.S.), teachers are underpaid, have classrooms with one teacher for every 15 or more students, are using textbooks that are easily ten years old, and have to bring in their own art supplies for the students to use. A teacher that is aware of the statistics and wants to address them by choosing to allow the girls to answer and ask questions first seems like a good rule of thumb in my book. It is not perfect, but teachers are already dealt a terrible hand and try their best to work with it. Again, perhaps this is different in your country, but teachers are underpaid, overworked, and underappreciated here in the States. This also seems like a solution that could fix itself if we only paid teachers more. That would make more people want to become teachers, making classroom sizes smaller, leading to teachers actually being able to insure everyone has equal speaking time in their classrooms.