Talk:Feminism/Archive6

This is an archive page, last updated 27 March 2017. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <7>

, (new)(back)

Feminism is the radical idea that women are people.

Pretty much everyone in Western civilization is a feminist according to this uselessly nebulous definition. Even the most right-wing nutcases believe that women are people that need to be protected and respected, etc. Why is this at the top of the page? Hmmph (talk) 02:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not a definition, it's a pithy one-liner. 'People' in the quote carries an implicit 'with all that it implies'. That is, full rights and the same treatment due to men. Just to stay on the example, your right-wing nutcase might say they think women are people, until said women get pregnant, upon which they think women are required to give up their personhood and leave potentially vital health decisions at the whim of unqualified parties.186.207.170.99 (talk) 03:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

No, feminist compare every country to Saudi Arabia because they believe all nations oppress all women equally.--180.216.68.197 (talk) 05:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Women are people, collateral damage are people, economic immigrants are people, hiv-positives are people, yet none of these groups, except women, pretend to be treated as privileged people above all the rest.145.64.134.241 (talk) 16:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

"Women are people, collateral damage are people, economic immigrants are people, hiv-positives are people, yet none of these groups pretend to be treated as privileged people above all the rest." Fixed that for you. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 16:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

If feminism were about equality, it would never fly. In both divorce and child custody proceedings, it is widely acknowledged that courts heavily favor women and discriminate against men. Men are routinely hit with onerous alimony payments even if women are capable of working and earning a good paycheck. Men only receive custody of their children in around 10 per cent of divorce cases in the United States.145.64.134.241 (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

And why do you think that is? ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Let me guess... because when it comes to equality women are more "equal" than men?145.64.134.241 (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

You think all those courts are dominated by women? Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Dominated by feminists, obviously, whatever their gender is.145.64.134.241 (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

You sure? 'cuz the studies I've found show that when fathers actually seek custody, rather than run for the hills, they win it at a reasonably non-biased rate. Example study. In addition, with the caricature of hardcore feminists you're illustrating, it seems hard to believe they'd choose to do more to chain women to the home. Instead of blaming Those Evil Women, maybe point your finger at society's advice to fathers that children and child support are merely burdens, that they should demand a paternity test whenever a child is born, and that the most important part of securing custody is to not be burdened with child support, rather than the welfare of the child.KrytenKoro (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

About this: "and that the most important part of securing custody is to not be burdened with child support." Not in my experience. It certainly wasn't for my adult son who was frantic to get custody and did, or for the one male client I handled a divorce for 20 years ago (I didn't really do divorces).---Mona- (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

That has absolutely zip to do with what I argued (about how society portrays the meaning of fatherhood to fathers, which, seriously, turn on a TV), and is nicely anecdotal to boot. If you want to go down that path, I'll trade you how every single conversation with our father in the last decade has been him demanding custody of us so my "lazy whore of a mother can't keep stealing his money", up until him punching and kicking my sister until she was forced to grab a knife to scare him off until she and my brother could escape. This despite my mother never pulling him to court over the fact that he's never fulfilled more than half of the court-ordered maintenance, and voluntarily rejecting any alimony.

So, you know, the whole anecdotal strategy can go absolutely fuck itself, because I bet you apples to apples I can top it.KrytenKoro (talk) 02:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Men have to FIGHT for custody, women get it by default. If that's equalitarian you may kiss my ass.82.161.30.183 (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

