Then why no big vocal outcry when Russia attacked Ukraine and Ukraine allowed women, children and the elderly to flee if they could, but men who were hypothetically of fighting age were required to stay?
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 737
- Joined
- 2 yr. ago
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 737
- Joined
- 2 yr. ago
There are shelters for men. You can find them for example here (this is for Canada): Men and Families Canada
There's a certain irony here, as Men and Families Canada was started by the Canadian Association For Equality (CAFE). CAFE who got their first real taste of gendered bullshit when they tried to do a series of talks on men's issues at the University of Toronto c. 2012, starting with one about suicide in men. Angry feminist protests ensued.
Ever seen the "Big Red" antifeminist meme? She's a real person and she became a meme because of these protests, in which at one point she was basically shouting a Jezebel article at the crowd and calling anyone who tried to engage things like "fuckface". She became the meme shorthand for "angry feminist" for a good while afterward as a consequence.
EDIT: Gave the wrong year, I apologize. Corrected.
Basically men right’s movement are using bad science.
Yes, bad science that considers mutual violence to be mutual violence, and not exclusively women defending themselves from violent men. Frankly, this is just another example of hyper/hypo-agency (basically men are treated as having more responsibility for their actions than they actually might and women are treated as having less - it's the same tendency that plays into women getting lower bail when arrested, lower sentencing for the same crimes, that sort of thing, in this case that a woman engaging in IPV isn't responsible for her violence, but rather responsibility for that violence belongs to the nearest man).
A fun followup for the reader: If women's IPV is primarily defending themselves from violent men, what would that lead you to predict about rates of abuse in gay male and/or lesbian relationships, and does that prediction match reality?
Differences in physical harm basically come down to size/weight and if anyone is using a weapon. This basically means a petite woman should have open season to beat on her SO as much as she wants, but if he raises a hand in his own defense that makes him the abuser - he should just take it indefinitely. Or leave, because leaving an abusive partner is the easiest thing in the world if you aren't a woman (see above about agency).
Fear expression is one of those things bound up in cultural nonsense - it's unmanly to be scared of a girl, so most will process around that or just bottle it and refuse to express it. Related is why NISVS has a bad habit of getting results that suggest that women force men into non-consensual intercourse about as often as men do that to women in the previous year but then wildly different lifetime numbers - give it a few years where you've internalized the message that that's not a thing that can happen to you because you're a man and eventually you believe it.
Hell, I was sexually assaulted a couple of decades ago. Was playing driver for the group, had been up 22 hours because I'd had an early morning and we were doing a late night and when we made a stop for two of the people in the car that was going to take a bit, I leaned the seat back and napped with one other person in the vehicle (a woman). Woke up to her midway through performing a sex act on me, noticing the others were on the way back and her saying "I guess we're more than just friends now." Took me a decade to recognize that as sexual assault rather than just filing it away and trying to ignore it because that's not something that happens to men.
into the long-term stereotypically viewpoint on men that the bad parts of the MRA groups have perpetuated, is the idea that men can’t be abused, raped, or anything like that.
Huh? That's...never been a position I've ever seen taken seriously in MRA spaces. The opposite actually.
It's not as bad as it used to be once upon a time, but once upon a time (still in the 21st century, but I'm probably older and been in this kind of conversation longer than most of you) it was mostly feminist types claiming that men couldn't be victims, or minimizing what that meant (like Mary Koss describing a man being drugged and forced into vaginal intercourse with a woman against his will as just "unwanted contact" rather than assault or rape just 8 years ago).
Are you getting MRAs confused with incels or the grosser flavors of PUAs?
Men’s Liberation is associated with feminist movements,
In my experience, men's lib is like men's rights if the first rule of men's rights was to never question any feminist position, the second rule was to never question any woman's position unless it contradicts the first rule, and the third rule is any men's issue needs to be framed in such a way that it's primarily about benefiting women. Just follow those three rules and you too can discuss men's issues without it being evil altright misogyny!
I actually found it amusing to see MensLib types talking positively about Contrapoints "Men" video, for example. I actually had to go back and rewatch some old stuff to make sure she wasn't directly plagiarizing Alison Tieman since some of her points were so close to things Tieman wrote like a decade before that. Alison Tieman of course being best known for Honey Badger Radio.
I suspect I'm a bit older than most in these conversations, or at least have engaged with it longer. I'll say this, feminism has improved with how they deal with men's issues over the last 25 or so years. Though to be fair, 25 years ago simply claiming it's impossible for a man to be the victim of abuse was the default position, so that's a low bar.
2008 you had angry protests in Canada because a group called CAFE had a speaker giving a talk about suicide in men - if you've ever seen the "Big Red" feminist meme, it came from this protest, she was a protester and was basically shouting a Jezebel article at people and screaming at anyone who dared interrupt her calling them things like "fuckface."
