To me, Feminism is what Feminism does. And in my lifetime, I'm not a fan of what Feminism has done.
Feminism is responsible for primary aggressor laws which almost got me kicked out of my home when my ex girlfriend decided to attack me. When I made it through the first attack and called the police, asking what I should do if she does it again, they said all I was allowed to do was lock myself in a room. If I laid a hand on her in any way shape or form, no matter what she does first, I get arrested. This is what the police officer who would have shown up at my apartment to arrest someone told me.
This is because Feminism has pushed the Deluth model of domestic violence to the point where it is federal law. The Violence Against Women Act has pushed the Primary Aggressor Doctrine to all state police departments. But contrary to common sense, the Primary Aggressor Doctrine isn't something like "Who is hurt worse" or "Who threw the first punch". It's thinks like "Who is physically larger" (almost always the man), "Who has less reason to be afraid" (almost always the man), "Who has more access to resources" (almost always the man). So basically it's policy that the man is always arrested in DV situations.
Thankfully I was able to have a friend of mine who was a navy MP, and a woman most importantly (weird how that works) supervise me and my ex breaking up and her moving out. My ex wasn't afraid to attack me at all because she knew the law would take her side no matter what. She wasn't as keen to attack another woman.
So yeah, I'm not a fan. And all the "That's not what feminism is!" in the world won't change that it's what feminism has done. And crazy me, judging something by what it's done. Go figure.
Wow, to think that feminism forced you to look for a non violent means of resolving a problem. Thats a tough one.
But in all seriousness would your situation have been greatly improved had you been able to put her in the hospital? Do you not see how "she hit me first" could be used by abusive partners?
The law robbed me of my ability to protect myself. Not even with reasonable force. I could not protect my property as she set about destroying everything she could get her hands on. Even the bruises she got from ineffectually slamming her fists against my fore arms would have sent me to jail had she called the police. I was not allowed to non-violently restrain her.
But hey, it's good to know that if someone is attacking you, RIGHT NOW, you are committed to finding a nonviolent way to end it. Good luck with that.
And my fear was that the next attack by her would be more severe. It had been escalating for a while. She'd try to hurt me, it didn't work, she'd get angrier, she'd put more force into it, rinse repeat. I was honestly afraid she was going to resort to using weapons.
But sure, we'll go with your explanation. I'm just looking for an excuse to beat up women. I wasn't the victim at all. Hell, maybe she was even putting me in my place by assaulting me, right? Maybe I had it coming?
Don't be a mra goose.
Any time that there is a fight the very last thing that anyone should do is to escalate it.
But I will ask again, how did you want that to go down? Knock her out? Tie her to a chair. In what way would violence had made you any safer?
Well, lets flip this around. Forget it being a partner of yours. Someone is attacking you in your home, right now! What do you do! And you can't leave because they are blocking the door. Remember, you can't put a hand on them, that's violence! And you can't lock yourself in a room, because they have the keys too! And even if you do successfully leave, they now, instead of hurting you like they want, instead just start destroying everything you own. Starting with whats most important to you. Like keepsakes of dead family members.
The relationship was obviously over the moment she attacked me. What I ended up doing was managing to just literally get punched in the arms, chest and face repeatedly while I got her in a bear hug, and then literally threw her out the door.
I found out after the fact that would have gotten me arrested. So yoohoo?
A robbery and a domestic dispute are two very different things. If someone breaks in there is a clear endgame, the person out of your house. There is a definite aggressor, the person who broke into your house. There is no chance of escalation, we are already at life or death. And when the law gets there and both of you are missing teeth they can arrest the person responsible.
Now let's contrast your situation. Your girlfriend lived with you (I assume) which means that she has squatter rights (in Illinois) and you need to get a court order to kick her out so she has as much right to be there as you do. There is a huge chance of escalation, I mean do you think she would be more or less likely to come at you with a weapon of you hit her. If your life is actually in danger you has every right to protect yourself, including killing her. When the law gets there your arms have some bruises and she is missing teeth. You were in the right but how are they ever going prove it? Most likely both of you go free and you are back where you started.
Now your situation sucked, no question but no jury on earth is going to convict you for bearhugging someone and nothing would be different in your perfect world except your girlfriend missing some teeth.
So really, how did you want it to go down. I am actually curious.
I went about it exactly how I wanted to go about it. I got her out of my apartment. Curiously enough, my crazy ex didn't live with me. She had her own apartment. Yet she had changed her mailing address to mine, without asking me, gaining squatters rights without me knowing as you say. After the first altercation where I threw her out she threatened to call the cops if I ever did that again. I thought she was fucking insane, how would that ever work out for her.
Turns out she was right. She had squatters rights, even though she had her own apartment, starting from when she changed her address. And due to the primary aggressor doctrine, the cops told me I'm not allowed to lay a hand on her no matter what. Not even to pick her up and remove her from my apartment while she's punching and kicking me.
So not only did I find out that the extremely meager response I'd already taken to defend myself was in fact illegal, but things were far, far worse than I thought since she apparently had established a legal right to be there! It was at this point I began looking into legal eviction processes, however instead of pushing things, she started fucking someone else and completely forgot about me.
Dude, I think if you should blame any "group" for not being able to defend yourself, you should be blaming the cops, because I think they were the ones who were poorly executing the law.
Unless the cops were secret feminists out to disempower men or something
@Namrok- I don't think I will ever be able to convince you that it wasn't somehow the fault of "feminists" that you perceived yourself as unable to go to the police in your situation. I am truly sorry that you had to go through that, but I really think you are continually doing harm by laying the blame for this tragedy at the feet of feminists.
Neither him or his girlfriend was apparently severely hurt, with the aid of a third party they broke up without further escalation, and despite his protests that he totally "could" "might" have gone to jail, I don't think he's posting from inside one.
I know I'm being overly sarky here But I'm trying to reconcile this, some of the domestic abuse stories I've heard and the word "tragedy" and its making my brain hurt.
Feminism is concerned with issues of oppression, power, and privilege. It's a mistake to try and separate racism, classism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, etc, out from sexism- they are all related and intertwined.
Third wave feminism is largely a reaction to feminism being primarily a movement of middle-class white women and the inherent privileges that they enjoy, and a striving towards a broader recognition of the issues facing women of color.
That explains why so many middle-class white women seek to avoid the label of feminist then doesn't it?
Indeed, as a white, middle class chick, I have benefited fully from Feminism. Ladies fought to give me the right to vote, work out of the home, get a decent education, and choose what to do with my body. Unfortunately, due to the culture of yester-year, many of these ladies unintentionally or intentionally refused to include coloured women (Hell, one of Canada's favourite Suffragettes would write pamphlets advocating the deportation of 'Chinamen' other 'undesirables')
Now, that's not to say Feminists are racist, it's just that they were so focused on getting white women equality, that they missed the bigger picture. Now they're portrayed in media as middle-aged white college professors wearing pantsuits, and discussing theories around a coffee table. Meanwhile, women from other cultural backgrounds, while partially benefiting from Feminist victories, still often have a way to go.