...so you didn't read the study. Again, when men do not actively reject custody, they have basically equal odds. When neither parent wants the child, the mom still gets saddled with it, because the court doesn't give a shit about the parent's "right" to own the child, it cares about the child getting fed and housed.KrytenKoro (talk) 02:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I really hate it when pro-choicers strawman the anti-abortion position with stuff like this: "until said women get pregnant, upon which they think women are required to give up their personhood" There no doubt exists a troglodyte faction of the "pro-life" movement who thinks like this, but the reality is that most see a clash between the rights of two PERSONS: the woman and the entity she carries. Or, they don't think personhood should decide the issue if the entity is a human being. But, whatever else is true, they don't think women are not people, with all that that implies; they simply subordinate her autonomy to the "right to life" of the entity she carries. Also, there absolutely is a bias in favor of moms in custody cases. Some people,can't handle the fact that two superficially inconsistent things can be true at the same time: to wit: on a narrow range of issues women have an advantage, on most we don't and can even be at a disadvantage to males.---Mona- (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Not that that argument is necessarily wrong, but if that was their sincere belief, you'd expect to see most of their funding going towards developing artificial wombs, or developing surgeries to transplant wombs to men, rather than simply campaigning against safe sex practices and attacking abortion clinics. Goals that would neatly sidestep the quite legitimate objections the pro-choicers are raising, while also being amenable to all of the legitimate objections the pro-lifers are raising. Hell, even without any advances in technology, they'd make mandatory organ donations and orphan adoption a primarily pillar of their platform, because of the exact arguments they use to criticize abortion. Can you point to any such pro-life groups pursuing those goals? Surely they should be the most well-funded, yes?KrytenKoro (talk) 02:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, the main discussion I can find on the topic is that it's not about conflicting rights, it's because it's the woman's fault she's pregnant...neatly deciding to foist off the discussion of rape, and completely ignoring the copious documentation that the pro-life movement's political maneuvers are responsible for depriving many of these women of the knowledge needed to even reasonably be considered culpable for their pregnancy.

The act of abortion makes me weep at the lost life, but the pro-life movement's actions reveal their arguments to be about as sincere as a megachurch pastor.KrytenKoro (talk) 02:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Is it possible that in a lot of the cases where men ran for the hills rather than seeking custody, it was because they figured that, given the facts of the case, there wasn't much likelihood of gaining custody if they tried? Maybe the cases where the men sought custody tended to be those where the mother was more obviously an unfit mother (e.g. string of recent arrests for crackwhoring and child neglect). Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 03:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

180.216.68.197 says...

Feminist believe women are people but they also believe that men are animals.--180.216.68.197 (talk) 09:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

They also wear pointy hats & ride around on broomsticks. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Read and comment to my last two comments above in the top section.--180.216.68.197 (talk) 13:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Which were both solidly refuted. You really aren't bringing anything new to the table, just old MRA arguments that fall apart under even the slightest scrutiny.Petey Plane (talk) 15:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not a Men's rights activist.--180.216.68.197 (talk) 08:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Then why are you parroting their badly-thought-out talking points? Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 13:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 14:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes because all who disagree with feminist are violent and oppressive men's rights activist, even thougth I myself have spoken out against violence towards women.--180.216.68.197 (talk) 15:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

It's nice to know that a random IP address have spoken out against violence towards women Petey Plane (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

As I said earlier I can't sign in because my computer wont recognize my password. You're implying I have no identity and so I can't support others.--180.216.68.197 (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

If you are not an MRA, why are you parroting their badly-thought-out talking points? Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 16:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Because I believe male privilege means the oppressor and toxic masculinity means all muscularity, I take it too personally.--180.216.68.197 (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

So if you know why that line of thought is wrong, why don't you abandon it? Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 16:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't abandon my rules I just believe feminism is one sided.--180.216.68.197 (talk) 04:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think most feminists consider men to be animals, aside from the well-known batshit crazy neo-puritans of the second wave, but there is an unfortunate implication in the idea that some feminists want to educate men on not raping. To me it marks every man as a potential rapist that has to be educated on why rape is wrong. Rape is not about masculinity, it's about cruelty. Rape is a crime that is never, ever necessary, compared to murdering someone attacking you to save yourself, so rapists are just gonna go ahead and victimize people. It's a frankly toxic view in my opinion. EuroBurro (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Rape is not about masculinity? Heh. Not in my experience, but there you go. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

...every fucking person is a potential rapist that has to be educated on why rape is wrong. And so we try. And then, as studies show, many people have to be educated again, primarily men because every other part of our culture is trying to "educate" them that it's not wrong. It is ass backwards to claim simply acknowledging that rapists exist, and that we should educate people on what consent is, is somehow "teaching people to hate men".KrytenKoro (talk) 02:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Are you saying that all muscularity is rape and that the male privilege means that all men and boys are automatically and naturally the oppressor? Now when did I say that rape is "not" wrong? You are kind of implying that all abusers are male and that men and boys outside of feminist academics are raised to molest women and girls.--180.216.68.197 (talk) 04:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Men are told not to rape only through gender studies and that everything sextual only attributes to rape, now I doubt that has been refuted by feminist. It's not that they are being educated to see rape as acceptable but that it's wrong that they are being told from childhood that there already rapist long before they lose their virginity because I have not met a single man or woman who has commited such a crime.--180.216.68.197 (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

...what the fuck is "muscularity"?