We could also look at Mary Koss, who is kind of a major figure in research around sexual assault in the US. She performed the first real study on the topic, and her definitions and instruments and ones descended from them are still used. As recently as 8 years ago she responded to a question about a man being raped by a woman by asking how that could even happen. When given an example in which a man was drugged and ridden by a woman she outright stated that she wouldn't call that rape but "unwanted contact". https://soundcloud.com/889-wers/male-rape
Also, women's studies and feminist theories aren't about truth but about providing a scholarly veneer backing activism. To quote Kelly Oliver, W. Alton Jones Professor of Philosophy, Vanderbilt University who specializes in feminism, political philosophy and ethics: "feminist theory cannot claim to describe what exists, or, 'natural facts.' Rather, feminist theories should be political tools, strategies for overcoming oppression in specific concrete situations. The goal, then, of feminist theory, should be to develop strategic theories—not true theories, not false theories, but strategic theories."
because patriarchy hurts everyone.
Patriarchy is the wrong way to view it all. Patriarchy theory has it's origins in Marxist class conflict which is a reasonable way to view economic class but breaks down the farther you wander from economic class (hell, the only reason it even kinda works for race in the US is because of what the three largest racial groups are and their economic relationship to each other both historically and currently).
It's just a bad model for how gender works. A great example of this is that you can point to all kinds of stats as evidence that the criminal justice system is racist and oppresses black people, but break down those same measurements by sex instead of race and that same argument would suggest that the criminal justice system is sexist and oppresses men, which the same people who will use those measures re:race as evidence of oppression will also tell you is definitely wrong because it's backwards from their presumed hierarchy.
That’s not to equivocate between the extents to which men and women suffer under it (or any group under systemic bigotry), but liberation and egalitarianism would help us all.
My biggest gripe with feminism is that when equal treatment and what benefits women are not the same thing, feminism breaks in favor of what benefits women. See for example pushes for family court to adopt a rebuttable presumption of shared custody, most of the opposition against which would frame itself as feminist. Or the DeVos Title IX policy changes and the anger and backlash at them, where most of the changes were either codifying things schools had been successfully sued over or establishing some frankly fucking obvious notions of fair due process, like that the person representing the accuser's side and the person deciding the result should not be the same person (the DeVos setup requires at least three people aside from the accused and accuser be involved in a hearing, serving roles analogous to prosecutor, defense attorney and judge) or that the accused shouldn't be punished until after a determination is made (instead it calls for non-punitive measures where needed, like adjusting schedules to avoid contact between parties or other things that would minimize issues while not damaging anyone's educational progress).
It’s especially about how feminism is bad.
For some men's issues, feminism is the primary obstacle.
For example, one issue that gets brought up time and time again is family court bias, especially regarding custody. It used to be once upon a time that custody went to whoever could best materially provide for a child (typically the father). Early what I guess you call proto-feminists successfully replaced that with the tender years doctrine (essentially that a child needs it's mother), which later got dropped in favor of essentially whatever that judge happens to think is best decades later when women getting custody by default was deemed part of patriarchy. The problem is that by that point it had enough cultural inertia that a bias remains in favor of it.
The typical MRA suggestion to fight this is formal law or policy stating that family court must start from a position that shared custody is best for the child unless there is a good reason for it to be otherwise - a rebuttable presumption of shared custody. This generally meets opposition from feminists who essentially start arguing about cases that are nearly always also things spelled out as examples of "good reasons otherwise" (such as abuse). In one case, feminist protesters basically described men who wanted more equal custody as the abusers lobby because in their eyes the only reason men would want to see their children more is to use those children as a means to abuse their ex.
A rebuttable presumption of shared custody has actually passed into law in two states, the first was Kentucky.
When one group of people has all the money and all the connections, it’s not fair to say “just treat everyone equally!” because it maintains the unequal status quo
Then targeting socioeconomic status makes more sense. Any system that categorizes people and puts poor white folks in the same "has all the money and connections" bucket as the Clintons and the Obamas in the same "has no money or connections" bucket as poor black folks is not, in any way, actually about having money or connections.
Could be, but like countries that use the words "Democratic" and/or "People's" in their names, just because you call something by a word doesn't necessarily mean that word is accurate.
Often "diversity, inclusion and equity" in practice means doing things that would rightly be called out as sexist and racist but targeting the "right" sex and/or race.
This would get messy with inheritances. So if you own and a family member passes away, you'd have to either move into that home for two years or it would be worthless to sell? That's going to create some perverse incentives regarding old folks and housing.
Related to why someone under 25 might own a rental unit.
Also, would this apply to non residential rental properties?
Prole believes those are the same thing.
Meta doesn't get any real data from federating Threads that they can't get right now by just running a web scraper over it. Most of the dire worries presented are either not something they could actually do (like forcing ads on other instances), are things individual users could just block the instance to avoid, or are things that could be resolved by just defederating them later if they seem to be going down that road.