(This is not to say that all feminists are like the above mentioned pantsuit wearers, indeed, that's just a minority of them)
@Namrok- I don't think I will ever be able to convince you that it wasn't somehow the fault of "feminists" that you perceived yourself as unable to go to the police in your situation. I am truly sorry that you had to go through that, but I really think you are continually doing harm by laying the blame for this tragedy at the feet of feminists.
Neither him or his girlfriend was apparently severely hurt, with the aid of a third party they broke up without further escalation, and despite his protests that he totally "could" "might" have gone to jail, I don't think he's posting from inside one.
I know I'm being overly sarky here but I'm trying to reconcile this, some of the domestic abuse stories I've heard and the word "tragedy" and its making my brain hurt.
Tragedy does not come in a single serving size, dude
Feminism is concerned with issues of oppression, power, and privilege. It's a mistake to try and separate racism, classism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, etc, out from sexism- they are all related and intertwined.
Third wave feminism is largely a reaction to feminism being primarily a movement of middle-class white women and the inherent privileges that they enjoy, and a striving towards a broader recognition of the issues facing women of color.
That explains why so many middle-class white women seek to avoid the label of feminist then doesn't it?
Indeed, as a white, middle class chick, I have benefited fully from Feminism. Ladies fought to give me the right to vote, work out of the home, get a decent education, and choose what to do with my body. Unfortunately, due to the culture of yester-year, many of these ladies unintentionally or intentionally refused to include coloured women (Hell, one of Canada's favourite Suffragettes would write pamphlets advocating the deportation of 'Chinamen' other 'undesirables')
Now, that's not to say Feminists are racist, it's just that they were so focused on getting white women equality, that they missed the bigger picture. Now they're portrayed in media as middle-aged white college professors wearing pantsuits, and discussing theories around a coffee table. Meanwhile, women from other cultural backgrounds, while partially benefiting from Feminist victories, still often have a way to go.
(This is not to say that all feminists are like the above mentioned pantsuit wearers, indeed, that's just a minority of them)
So then do you identify as a feminist? And if not, why not?
Oh I'm extremely thankful things only got as bad as they did. But have you ever almost stepped in front of a bus, and stopped at the final possible moment, and have "Holy shit, I almost died" stuck in your head for a good long time after?
I totally dodged the bus. The crazy ex had me dead to rights. What I did, as meager as it was, was illegal. If she hadn't started fucking someone else and lost interest in hurting me, I would be in jail right now. I would be. She was prepped to start another fight and get me arrested because she knew the system. And the system, according to the feminist primary aggressor doctrine says its worse to use your superior strength and size to remove someone to a safe distance, than it is to punch someone repeatedly in face if you are a woman. It's a feminist policy. It's law. Police departments lose their funding if they don't follow it. Sure there might be awful police officers, but they are implementing an awful policy on top of it.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Ok firstly, before you imply that the "balance of inequality" in domestic violence situations has totally shifted over to being against men let me remind you that there are still countries where its legal to rape your wife.
@Namrok- I don't think I will ever be able to convince you that it wasn't somehow the fault of "feminists" that you perceived yourself as unable to go to the police in your situation. I am truly sorry that you had to go through that, but I really think you are continually doing harm by laying the blame for this tragedy at the feet of feminists.
Neither him or his girlfriend was apparently severely hurt, with the aid of a third party they broke up without further escalation, and despite his protests that he totally "could" "might" have gone to jail, I don't think he's posting from inside one.
I know I'm being overly sarky here But I'm trying to reconcile this, some of the domestic abuse stories I've heard and the word "tragedy" and its making my brain hurt.
On the other hand, a person was physically abused by a partner and the system in place to protect him instead made him feel powerless and unable to get help from the authorities for fear of being victimized a second time.
We have like six other threads where we are being told the sky is falling and the world is ending because people are mean to some lady on the internet about her kickstarter, but when faced with a male abuse victim you snark at him because he's not a "real victim."
To me, Feminism is what Feminism does. And in my lifetime, I'm not a fan of what Feminism has done.
Feminism is responsible for primary aggressor laws which almost got me kicked out of my home when my ex girlfriend decided to attack me. When I made it through the first attack and called the police, asking what I should do if she does it again, they said all I was allowed to do was lock myself in a room. If I laid a hand on her in any way shape or form, no matter what she does first, I get arrested. This is what the police officer who would have shown up at my apartment to arrest someone told me.
This is because Feminism has pushed the Deluth model of domestic violence to the point where it is federal law. The Violence Against Women Act has pushed the Primary Aggressor Doctrine to all state police departments. But contrary to common sense, the Primary Aggressor Doctrine isn't something like "Who is hurt worse" or "Who threw the first punch". It's thinks like "Who is physically larger" (almost always the man), "Who has less reason to be afraid" (almost always the man), "Who has more access to resources" (almost always the man). So basically it's policy that the man is always arrested in DV situations.
Thankfully I was able to have a friend of mine who was a navy MP, and a woman most importantly (weird how that works) supervise me and my ex breaking up and her moving out. My ex wasn't afraid to attack me at all because she knew the law would take her side no matter what. She wasn't as keen to attack another woman.
So yeah, I'm not a fan. And all the "That's not what feminism is!" in the world won't change that it's what feminism has done. And crazy me, judging something by what it's done. Go figure.
Wow, to think that feminism forced you to look for a non violent means of resolving a problem. Thats a tough one.
But in all seriousness would your situation have been greatly improved had you been able to put her in the hospital? Do you not see how "she hit me first" could be used by abusive partners?
The law robbed me of my ability to protect myself. Not even with reasonable force. I could not protect my property as she set about destroying everything she could get her hands on. Even the bruises she got from ineffectually slamming her fists against my fore arms would have sent me to jail had she called the police. I was not allowed to non-violently restrain her.
But hey, it's good to know that if someone is attacking you, RIGHT NOW, you are committed to finding a nonviolent way to end it. Good luck with that.
And my fear was that the next attack by her would be more severe. It had been escalating for a while. She'd try to hurt me, it didn't work, she'd get angrier, she'd put more force into it, rinse repeat. I was honestly afraid she was going to resort to using weapons.
But sure, we'll go with your explanation. I'm just looking for an excuse to beat up women. I wasn't the victim at all. Hell, maybe she was even putting me in my place by assaulting me, right? Maybe I had it coming?
Don't be a mra goose.
Any time that there is a fight the very last thing that anyone should do is to escalate it.
But I will ask again, how did you want that to go down? Knock her out? Tie her to a chair. In what way would violence had made you any safer?