"You are kind of implying that all abusers are male and that men and boys outside of feminist academics are raised to molest women and girls." -- you are a dishonest piece of shit. I explicitly said that both men and women are potential rapists.

"It's not that they are being educated to see rape as acceptable" - you're a moron, too, because I linked an actual fucking study that showed that they absolutely are being taught by those around them to see rape as acceptable, and that gigantic portions of the male population still see it as acceptable despite all this "being told from childhood" you're claiming.KrytenKoro (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

By gigantic you mean the overwhelming majority of men and boys are rapist because no man has standards? Because of feminism I chose to be a virgin and a celibate all my life. Now tell me how I'm a rapist--180.216.68.197 (talk) 07:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

You're an idiot. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Baby, you did "choose" nothing. It's just that no woman wants to come near you due to vaccum between your left and right ear.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 10:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

How am I an idiot? She believes all men are rapist.^{[citation needed]}--180.216.68.197 (talk) 10:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Who? There's is zero evidence of anyone believing that in this conversation. If that's what you're taking away from this, you are having profound difficulty absorbing what's actually being said. We can't help with your misconceptions about feminism if your lack of grasp of English comprehension is getting in the way. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 10:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Who? KrytenKoro, because she strongly implied that literally everything outside feminist academics encourages men to rape and therefore men are guaranteed to be predators. No I did not chose celibacy for being rejected, I have been one since 14 just to avoid commiting violence against women and have never being in a romantic relationship period.--180.216.68.197 (talk) 11:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

No, they didn't. If that's what you're taking away from it, you're not understanding what you're reading. Let me list your errors:

1. Sex and relationship advice =/= feminist academics
2. taught by those around them =/= literally everything outside feminist academics
3. being taught that rape is acceptable =/= encourages men to rape
4. Any combination of the above =/=> men are guaranteed to be predators

Okay, I guess that last one is an error of logic rather than reading, but it's pretty clear that you're starting from the assumption that the rape culture phenomenon is exactly equivalent to tarring all men as predators and trying to backfill a line of reasoning to reach it, in the face of evidence and contrary explanations. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 11:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

So are feminist the only people keeping rapist from not being the the entirety? Also I would like a comment on Anita and Laci, as I had addressed their attacks.--180.216.68.197 (talk) 11:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

180, if you chose celibacy "just to avoid commiting violence against women", it does rather sound like you are the one with the belief that all men are predators. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

No, it's because I don't want to be CALLED a predator just for being in a relationship, also I'm glad someone answered my post of Anita, her attackers were giving me anxiety for weeks.--180.216.68.197 (talk) 12:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Also the article of Rape culture when its says "Not all Men Defence" and men don't realize it when they rape is not saying "Not All Men Objection" and the statement that the average man not realizing he rapes suggest that all hetrosextual sex is rape.--180.216.68.197 (talk) 10:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

...Huh? Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

So what am I missing?--180.216.68.197 (talk) 13:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The ability to read and understand plain English, it seems. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 13:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Or maybe I'm taking the subjugation of women way to personally because Schrodinger's Rapist applies to all men.--180.216.68.197 (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Yet more proof that men cannot be feminist because even men who identify themselves as feminist are seen as the enemy. KrytenKoro has proven that gender studies teaches women to both fear and hate men.--180.216.68.197 (talk) 11:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

No, that's a lie. Just because you don't comprehend what KrytenKoro says does not mean that your attempt at interpretation is correct. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The woman I feel sorry for most is Miss Misanthropist whom I have compared to Marceline Abadeer from Adventure Time, because she has been abused boy both genders equally, which has given my fear, anxiety and sadness for days. So don't say I don't sympathise with female victims.--180.216.68.197 (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

That's nice. Have a cookie. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Because I'm male I can't feel for women, I know. But look at her videos, mostly about feminism and especially look at "Why I Am A Misanthropist" which women oppress other women.--180.216.68.197 (talk) 04:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

How much of mainstream support for feminism is just a belief in the superiority of one's own nation?