The biggest realistic threat is probably an Eternal September 2.0 scenario, but that is going to happen if and when Lemmy becomes popular.
It very literally is not. If you’re referring to “free speech”, that’s a whole other thing.
Yes it is. Hate speech is often used as the quintessential example of speech that is objectionable but still protected under the First Amendment.
About the only exception is incitement to an imminent lawless act. And the bar for that is very high. Like "Someone should round up all the $SLURs and string them up!" is probably not incitement in the US. Pretty much anything shy of "You guys, go string up that $SLUR over there, before he gets away!" is going to come short of incitement. You basically have to be directing people to do something illegal in short order.
I'm all for celebrating Trump's death as a federal holiday. We can even call it Trump day. The traditional celebration should of course be a mass exodus to go piss on his grave. Make effigies of him to burn for the folks that can't make the trip, and then piss on those to put them out.
Does it require the public display be offensive, or just that it be a public display? If the latter, then playing Wolfenstein on your laptop anywhere but a private residence is punishable by up to a year in prison.
There is a common misconception that long term effects will manifest long after the injection. All vaccines with longterm effects manifested their effect shortly after the injection. It makes little sense that you will have adverse reactions months or years later because the compounds are long gone from your system.
There are lots of things that do damage that isn't necessarily obvious in the short term, especially if you don't know exactly what that damage might look like. There's a reason I said we probably made a good bet with mRNA vaccines for COVID, the odds that they've done some kind of damage that isn't immediately apparent and we'll see an uptick in some problem or another a few years down the line in vaccinated people is very low but not zero. If the risk of this vaccine damaging patients in some fashion that wasn't apparent within the duration of trials was zero, rather than merely low there would be no reason to make the manufacturers immune to liability from damages caused as a consequence.
On the upside, we conveniently have a large population who have decided to be the control group for mRNA COVID vaccines out of political spite so we have a large sample to compare long term outcomes between.
I'm going to preface this by saying I had the moderna series and all boosters. Also had COVID once, ironically the weekend before Id scheduled a booster. I entirely believe that the vaccine is effective at reducing infection rates and severity.
have been referring to the mRNA covid vaccines as 'the cancer vaccines'
Ironic, because they literally started as "cancer vaccines", literally a niche cancer treatment. When they were first approved in 2008.
based on disinformation that they would 'interact with your genes' and 'give you cancer in 2 years'
We really don't know the long term consequences of mRNA vaccines. The COVID vaccine is the first application of them at large scale, and the first application of them where we'd normally expect most recipients to still be alive and mostly healthy ten years down the road (again, because they were originally created as a cancer treatment).
Check in in 2030 and we'll know whether or not we made a good bet on that one. We probably did, but there's a reason the manufacturers were given immunity from liability for anything that comes of the COVID vaccines.
Hypothetically it does, they just don't block any instances, so it's empty. They are unlikely to start outside of extreme circumstances.
Likewise for their Mastodon instance, which has been around for a long while.
Stromfront is a literal white supremacist neo-Nazi forum. As in the logo on their website has "White Pride World Wide" written around a Celtic cross. If you've ever seen The Boys, that site is the reason the character Stormfront is named that, and she's positively nice compared to some of what goes on in that forum.
The whole point is to liken Reddit to Stormfront, and it's connected to hexbear because ChapoTrapHouse is on hexbear and ChapoTrapHouse is more or less the only lefty subreddit to ever be punished under rules against brigading, calls for violence, etc. They were quarantined and later banned. So since Reddit banned an explicitly lefty sub that one time, that makes Reddit akin to a white supremacist hate forum.
Most MRAs would LOVE to see the ERA passed, so long as it was passed without that rider that basically enshrined any kind of traditional benefits for women. And by that I mean that were the ERA to pass groups like NCFM would be launching entire fleets of lawsuits nationwide.
But then, there are all kinds of laws I'm amazed manage to stand without being tossed on equal protection grounds, even without the ERA.
For example, all the laws that exist to punish men who fail to register for Selective Service (because charging them with failure to register is so unpopular it hasn't been enforced since the 80s), by requiring you provide proof of registration in order to get access to various benefits or jobs if male. Meaning (for example) male applicants literally have one more requirement to get state jobs or be admitted to state colleges in my state.
Or the Affordable Care Act, since the contraception coverage mandate applies to all categories (but not all brands within each category) of women's contraception, including barrier methods but do not apply at all to any form of men's contraception (even noting there are currently only two approved by the FDA at all - condoms and vasectomy).
They were talking about sanitation jobs, not sanitation products. Feminists routinely fight for equality in high-status cushy office jobs, but not so much in things like sanitation workers which are also heavily male dominated. It's just another example where equality is great so long as being more equal benefits women, and if it doesn't then we should just ignore it or even fight against it (see shared custody laws).