Well, lets flip this around. Forget it being a partner of yours. Someone is attacking you in your home, right now! What do you do! And you can't leave because they are blocking the door. Remember, you can't put a hand on them, that's violence! And you can't lock yourself in a room, because they have the keys too! And even if you do successfully leave, they now, instead of hurting you like they want, instead just start destroying everything you own. Starting with whats most important to you. Like keepsakes of dead family members.
The relationship was obviously over the moment she attacked me. What I ended up doing was managing to just literally get punched in the arms, chest and face repeatedly while I got her in a bear hug, and then literally threw her out the door.
I found out after the fact that would have gotten me arrested. So yoohoo?
A robbery and a domestic dispute are two very different things. If someone breaks in there is a clear endgame, the person out of your house. There is a definite aggressor, the person who broke into your house. There is no chance of escalation, we are already at life or death. And when the law gets there and both of you are missing teeth they can arrest the person responsible.
Now let's contrast your situation. Your girlfriend lived with you (I assume) which means that she has squatter rights (in Illinois) and you need to get a court order to kick her out so she has as much right to be there as you do. There is a huge chance of escalation, I mean do you think she would be more or less likely to come at you with a weapon of you hit her. If your life is actually in danger you has every right to protect yourself, including killing her. When the law gets there your arms have some bruises and she is missing teeth. You were in the right but how are they ever going prove it? Most likely both of you go free and you are back where you started.
Now your situation sucked, no question but no jury on earth is going to convict you for bearhugging someone and nothing would be different in your perfect world except your girlfriend missing some teeth.
So really, how did you want it to go down. I am actually curious.
I went about it exactly how I wanted to go about it. I got her out of my apartment. Curiously enough, my crazy ex didn't live with me. She had her own apartment. Yet she had changed her mailing address to mine, without asking me, gaining squatters rights without me knowing as you say. After the first altercation where I threw her out she threatened to call the cops if I ever did that again. I thought she was fucking insane, how would that ever work out for her.
Turns out she was right. She had squatters rights, even though she had her own apartment, starting from when she changed her address. And due to the primary aggressor doctrine, the cops told me I'm not allowed to lay a hand on her no matter what. Not even to pick her up and remove her from my apartment while she's punching and kicking me.
So not only did I find out that the extremely meager response I'd already taken to defend myself was in fact illegal, but things were far, far worse than I thought since she apparently had established a legal right to be there! It was at this point I began looking into legal eviction processes, however instead of pushing things, she started fucking someone else and completely forgot about me.
And thank god for that.
So everything goes like you want it but a system that has saved thousands of peoples lives caused you to technically be in violation of a law (I don't think you could violently evict someone from their legal residence even before) and you are mad at feminist?
Ok firstly, before you imply that the "balance of inequality" in domestic violence situations has totally shifted over to being against men let me remind you that there are still countries where its legal to rape your wife.
This is hella irrelevant.
If you ever start to suspect there's some kind of nebulous "balance of power" going on where suddenly oh no feminism has gone too far women now have the upper hand who will ever take men seriously now its worth remembering.
@Namrok- I don't think I will ever be able to convince you that it wasn't somehow the fault of "feminists" that you perceived yourself as unable to go to the police in your situation. I am truly sorry that you had to go through that, but I really think you are continually doing harm by laying the blame for this tragedy at the feet of feminists.
Neither him or his girlfriend was apparently severely hurt, with the aid of a third party they broke up without further escalation, and despite his protests that he totally "could" "might" have gone to jail, I don't think he's posting from inside one.
I know I'm being overly sarky here But I'm trying to reconcile this, some of the domestic abuse stories I've heard and the word "tragedy" and its making my brain hurt.
On the other hand, a person was physically abused by a partner and the system in place to protect him instead made him feel powerless and unable to get help from the authorities for fear of being victimized a second time.
We have like six other threads where we are being told the sky is falling and the world is ending because people are mean to some lady on the internet about her kickstarter, but when faced with a male abuse victim you snark at him because he's not a "real victim."
Sexism in action.
Not really.
I don't think a woman should respond to domestic violence by escalation either.
Oh I'm extremely thankful things only got as bad as they did. But have you ever almost stepped in front of a bus, and stopped at the final possible moment, and have "Holy shit, I almost died" stuck in your head for a good long time after?
I totally dodged the bus. The crazy ex had me dead to rights. What I did, as meager as it was, was illegal. If she hadn't started fucking someone else and lost interest in hurting me, I would be in jail right now. I would be. She was prepped to start another fight and get me arrested because she knew the system. And the system, according to the feminist primary aggressor doctrine says its worse to use your superior strength and size to remove someone to a safe distance, than it is to punch someone repeatedly in face if you are a woman. It's a feminist policy. It's law. Police departments lose their funding if they don't follow it. Sure there might be awful police officers, but they are implementing an awful policy on top of it.
Dude either there is nothing on google that corroborates what you are saying, or you are really misinterpreting this with your own biases.
I am really trying to be nice here, but you are quickly becoming a huge goose when you refer to it as "the feminist primary aggressor doctrine".
Like literally the only hits for "feminism primary aggressor doctrine" are this thread and other notedly anti-feminist websites, which basically makes this a weird self-perpetuated meme.
The wikipedia link for "domestic violence" shows up at the very end, and it only mentions the word "feminism" once, whereas "feminist" shows up twice in the text itself. Either back up your claims that the current "laws" were crafted by feminists, back up that they are actually laws or I will conclude you are misinterpreting the following bits from wikipedia.
Statistics on incidents of domestic violence, published in the late 1970s, helped raise public awareness of the problem and increase activism. A study published in 1976 by the Police Foundation found that the police had intervened at least once in the previous two years in 85% of spouse homicides. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, feminists and battered women's advocacy groups were calling on police to take domestic violence more seriously and change intervention strategies.In some instances, these groups took legal action against police departments, including Los Angeles's, Oakland, California's and New York City's, to get them to make arrests in domestic violence cases.They claimed that police assigned low priority to domestic disturbance calls.
Modern attention to domestic violence began in the women's movement of the 1970s, particularly within the contexts of feminism and women's rights, as concern about wives being beaten by their husbands gained attention
Oh, also from wikipedia as well (which was reflected in a few other police and domestic violence websites when I found them through "primary aggressor doctrine") so we can all see what this "feminist" policy is.
Each agency and jurisdiction within the United States has its own Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) when it comes to responding and handling domestic calls. Generally, it has been accepted that if the understood victim has visible (and recent) marks of abuse, the suspect is arrested and charged with the appropriate crime. However, that is a guideline and not a rule. Like any other call, domestic abuse lies in a gray area. Law enforcement officers have several things to consider when making a warrantless arrest:
-Are there signs of physical abuse?
-Were there witnesses?
-Is it recent?
-Was the victim assaulted by the alleged suspect?
-Who is the primary aggressor?