People figure, "The U.S. (or the U.K., or some other western first-world nation) is pretty cool, so therefore its women and their culture of feminism must also be pretty cool." Yeah, and I guess the U.S.' exceptional incarceration rate is also cool, huh? After all, anything American is awesome, because we have the strongest economy in the world and everyone wants to come here.

Guess what, South American countries are more efficient producers of coffee, even though people would rather be in the U.S. than there. Is it that much of a stretch, then, to think that maybe some other foreign countries produce better women, and a better culture of how women should behave, than what the U.S. offers? Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 03:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

What in the actual fuck are you talking about? Feminism has plenty of history outside of the west.KrytenKoro (talk) 03:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Depends on whether your include the Slavic and Eastern-European countries into "the West". The Situation in the Middle East or Africa ain't that cool in that regard.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Sure, there's tons of violently misogynistic cultures still in the world. That doesn't in the least imply that feminism is solely an invention of the first world (I wonder if he even knows what that term means...) that is only being supported because it's "fashionable".KrytenKoro (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

If it has so much history there, why don't we see the results it had in the West?--Kugelschreiber (talk) 12:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

'Result'=/=presence, especially when you consider, say, the international histories and impacts faced upon the "Third World"; the experiences of the "Third World" (a term to critiqued) must be assessed by the situation, not by presumption, especially since your statement seems to be airbrushing the rather question statement by the MRA poster. South America has a history of feminism (sorry for the Wikipedia sourcing but it will do as a introduction) and then there is the case of the feminist movement in Liberia. There are feminists beyond the West; you just have to look to find them. --Aile Dhoo (talk) 13:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I regard South America as a part of the West and I know I have to look for them beyond the West. With a magnifying glass. And yes, I don't answer to the post of MRA guy, it's rather incoherent and hard to understand.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 13:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

So, I'm seeing straw man and non sequitur in the initial post.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 13:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to hear more about this "more efficient producers of coffee" theory on feminism. You'd think things like climate & topography would have something to do with that. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I mean.. there must be SOME product that third world countries are better at making than the U.S. is. Okay, how about manufacturing? That's a good example. U.S. workers demand all these frills like OSHA protections, a 40-hour workweek, etc. while people in the third world will work their butts off in sweatshop environments to produce a high quality good for a low wage. From the perspective of the consumer, that makes those foreign manufacturers superior.

What seems to happen is that when countries get rich enough, they get pretentious and load up with a bunch of rules and regulations they don't need, but wouldn't have been able to afford when they had a weaker economy. An example is, when you go to the Philippines you see a beautiful diversity of handmade homes, vehicles, etc. of all different colors and shapes. In the U.S., you see a bunch of mass-produced McMansions. The building codes help force the smaller builders out of business, so we lose some individuality. The Philippines would not be able to afford to have a bunch of strict codes enforcing what people can build; it would be too burdensome for the poor. Even if they did have such codes, they would need to actually pay the inspectors enough to deter bribery. But the U.S. is so rich that we can afford to throw away money on ensuring compliance with a bunch of bureaucratically imposed rules. In some ways, the U.S. is actually not as free of a country.

The U.S. can also afford to have a fucked-up culture because we know that our economy is so strong that people will come here even though they know about the cultural downsides. Poorer countries have to actually be warm, friendly, and hospitable to visitors so that they will spend their tourist dollars there. They have to have laws that will attract businesses through lower taxes, less regulations, etc. because otherwise foreign investors will just build their factories in first world countries where they are closer to their consumers and suppliers and there is more of an infrastructure to get raw materials in and finished goods out.