-Could the victim be lying?
-Could the suspect be lying?
Along with protecting the victim, law enforcement officers have to ensure that the alleged abusers' rights are not violated. Many times in cases of mutual combatants, it is departmental policy that both parties be arrested and the court system can establish truth at a later date. In some areas of the nation, this mutual combatant philosophy is being replaced by the primary abuser philosophy in which case if both parties have physical injuries, the law enforcement officer determines who the primary aggressor is and only arrests that one. This philosophy started gaining momentum when different government/private agencies started researching the effects. It was found that when both parties are arrested, it had an adverse effect on the victim. The victims were less likely to call or trust law enforcement during the next incident of domestic abuse.
This says nothing about "police will only arrest the guy in violent conflicts", although I am tentatively accepting that there is a perception of bias towards men being the aggressors but this is not the fault of feminism.
EDIT: and under a large swathe of feminist thought, battling this perception bias is the purpose of feminism
Feminism is concerned with issues of oppression, power, and privilege. It's a mistake to try and separate racism, classism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, etc, out from sexism- they are all related and intertwined.
Third wave feminism is largely a reaction to feminism being primarily a movement of middle-class white women and the inherent privileges that they enjoy, and a striving towards a broader recognition of the issues facing women of color.
That explains why so many middle-class white women seek to avoid the label of feminist then doesn't it?
Indeed, as a white, middle class chick, I have benefited fully from Feminism. Ladies fought to give me the right to vote, work out of the home, get a decent education, and choose what to do with my body. Unfortunately, due to the culture of yester-year, many of these ladies unintentionally or intentionally refused to include coloured women (Hell, one of Canada's favourite Suffragettes would write pamphlets advocating the deportation of 'Chinamen' other 'undesirables')
Now, that's not to say Feminists are racist, it's just that they were so focused on getting white women equality, that they missed the bigger picture. Now they're portrayed in media as middle-aged white college professors wearing pantsuits, and discussing theories around a coffee table. Meanwhile, women from other cultural backgrounds, while partially benefiting from Feminist victories, still often have a way to go.
(This is not to say that all feminists are like the above mentioned pantsuit wearers, indeed, that's just a minority of them)
So then do you identify as a feminist? And if not, why not?
If, by core definition, a feminist is "Both Genders Must Be Treated Equally", yes, I would most whole-heartedly embrace that term. The issue is, that there are as many versions of Feminism as there are feminists. You've got feminists who believe that women should embrace their sexuality, and that stripping, prostitution, and pornography is empowering, while others feel that those actions are ways of Objectifying Women. You have feminists who believe Burkas are the product of men controlling women, and therefore should be banned, and other feminists who think that women have the right to wear one if they so please. There are feminists who believe that trans-women aren't really 'women', just wannabe women, and others who whole-heartedly embrace anyone who considers themselves' "female". For every subject about gender, there is a sizable group who endorses/opposes it, and yet claims "Feminism"
Hell, even in Namrok's case, there are feminists who don't like those laws, insisting it gives the impression that women are weak, and need to be saved from the 'Big Bad Boyfriend'.
That's the issue with Feminism, too many different sub genres.
I find it's easier to be a racist/sexist/bigot. Hatred is so much simpler, it seems.
@Namrok- I don't think I will ever be able to convince you that it wasn't somehow the fault of "feminists" that you perceived yourself as unable to go to the police in your situation. I am truly sorry that you had to go through that, but I really think you are continually doing harm by laying the blame for this tragedy at the feet of feminists.
Neither him or his girlfriend was apparently severely hurt, with the aid of a third party they broke up without further escalation, and despite his protests that he totally "could" "might" have gone to jail, I don't think he's posting from inside one.
I know I'm being overly sarky here But I'm trying to reconcile this, some of the domestic abuse stories I've heard and the word "tragedy" and its making my brain hurt.
On the other hand, a person was physically abused by a partner and the system in place to protect him instead made him feel powerless and unable to get help from the authorities for fear of being victimized a second time.
We have like six other threads where we are being told the sky is falling and the world is ending because people are mean to some lady on the internet about her kickstarter, but when faced with a male abuse victim you snark at him because he's not a "real victim."
Sexism in action.
Not really.
It's totally sexist. It's a terribly sexist double standard. For all that women underreport domestic violence, men essentially never report it. It's so underreported there aren't even very good statistics for male victims of domestic violence.
Ironically, this is one of those areas where claims that feminism work for both sexes would actually apply. Patriarchal views, as well as the Duluth model of domestic violence, which is completely patriarchal and not feminist at all by the way, and based on extremely shoddy psychology to boot, ensure that when men are abused, they will not report it. When they do, rarely, report it, they are often victimized by the police because our laws do indeed assume that domestic violence is a male-on-female crime. And Namrock was very much correct to be afraid, since domestic violence with a woman abusing a man is much more likely to escalate to the woman attacking the man with a deadly weapon than when the DV is male-on-female.
@Namrok- I don't think I will ever be able to convince you that it wasn't somehow the fault of "feminists" that you perceived yourself as unable to go to the police in your situation. I am truly sorry that you had to go through that, but I really think you are continually doing harm by laying the blame for this tragedy at the feet of feminists.
Neither him or his girlfriend was apparently severely hurt, with the aid of a third party they broke up without further escalation, and despite his protests that he totally "could" "might" have gone to jail, I don't think he's posting from inside one.
I know I'm being overly sarky here But I'm trying to reconcile this, some of the domestic abuse stories I've heard and the word "tragedy" and its making my brain hurt.
On the other hand, a person was physically abused by a partner and the system in place to protect him instead made him feel powerless and unable to get help from the authorities for fear of being victimized a second time.
We have like six other threads where we are being told the sky is falling and the world is ending because people are mean to some lady on the internet about her kickstarter, but when faced with a male abuse victim you snark at him because he's not a "real victim."
Sexism in action.
The point, though, is why did it make him feel powerless? He keeps saying that it was illegal for him to defend himself, but his reasoning for that is because that's what a police officer told him. One need only peruse the myriad cop threads we've had to realize how much that really means.
Oh, and threats of violence and death are a bit more than" being mean".
Feminism is concerned with issues of oppression, power, and privilege. It's a mistake to try and separate racism, classism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, etc, out from sexism- they are all related and intertwined.
Third wave feminism is largely a reaction to feminism being primarily a movement of middle-class white women and the inherent privileges that they enjoy, and a striving towards a broader recognition of the issues facing women of color.
That explains why so many middle-class white women seek to avoid the label of feminist then doesn't it?
Indeed, as a white, middle class chick, I have benefited fully from Feminism. Ladies fought to give me the right to vote, work out of the home, get a decent education, and choose what to do with my body. Unfortunately, due to the culture of yester-year, many of these ladies unintentionally or intentionally refused to include coloured women (Hell, one of Canada's favourite Suffragettes would write pamphlets advocating the deportation of 'Chinamen' other 'undesirables')
Now, that's not to say Feminists are racist, it's just that they were so focused on getting white women equality, that they missed the bigger picture. Now they're portrayed in media as middle-aged white college professors wearing pantsuits, and discussing theories around a coffee table. Meanwhile, women from other cultural backgrounds, while partially benefiting from Feminist victories, still often have a way to go.
(This is not to say that all feminists are like the above mentioned pantsuit wearers, indeed, that's just a minority of them)
So then do you identify as a feminist? And if not, why not?
If, by core definition, a feminist is "Both Genders Must Be Treated Equally", yes, I would most whole-heartedly embrace that term. The issue is, that there are as many versions of Feminism as there are feminists. You've got feminists who believe that women should embrace their sexuality, and that stripping, prostitution, and pornography is empowering, while others feel that those actions are ways of Objectifying Women. You have feminists who believe Burkas are the product of men controlling women, and therefore should be banned, and other feminists who think that women have the right to wear one if they so please. There are feminists who believe that trans-women aren't really 'women', just wannabe women, and others who whole-heartedly embrace anyone who considers themselves' "female". For every subject about gender, there is a sizable group who endorses/opposes it, and yet claims "Feminism"
Hell, even in Namrok's case, there are feminists who don't like those laws, insisting it gives the impression that women are weak, and need to be saved from the 'Big Bad Boyfriend'.
That's the issue with Feminism, too many different sub genres.
Ok firstly, before you imply that the "balance of inequality" in domestic violence situations has totally shifted over to being against men let me remind you that there are still countries where its legal to rape your wife.
This is hella irrelevant.
If you ever start to suspect there's some kind of nebulous "balance of power" going on where suddenly oh no feminism has gone too far women now have the upper hand who will ever take men seriously now its worth remembering.
Next up we're going to have an argument talking about how women should just stop complaining because at least they're not living in the middle east.
Would your argument still work if we actually had true oppression of males in our societies? Because it still wouldn't weigh up to other countries?
Feminism is concerned with issues of oppression, power, and privilege. It's a mistake to try and separate racism, classism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, etc, out from sexism- they are all related and intertwined.
Third wave feminism is largely a reaction to feminism being primarily a movement of middle-class white women and the inherent privileges that they enjoy, and a striving towards a broader recognition of the issues facing women of color.
That explains why so many middle-class white women seek to avoid the label of feminist then doesn't it?
Indeed, as a white, middle class chick, I have benefited fully from Feminism. Ladies fought to give me the right to vote, work out of the home, get a decent education, and choose what to do with my body. Unfortunately, due to the culture of yester-year, many of these ladies unintentionally or intentionally refused to include coloured women (Hell, one of Canada's favourite Suffragettes would write pamphlets advocating the deportation of 'Chinamen' other 'undesirables')
Now, that's not to say Feminists are racist, it's just that they were so focused on getting white women equality, that they missed the bigger picture. Now they're portrayed in media as middle-aged white college professors wearing pantsuits, and discussing theories around a coffee table. Meanwhile, women from other cultural backgrounds, while partially benefiting from Feminist victories, still often have a way to go.
(This is not to say that all feminists are like the above mentioned pantsuit wearers, indeed, that's just a minority of them)
So then do you identify as a feminist? And if not, why not?
If, by core definition, a feminist is "Both Genders Must Be Treated Equally", yes, I would most whole-heartedly embrace that term. The issue is, that there are as many versions of Feminism as there are feminists. You've got feminists who believe that women should embrace their sexuality, and that stripping, prostitution, and pornography is empowering, while others feel that those actions are ways of Objectifying Women. You have feminists who believe Burkas are the product of men controlling women, and therefore should be banned, and other feminists who think that women have the right to wear one if they so please. There are feminists who believe that trans-women aren't really 'women', just wannabe women, and others who whole-heartedly embrace anyone who considers themselves' "female". For every subject about gender, there is a sizable group who endorses/opposes it, and yet claims "Feminism"
Hell, even in Namrok's case, there are feminists who don't like those laws, insisting it gives the impression that women are weak, and need to be saved from the 'Big Bad Boyfriend'.
That's the issue with Feminism, too many different sub genres.
So, then the answer is "yes" but actually "no"?
Sigh, yes, I would consider myself a Feminist.
It's sad I can't answer a simple yes or no question about that. Makes me look like a damn politician.
@Namrok- I don't think I will ever be able to convince you that it wasn't somehow the fault of "feminists" that you perceived yourself as unable to go to the police in your situation. I am truly sorry that you had to go through that, but I really think you are continually doing harm by laying the blame for this tragedy at the feet of feminists.
Neither him or his girlfriend was apparently severely hurt, with the aid of a third party they broke up without further escalation, and despite his protests that he totally "could" "might" have gone to jail, I don't think he's posting from inside one.
I know I'm being overly sarky here But I'm trying to reconcile this, some of the domestic abuse stories I've heard and the word "tragedy" and its making my brain hurt.
On the other hand, a person was physically abused by a partner and the system in place to protect him instead made him feel powerless and unable to get help from the authorities for fear of being victimized a second time.
We have like six other threads where we are being told the sky is falling and the world is ending because people are mean to some lady on the internet about her kickstarter, but when faced with a male abuse victim you snark at him because he's not a "real victim."
Sexism in action.
Victimized by his girlfriend, yes and that's fucking terrible.
This victimization by the feminist controlled system though I'm not seeing considering that as far as things could have turned out they came out as best you could have hoped for in a bad situation. Like is he implying that its an issue that he was forced to get a female third party to help him move out? Is that not the most sensible thing you could do? Along with not attempting to "restrain" her which could well have ended with a knife in the gut or both parties with broken teeth? What is all this talk about policemen who "would" "might" "could" have arrested him at any point? Why would the hypothetical arrest have necessarily even stuck?
And then the realization that in a conversation about domestic violence we've somehow come around to the "well men are the real victims here" stage of discussion is what pushed me into exasperated snark. Yeah fuck those domestic violence laws, women couldn't possibly know what its like to be victimised by an unfair system. A policeman said he might have arrested me.
Which is unnecessary, true. I apologize, I'll try to keep it contained. Maybe that means taking a break for a while.
Feminism is concerned with issues of oppression, power, and privilege. It's a mistake to try and separate racism, classism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, etc, out from sexism- they are all related and intertwined.
Third wave feminism is largely a reaction to feminism being primarily a movement of middle-class white women and the inherent privileges that they enjoy, and a striving towards a broader recognition of the issues facing women of color.
That explains why so many middle-class white women seek to avoid the label of feminist then doesn't it?