U.S. feminists can get high-quality men because they're in a convenient location. Foreign brides would actually make superior mates for most American men, but they have the disadvantage that a guy can't hook up with them at a moment's notice just by swiping right on Tinder. Roosh has pointed out that the current state of affairs is such that in the U.S., a 35-year-old woman (well past her prime) has as much power in the mate market as a 35-year-old man (in his prime) does. This would change dramatically if American men became more willing to look overseas for a wife; we would see a lot more 35-year-old-men with brides in their teens and 20s. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Feminist discourse and female sex offenders

One problem I have with a lot of feminist discourse it ignores the reality of female sexual offending. Now, no doubt something like 95% of perpetrators of sexual offences are male, but that still leaves the other roughly 5% that are female. (Source: [1]). However, listening to many feminists discuss the issue, you'd think the actual female sexual offending rate was 0% rather than 5%. (Or else, they argue that women sexually offend because men force them to - well, according to the same fact sheet I cited, around 50% of cases of female sexual offending are in conjunction with a male offender - whether or not that man is compelling or merely encouraging the woman - which still leaves around 2.5% of all cases of sexual offending being committed by females without any male involvement.) According to Table 3-8 of [2] (page 41), 60,956 children were sexually abused in the United States in the year 2014. If 5% of perpetrators are female, this means that over 3000 children were sexually abused by women in the United States in 2014; and likely around 1500 of those were abused by sole female perpetrators whose abuse was not in any way compelled or coerced or encouraged by a man. Many feminists seem to be saying that these children's experiences are irrelevant and should be ignored, that it is wrong to talk about them. I wonder, if one of these victims, hears the entirely male-centric discourse on sexual offending promulgated by many feminists, what kind of impact that has on their psyche? Do feminists, before they talk about this issue, ever stop to ask themselves that question? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 06:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

In fact, according to [3] page 65, 4662 cases of child sexual abuse in the United States in 2014 were committed by women, which is a female offender rate of 8.6%. If that's 4662 children a year, that's close to 50,000 children a decade (which is assuming that there is no duplication of children across years - which may not be true). Keep in mind these are only figures reported to the authorities, the number of children actually sexually abused by women in the United States is likely far higher. Also, given that the global population is 22 times the US population, a rough approximation of how many children are sexually abused by women globally each year is 22*4662 = about 100,000. How do all these people feel when they hear male-offender-centric feminist discourses on sexual offending? Do feminists think of the emotional impact, even harm, their discourse may have on these individuals? Yes, these people are a 5-10% minority of all victims, but shouldn't we be sensitive to the needs of minorities? (A claim which most feminists would usually endorse.) (((Zack Martin)))^™ 06:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

It's strange how much closer 5% is to 0% than 95% is to 50%, which is what appears you are proposing, at least in the attention and media coverage sexual assault receive. The reason that male sexual assault (by women) isn't discussed as much is because of the rarity of it's occurrence. You're whole thesis is basically a self answering question. Also, you seem to find it strange that a women centered movement focuses on a crime that overwhelmingly (almost to a statistical margin of error) effects women. I wonder why they would do that?Petey Plane (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

You claim that I propose female sexual offending should receive equal attention to that of male sexual offending, but I never actually said that. It's not like "0% attention" and "50% attention" are the only choices. If it's 5-10% of offenders, shouldn't it receive 5-10% of the attention? Yet, it seems to me, that most feminists don't want to give it 5-10% attention, they want to give it 0% attention.

As to your comment that I "seem to find it strange that a women centered movement focuses on a crime that overwhelmingly (almost to a statistical margin of error) effects women", I'd question how true your statement there is. David Finkelhor, one of the most noted authorities in the field of child sexual abuse research, cites (p. 34 onwards) prevalance rates for child sexual abuse ranging from 2% to 62% of females and 3% to 16% of males. The ratio between male and female prevalance varies - for example, in one LA Times survey, 27% of women and 16% of men reported having been sexually abused as children, which represents a female victimisation rate of 1.68 times the male - scarcely a crime that "overwhelmingly (almost to a statistical margin of error) effects women". Now, other studies have a larger victimisation ratio (in one women were 8 times more likely to be sexually abused as children); but having considered all the available studies (of course, this paper is from 1994, so it won't include any new studies since then), Finkelhor concludes that the actual prevalance rates are 5-10% of men and 20% of women, which implies a female:male victimisation ratio of between 2 and 4. That would mean that somewhere between 20% and 33% of all victims of child sexual abuse are male. Scarcely a "crime that overwhelmingly (almost to a statistical margin of error) effects women". (((Zack Martin)))^™ 05:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, if we look at the US Bureau of Justice Statistics National Inmate Survey 2012, it estimates that 1.7% of male inmates and 6.9% of female prison inmates experienced inmate-on-inmate sexual assault in 2011-2012; for staff-on-inmate sexual assault, the rates are roughly similar (2.4% for male prison inmates, 2.3% for female prison inmates). Even though female prisoners are significantly more likely to be sexually assaulted by their fellow inmates than male prisoners, given that only about 7.5% of prisoners are female, it still works out that the number of sexually assaulted male prisoners substantially outnumbers the number of female (the number of male victims of prison rape is around double or triple the number of female victims). According to an article in the New York Review of Books, 200,000 prison inmates were sexually abused in the US in 2011; around 60-75% of those victims are male, which means that over 120,000 men are raped in US prisons every year – is that a "crime that overwhelmingly (almost to a statistical margin of error) effects women"? It's also interesting, that a woman is about four times more likely to be sexually assaulted by another female inmate in prison as a man is to be sexually assaulted by another male inmate; I wonder, how do feminists explain that statistic? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 06:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