Indeed, as a white, middle class chick, I have benefited fully from Feminism. Ladies fought to give me the right to vote, work out of the home, get a decent education, and choose what to do with my body. Unfortunately, due to the culture of yester-year, many of these ladies unintentionally or intentionally refused to include coloured women (Hell, one of Canada's favourite Suffragettes would write pamphlets advocating the deportation of 'Chinamen' other 'undesirables')
Now, that's not to say Feminists are racist, it's just that they were so focused on getting white women equality, that they missed the bigger picture. Now they're portrayed in media as middle-aged white college professors wearing pantsuits, and discussing theories around a coffee table. Meanwhile, women from other cultural backgrounds, while partially benefiting from Feminist victories, still often have a way to go.
(This is not to say that all feminists are like the above mentioned pantsuit wearers, indeed, that's just a minority of them)
So then do you identify as a feminist? And if not, why not?
If, by core definition, a feminist is "Both Genders Must Be Treated Equally", yes, I would most whole-heartedly embrace that term. The issue is, that there are as many versions of Feminism as there are feminists. You've got feminists who believe that women should embrace their sexuality, and that stripping, prostitution, and pornography is empowering, while others feel that those actions are ways of Objectifying Women. You have feminists who believe Burkas are the product of men controlling women, and therefore should be banned, and other feminists who think that women have the right to wear one if they so please. There are feminists who believe that trans-women aren't really 'women', just wannabe women, and others who whole-heartedly embrace anyone who considers themselves' "female". For every subject about gender, there is a sizable group who endorses/opposes it, and yet claims "Feminism"
Hell, even in Namrok's case, there are feminists who don't like those laws, insisting it gives the impression that women are weak, and need to be saved from the 'Big Bad Boyfriend'.
That's the issue with Feminism, too many different sub genres.
So, then the answer is "yes" but actually "no"?
Sigh, yes, I would consider myself a Feminist.
It's sad I can't answer a simple yes or no question about that. Makes me look like a damn politician.
Feminism is concerned with issues of oppression, power, and privilege. It's a mistake to try and separate racism, classism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, etc, out from sexism- they are all related and intertwined.
Third wave feminism is largely a reaction to feminism being primarily a movement of middle-class white women and the inherent privileges that they enjoy, and a striving towards a broader recognition of the issues facing women of color.
That explains why so many middle-class white women seek to avoid the label of feminist then doesn't it?
Indeed, as a white, middle class chick, I have benefited fully from Feminism. Ladies fought to give me the right to vote, work out of the home, get a decent education, and choose what to do with my body. Unfortunately, due to the culture of yester-year, many of these ladies unintentionally or intentionally refused to include coloured women (Hell, one of Canada's favourite Suffragettes would write pamphlets advocating the deportation of 'Chinamen' other 'undesirables')
Now, that's not to say Feminists are racist, it's just that they were so focused on getting white women equality, that they missed the bigger picture. Now they're portrayed in media as middle-aged white college professors wearing pantsuits, and discussing theories around a coffee table. Meanwhile, women from other cultural backgrounds, while partially benefiting from Feminist victories, still often have a way to go.
(This is not to say that all feminists are like the above mentioned pantsuit wearers, indeed, that's just a minority of them)
So then do you identify as a feminist? And if not, why not?
If, by core definition, a feminist is "Both Genders Must Be Treated Equally", yes, I would most whole-heartedly embrace that term. The issue is, that there are as many versions of Feminism as there are feminists. You've got feminists who believe that women should embrace their sexuality, and that stripping, prostitution, and pornography is empowering, while others feel that those actions are ways of Objectifying Women. You have feminists who believe Burkas are the product of men controlling women, and therefore should be banned, and other feminists who think that women have the right to wear one if they so please. There are feminists who believe that trans-women aren't really 'women', just wannabe women, and others who whole-heartedly embrace anyone who considers themselves' "female". For every subject about gender, there is a sizable group who endorses/opposes it, and yet claims "Feminism"
Hell, even in Namrok's case, there are feminists who don't like those laws, insisting it gives the impression that women are weak, and need to be saved from the 'Big Bad Boyfriend'.
That's the issue with Feminism, too many different sub genres.
So, then the answer is "yes" but actually "no"?
Sigh, yes, I would consider myself a Feminist.
It's sad I can't answer a simple yes or no question about that. Makes me look like a damn politician.
Sorry, my answer was really really snarky.
I apologize, and it was not necessary.
But I mean, life is complicated yo
All is good, ole' chap.
To be honest, answering that question makes me think about what Feminism really is. Also, it makes me kind of depressed.
@Namrok- I don't think I will ever be able to convince you that it wasn't somehow the fault of "feminists" that you perceived yourself as unable to go to the police in your situation. I am truly sorry that you had to go through that, but I really think you are continually doing harm by laying the blame for this tragedy at the feet of feminists.
Neither him or his girlfriend was apparently severely hurt, with the aid of a third party they broke up without further escalation, and despite his protests that he totally "could" "might" have gone to jail, I don't think he's posting from inside one.
I know I'm being overly sarky here But I'm trying to reconcile this, some of the domestic abuse stories I've heard and the word "tragedy" and its making my brain hurt.
On the other hand, a person was physically abused by a partner and the system in place to protect him instead made him feel powerless and unable to get help from the authorities for fear of being victimized a second time.
We have like six other threads where we are being told the sky is falling and the world is ending because people are mean to some lady on the internet about her kickstarter, but when faced with a male abuse victim you snark at him because he's not a "real victim."
Sexism in action.
Not really.
It's totally sexist. It's a terribly sexist double standard. For all that women underreport domestic violence, men essentially never report it. It's so underreported there aren't even very good statistics for male victims of domestic violence.
Ironically, this is one of those areas where claims that feminism work for both sexes would actually apply. Patriarchal views, as well as the Duluth model of domestic violence, which is completely patriarchal and not feminist at all by the way, and based on extremely shoddy psychology to boot, ensure that when men are abused, they will not report it. When they do, rarely, report it, they are often victimized by the police because our laws do indeed assume that domestic violence is a male-on-female crime. And Namrock was very much correct to be afraid, since domestic violence with a woman abusing a man is much more likely to escalate to the woman attacking the man with a deadly weapon than when the DV is male-on-female.
I don't think a woman should respond to domestic violence by escalation either.
That's irrelevant to the post of mine that you quoted.
Oh Sorry.
Anyway, I don't think anyone is trying to diminish namroks story here. We just have a problem with someone claiming a law that has helped tons of people avoid serious physical harm and death is somehow worse than the abuse it prevents.
I mean, the answer for men having less protections than woman it's for woman to have less protection. Its for men to have more.
Anyway, I don't think anyone is trying to diminish namroks story here. We just have a problem with someone claiming a law that has helped tons of people avoid serious physical harm and death is somehow worse than the abuse it prevents.
I mean, the answer for men having less protections than woman it's for woman to have less protection. Its for men to have more.
In order for men to have any, the entire framework of "cherished" domestic violence laws and treatment for such would have to be nuked. It's based on an inherent bias: Men abuse women. Men who abuse women are broken and need to have behavior modification therapy to keep them from being violent toward women.
There's nothing in the system to even treat or divert a woman, assuming it was even possible to apply domestic violence laws to a female abuser, rather than simple assault or some other charge that will not trigger all the special bells and whistles which apply to male aggressors in domestic violence situations.
Now there are lots of women who support these laws, and men as well. But that doesn't mean the whole set-up isn't stinky and reeking of sexism. It's terribly sexist. Women can be aggressive, they can be violent, they can attack people. That men do it more often is a rather stupid reason to set up a whole system based on the false assumption that "often" means "exclusively".
Anyway, I don't think anyone is trying to diminish namroks story here. We just have a problem with someone claiming a law that has helped tons of people avoid serious physical harm and death is somehow worse than the abuse it prevents.
I mean, the answer for men having less protections than woman it's for woman to have less protection. Its for men to have more.
In order for men to have any, the entire framework of "cherished" domestic violence laws and treatment for such would have to be nuked. It's based on an inherent bias: Men abuse women. Men who abuse women are broken and need to have behavior modification therapy to keep them from being violent toward women.
There's nothing in the system to even treat or divert a woman, assuming it was even possible to apply domestic violence laws to a female abuser, rather than simple assault or some other charge that will not trigger all the special bells and whistles which apply to male aggressors in domestic violence situations.
Now there are lots of women who support these laws, and men as well. But that doesn't mean the whole set-up isn't stinky and reeking of sexism. It's terribly sexist. Women can be aggressive, they can be violent, they can attack people. That men do it more often is a rather stupid reason to set up a whole system based on the false assumption that "often" means "exclusively".
The way I see it is that since the 3rd Wave (or the mid-3rd wave) Feminism is almost more a philosophy or a tradition of thought than a political movement. I mean it's both, but it has more characteristics of a philosophy or an ideology than a political movement. They're closer to a school of Critical Studies than an interest group, which is why it's important that the key concepts in it, like 'privilege', aren't twisted to make political allies feel better. A feminism which doesn't call out sexism isn't feminism.
Part of the problem with the idea of privilege is that we have these cartoonish concepts of privileged people that an't include a real person, or yourself. Privilege is something we all commit, it's a block that the privilege have that prevents them from understanding the plights of the unprivileged, a block that can be hurdled over but can't be destroyed.
Ethan Smith on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I think @Feral quite rightly pointed out that LBGTQ(I think there are more letters now but I've forgotten them) sometimes gets the short end of the stick and I think that can very easily be folded into feminism, which in today's world could perhaps better be called Gender Equality?
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
Bagginses, consider this your first golden opportunity to reapproach the way you participate in topical threads. If good-faith discussion is too challenging for you, I have a button here that can help.
@Namrok- I don't think I will ever be able to convince you that it wasn't somehow the fault of "feminists" that you perceived yourself as unable to go to the police in your situation. I am truly sorry that you had to go through that, but I really think you are continually doing harm by laying the blame for this tragedy at the feet of feminists.
Neither him or his girlfriend was apparently severely hurt, with the aid of a third party they broke up without further escalation, and despite his protests that he totally "could" "might" have gone to jail, I don't think he's posting from inside one.
I know I'm being overly sarky here But I'm trying to reconcile this, some of the domestic abuse stories I've heard and the word "tragedy" and its making my brain hurt.
On the other hand, a person was physically abused by a partner and the system in place to protect him instead made him feel powerless and unable to get help from the authorities for fear of being victimized a second time.
We have like six other threads where we are being told the sky is falling and the world is ending because people are mean to some lady on the internet about her kickstarter, but when faced with a male abuse victim you snark at him because he's not a "real victim."
Sexism in action.
The point, though, is why did it make him feel powerless? He keeps saying that it was illegal for him to defend himself, but his reasoning for that is because that's what a police officer told him. One need only peruse the myriad cop threads we've had to realize how much that really means.
Oh, and threats of violence and death are a bit more than" being mean".
It looks very much like he double checked the laws to confirm what the officer told him in his story. I'm guessing he either checked printed statutes or that it's been enough years for him to lose the link. He was certainly able to summarize the laws more completely than the officer told him.
Bagginses, consider this your first golden opportunity to reapproach the way you participate in topical threads. If good-faith discussion is too challenging for you, I have a button here that can help.
I'm not really sure how that breaks any forum rules. I'm definitely not the first to post sarcastically or note moving goalposts and false scotsmen, and you have to see how the people who passed those laws are in no way inconsistent with the dominant definition of "anyone who supports equal rights for women" other than the fact that they did something unpopular.
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
edited July 2012
Except no goalposts were moved. Feminism did not do anything to Namrok. His ex-girlfriend, who clearly had some issues to work through, decided to be a terrible person. Local law enforcement officials proved to be no help. I'm not saying there aren't issues with the legal mechanisms that gave him hardship, but saying Feminism is responsible is ludicrous.
Except no goalposts were moved. Feminism did not do anything to Namrok. His ex-girlfriend, who clearly had some issues to work through, decided to be a terrible person. Local law enforcement officials proved to be no help. I'm not saying there aren't issues with the legal mechanisms that gave him hardship, but saying Feminism is responsible is ludicrous.
So the groups that lobbied for the laws aren't responsible for the laws?
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
Except no goalposts were moved. Feminism did not do anything to Namrok. His ex-girlfriend, who clearly had some issues to work through, decided to be a terrible person. Local law enforcement officials proved to be no help. I'm not saying there aren't issues with the legal mechanisms that gave him hardship, but saying Feminism is responsible is ludicrous.
So the groups that lobbied for the laws aren't responsible for the laws?
Obviously white people can't be trusted with the power to create laws given the awful laws they have lobbied for.
The idea is that if you examine privilege, you'll be able to make better moral decisions because you're aware of things you weren't before. Like if you read up on alcohol statstics you'll make a more informed decision about how you drink. Or if you read about ethical trade then that will hopefully affect what you buy.
Exactly. It's the essential, "If you were as enlightened as I was, you would realize I'm right." I see privilege as a tool for introspection. When you use it as leverage against those who don't agree with you, you're doing it wrong.
I mean yes its leading you towards a predetermined conclusion of "thinking about how your actions affect other people".
That's something we learn as children. You're closing off options when you frame privilege as, "If you were less ignorant, you'd see I was right."
Man when you say that someone who hasn't introspected that much may not understand themself that much that just gets me angry.
You assume a lack of introspection... why? I just don't see how you can have a proper debate with someone when your attitude is, "You're wrong... Go think about it and get back to me when you've realized I'm right."
Man when you say that someone who hasn't introspected that much may not understand themself that much that just gets me angry.