This morning I stumbled across this article - "Female teacher who sought sex with 10-year-old boy walks free". A 46-year old female teacher propositioned her 10-year old male student for sex; the boy refused her advances, but was obviously negatively affected by the experience. The boy's father is quoted as saying "I feel angry that if it was a 46-year-old man and a 10-year-old girl that it would most likely be a different outcome". So, would adherents of feminism say that the boy's father has a point there? What do they think should be done about this? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 21:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

They would say that it is a travesty, since feminist groups do actually advocate on behalf of male rape victims, and might add that the idea that they don't is merely willful confirmation bias.

You throw out a lot of "gotcha" attempts without substance, chum.KrytenKoro (talk) 23:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

KrytenKoro, I make a number of points above. You don't actually make clear which specific point you are responding to. Your text is replying to my last point (about how feminists would respond to the father of that 10 year old boy), but then you link the words of your response to a bunch of posts some of which seem to be addressing other points I made earlier. You'll note, that while I link to a number of sources, I make clear when doing so which of my specific points I am supporting with each source, whereas you seem to just be throwing out links randomly without clearly explaining what specific conclusion you think each link supports or how it relates to my arguments. For example, considering your first link, it attempts to refute the claim that "more men are raped in the US than women"; I never actually made that claim above, so what's the point of sending me to a refutation of a claim I'm not making? What I said was, PetePlaney's statement that sexual offences were "a crime that overwhelmingly (almost to a statistical margin of error) effects women" was false, and Stephanie Zvan's blog post you've linked to actually appears to support my point rather than oppose it - her first graph shows slightly more women raped in the US in 2008 than men, which completely agrees with my position that PetePlaney's contention was false; some of her later graphs show significantly more female victims than male, but the difference is still far less than the "almost to a statistical margin of error" that PetePlaney was claiming, and is arguably not "overwhelming" either. Your second link consists of feminist Maisha Z. Johnson arguing that prison injustice (which is a broader issue than just prison sexual assault) is an issue that deserves the attention of feminists; I never said that no feminists paid attention to this issue (in fact, I never said anything about how much attention feminists paid to it), so that link doesn't actually contradict anything I said. Your third link you summarise as saying that "feminist groups do actually advocate on behalf of male rape victims", and its point 12 mentions feminist support for the passage of PREA; again, I never said that no feminists ever advocated on behalf of male rape victims (I never made any comment positive or negative about their advocacy or lack thereof on that particular topic). I was asking whether feminists advocated on the issue that female sex offenders appear to get sentenced more lightly than male sex offenders for the same offence, and I'm not aware of any substantial feminist advocacy on this issue, and none of your links address that point. Basically, rather than identifying the specific points I'm making and responding to them individually, you seem to be imagining that I am saying a whole bunch of things that I never actually said, and then pointlessly trying to refute those imagined claims of mine, by throwing out links and leaving me to guess what actual relevance they have to anything I said (or that you've imagined I said). (In particular, it is really unclear to me how the last link you've posted is responsive to any of my arguments.) (((Zack Martin)))^™ 02:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I think I actually get the point you were trying to make with your last link now - but wouldn't it have been easier if you'd been a bit more specific? You are referring to a successful feminist campaign to change the definition of rape used in US crime statistics, and the new definition (unlike the old one) is gender-neutral. I still don't see how that is relevant to anything I said, since I never said that "feminists never advocate for male rape victims". Why do you waste your time refuting claims I don't make? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 02:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Everything I posted was in response to the one claim it was addressing, and all of the links are examples of feminists caring about male rape victims, despite your gotcha implying that feminists wouldn't care about the boy as a rape victim. Feminists are one of the groups responsible for the change in the law that even made it possible to legally call it rape what happened to that kid. Any additional claims you've made got lost in the morass of your posts and I didn't spot them--I was addressing the one point and the one point only. For what it's worth, here's feminists acknowledging the existence of female rapists and the seriousness of what happened to their victims, refuting your earliest point. Again, your idea that they don't give the time of day to male victims or the existence of female rapists is confirmation bias.KrytenKoro (talk) 02:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I never said that "feminists don't care about male rape victims", those are just words you are inserting into my mouth. I'm not sure what "the change in the law" you are referring to is, since the links you gave earlier weren't about a change in the law at all, but a change in the non-legal definition of rape used in crime statistics in the US; and I have no idea what changing the definition of rape used in US crime statistics has to do with sentencing disparities between male and female sex offenders. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Then what in god's name was the point of asking "So, would adherents of feminism say that the boy's father has a point there?", if not to suggest there is a possibility they would disagree with him? It's an incredibly blatant gotcha attempt. For fuck's sake. Also, you keep bringing up "sentencing disparities", when I've made it clear several times what I'm actually responding to -- the "would adherents of feminism" canard. Of course my answers not going to relate to a question I've several times stated it wasn't meant to address.KrytenKoro (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

You respond to sentencing disparities by bringing up changes to the definitions used in crime statistics. What the fuck does one have to do with the other? How are crime statistic definitions used in sentencing again? And how are US federal crime statistic definitions used in criminal sentencing in Victoria, Australia? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 19:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Do you ever do anything but shitpost? --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Of course, rather than addressing my arguments, you just throw around a meaningless term like "shitpost". (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Because all abusers are male and all victims are female after all.--180.216.68.197 (talk) 10:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Do feminist do anything but play the victim card?--180.216.68.197 (talk) 04:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Beauty standards

Why is it that a feminist country like the U.S. still has beauty standards that say women are supposed to be thin as a rail, while Latin American countries with more of a culture of machismo have beauty standards that celebrate women's curves? I think it's because feminism wants women to take on masculine and/or gender-neutral traits. Either a man or a woman can be thin and scrawny if they have the ectomorph body type. Women can't really aspire to an Ahnold-type bodybuilder physique but they can go for a slender physique similar to the body of a teenage boy who never works out but hasn't yet gained a beer gut from sitting around at a computer or TV all day eating processed foods.

The more macho cultures emphasize differences between men and women, rather than equality between the sexes. A man is considered more manly if he can get with a feminine woman, so curves are therefore awesome. Feminine curves like an hourglass figure are physical traits that a man can't aspire to (let's disregard the man-boob exception for a moment; that doesn't count. So anyway, ironically enough, women can get away with being their natural selves more in the macho cultures than in feminist cultures; when was the last time you heard of a Latina chick going on a starvation diet or putting her finger down her throat after a heavy meal to try to keep her weight down to look like the girls on the cover of Cosmopolitan?

Maybe this is just another example of how, in a rich country, people can afford to throw away money on stupid shit, which can have a negative impact on culture. I don't see Latinas, Filipinas, etc. spending so much money on the South Beach Diet and so on. It's kinda like how wealthy celebrities can spend so much money on cocaine and be shielded from the reality that what they're doing would be, for a poor person, an incredible waste of money, as well as possibly physically harmful.

The habits of the rich are often bad for the poor (or anyone, really) to take up, and the culture of more advanced countries is often unsuitable for poorer countries (or any country, really). Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

So after the coop I've started to read some of this poster's stuff. My God he is boring. It's like being buttonholed by some guy in the pub who has too much to drink and has a axe to grind about his ex-wife or something.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Then RationalWiki should encourage more anti-feminists to show up! Then we can create our own enclave of content forks for discussing the manosphere perspective in more detail. Since the Red Pill movement has its own language, culture, etc. it tends to create a more insular community that keeps to itself. The problem is, we don't have a wiki of our own yet. Maybe Red Pillers are too individualistic for that. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Yawn. You are evidently incapable of saying anything mildly interesting. So I'll stop reading your posts now. Good luck with finding people who are bored enough to interact with you.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 20:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

There are non-feminist countries where women have equal rights

Look at the Philippines, a non-feminist country where women basically have equal rights, aside from the fact that they can't divorce an abusive, neglectful, or cheating husband; and the fact that hardly any employers want to hire them once they hit age 25. (The solution: if you're a woman, make sure that before you hit age 25, you marry a guy who will be a good provider and won't abuse or neglect you or cheat on you. I.e., marry a typical older American guy.)

It's still a far cry from, say, the Arab world, which is what people typically think of when they think of non-feminist countries. Women don't have to wear a burqa in the Philippines (except maybe in a few Muslim-dominated regions). The Philippines is dominated mostly by Catholicism, which is an only mildly sexist religion; if anything, it may be discriminatory against males, to the extent that the priests target boys for molestation while leaving the girls alone (how misandrist of them!)

"Non-feminist" and "family-oriented" are basically two sides of the same coin. There are family-oriented cultures that aren't misogynistic. But have you ever seen a feminist culture where large families were the norm and a successful lifelong marriage was celebrated as one of the most worthy goals one could aspire to? Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

aside from the fact that they can't divorce an abusive, neglectful, or cheating husband- Men's Rights EXTREMIST You claim equal and then immediately show how they don't have human right? You know, just cause a country doesn't, e.g. stone women who shag someone except their husband or force them into a burqa (Saudi-Arabia, DAESH-hold territory Afghanistan and a few other countries or regions I forgot) or hijab (that's the state of affairs in Iran, AFAIK) doesn't mean they have equal right. Feminism IS demanding equal right for women, not this straw man crap you tend to pull out of your anus.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

In a situation where divorce isn't available, you have to be super-careful to pick the right spouse and do what you can to keep the relationship strong so it can last a lifetime. Maybe that is part of what outlawing divorce is intended to accomplish: encouraging the development of skills and practices that will help ensure the longevity of marriages. When divorce is made readily available to anyone who wants it, then men tend to get screwed, so perhaps some middle ground between the laws and culture of the U.S. and the Philippines, taking the best that each has to offer, would be ideal. See, I'm not so extreme; I probably should change my username to "Reasonable Moderate with Considered, Nuanced, Thoughtful Views on Issues Involving Relations Between the Sexes". Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 18:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, cause nannying people who want a divorce is the way to go, right?--Kugelschreiber (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Contract enforcement is not nannying. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

What contract? Marriage ain't no goddamn contract. The state has no business to tell people, when to divorce.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 19:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, seriously, MRE, have you even HAD a girlfriend? CorruptUser (talk) 19:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Slate says it's a contract whose details for some reason people are usually content to leave the legislators to figure out. My theory is that people figure that the statutes reflect cultural standards, and it's somewhat pointless to try to enforce through the courts what friends and family won't provide encouragement in support of. I don't want to give too many personal details about my own relationship history (or lack thereof) since that information could be used to eventually dox me by narrowing down my identity to the list of guys who not only are considered misogynistic but also have had troubled relations (or a lack of relations) with the opposite sex. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I notice that wasn't an answer. CorruptUser (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

"and the fact that hardly any employers want to hire them once they hit age 25. (The solution: if you're a woman, make sure that before you hit age 25, you marry a guy who will be a good provider and won't abuse or neglect you or cheat on you. I.e., marry a typical older American guy.)"Oh, damn what an ass! Thanks, you demonstrated what sexism is. I hope it's not the best you can go with, to illustrate how feminism is not needed. You sanction this behavior and then you also bitch on how women are exploiters. And citation is needed for the last part which is bullshit, assuming one can't reveal him/herself an abuser once the contract is locked and unbreakable according to the law you advocate, aka not being able to divorce abusive husbands. Talk about rape culture --78.15.246.30 (talk) 12:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)