You assume a lack of introspection... why? I just don't see how you can have a proper debate with someone when your attitude is, "You're wrong... Go think about it and get back to me when you've realized I'm right."
I assume a lack of introspection because you say that privilege is a tool for introspection. Is it teleological? Clearly not, because as it's been said in this thread no feminist agrees with another over what feminism precisely means. But if you go through the introspection process of privilege, if you try to put yourself in the shoes of someone who doesn't have the advantages you have, and still argue the same points that you made before you went through that process, then yeah you need to think about it more. An introspection process would suggest something changing, some greater amount of self awareness, or a changed behavior. To go through a transformational process without changing wouldn't make sense.
Posts
I went about it exactly how I wanted to go about it. I got her out of my apartment. Curiously enough, my crazy ex didn't live with me. She had her own apartment. Yet she had changed her mailing address to mine, without asking me, gaining squatters rights without me knowing as you say. After the first altercation where I threw her out she threatened to call the cops if I ever did that again. I thought she was fucking insane, how would that ever work out for her.
Turns out she was right. She had squatters rights, even though she had her own apartment, starting from when she changed her address. And due to the primary aggressor doctrine, the cops told me I'm not allowed to lay a hand on her no matter what. Not even to pick her up and remove her from my apartment while she's punching and kicking me.
So not only did I find out that the extremely meager response I'd already taken to defend myself was in fact illegal, but things were far, far worse than I thought since she apparently had established a legal right to be there! It was at this point I began looking into legal eviction processes, however instead of pushing things, she started fucking someone else and completely forgot about me.
And thank god for that.
Unless the cops were secret feminists out to disempower men or something
Neither him or his girlfriend was apparently severely hurt, with the aid of a third party they broke up without further escalation, and despite his protests that he totally "could" "might" have gone to jail, I don't think he's posting from inside one.
I know I'm being overly sarky here But I'm trying to reconcile this, some of the domestic abuse stories I've heard and the word "tragedy" and its making my brain hurt.
Indeed, as a white, middle class chick, I have benefited fully from Feminism. Ladies fought to give me the right to vote, work out of the home, get a decent education, and choose what to do with my body. Unfortunately, due to the culture of yester-year, many of these ladies unintentionally or intentionally refused to include coloured women (Hell, one of Canada's favourite Suffragettes would write pamphlets advocating the deportation of 'Chinamen' other 'undesirables')
Now, that's not to say Feminists are racist, it's just that they were so focused on getting white women equality, that they missed the bigger picture. Now they're portrayed in media as middle-aged white college professors wearing pantsuits, and discussing theories around a coffee table. Meanwhile, women from other cultural backgrounds, while partially benefiting from Feminist victories, still often have a way to go.
(This is not to say that all feminists are like the above mentioned pantsuit wearers, indeed, that's just a minority of them)
WoW
Dear Satan.....
Tragedy does not come in a single serving size, dude
So then do you identify as a feminist? And if not, why not?
I totally dodged the bus. The crazy ex had me dead to rights. What I did, as meager as it was, was illegal. If she hadn't started fucking someone else and lost interest in hurting me, I would be in jail right now. I would be. She was prepped to start another fight and get me arrested because she knew the system. And the system, according to the feminist primary aggressor doctrine says its worse to use your superior strength and size to remove someone to a safe distance, than it is to punch someone repeatedly in face if you are a woman. It's a feminist policy. It's law. Police departments lose their funding if they don't follow it. Sure there might be awful police officers, but they are implementing an awful policy on top of it.
On the other hand, a person was physically abused by a partner and the system in place to protect him instead made him feel powerless and unable to get help from the authorities for fear of being victimized a second time.
We have like six other threads where we are being told the sky is falling and the world is ending because people are mean to some lady on the internet about her kickstarter, but when faced with a male abuse victim you snark at him because he's not a "real victim."
Sexism in action.
So everything goes like you want it but a system that has saved thousands of peoples lives caused you to technically be in violation of a law (I don't think you could violently evict someone from their legal residence even before) and you are mad at feminist?
I think I lost the plot somewhere.
If you ever start to suspect there's some kind of nebulous "balance of power" going on where suddenly oh no feminism has gone too far women now have the upper hand who will ever take men seriously now its worth remembering.
Not really.
I don't think a woman should respond to domestic violence by escalation either.
Dude either there is nothing on google that corroborates what you are saying, or you are really misinterpreting this with your own biases.
I am really trying to be nice here, but you are quickly becoming a huge goose when you refer to it as "the feminist primary aggressor doctrine".
Like literally the only hits for "feminism primary aggressor doctrine" are this thread and other notedly anti-feminist websites, which basically makes this a weird self-perpetuated meme.
The wikipedia link for "domestic violence" shows up at the very end, and it only mentions the word "feminism" once, whereas "feminist" shows up twice in the text itself. Either back up your claims that the current "laws" were crafted by feminists, back up that they are actually laws or I will conclude you are misinterpreting the following bits from wikipedia.
This says nothing about "police will only arrest the guy in violent conflicts", although I am tentatively accepting that there is a perception of bias towards men being the aggressors but this is not the fault of feminism.
EDIT: and under a large swathe of feminist thought, battling this perception bias is the purpose of feminism
If, by core definition, a feminist is "Both Genders Must Be Treated Equally", yes, I would most whole-heartedly embrace that term. The issue is, that there are as many versions of Feminism as there are feminists. You've got feminists who believe that women should embrace their sexuality, and that stripping, prostitution, and pornography is empowering, while others feel that those actions are ways of Objectifying Women. You have feminists who believe Burkas are the product of men controlling women, and therefore should be banned, and other feminists who think that women have the right to wear one if they so please. There are feminists who believe that trans-women aren't really 'women', just wannabe women, and others who whole-heartedly embrace anyone who considers themselves' "female". For every subject about gender, there is a sizable group who endorses/opposes it, and yet claims "Feminism"
Hell, even in Namrok's case, there are feminists who don't like those laws, insisting it gives the impression that women are weak, and need to be saved from the 'Big Bad Boyfriend'.
That's the issue with Feminism, too many different sub genres.
I find it's easier to be a racist/sexist/bigot. Hatred is so much simpler, it seems.
WoW
Dear Satan.....
It's totally sexist. It's a terribly sexist double standard. For all that women underreport domestic violence, men essentially never report it. It's so underreported there aren't even very good statistics for male victims of domestic violence.
Ironically, this is one of those areas where claims that feminism work for both sexes would actually apply. Patriarchal views, as well as the Duluth model of domestic violence, which is completely patriarchal and not feminist at all by the way, and based on extremely shoddy psychology to boot, ensure that when men are abused, they will not report it. When they do, rarely, report it, they are often victimized by the police because our laws do indeed assume that domestic violence is a male-on-female crime. And Namrock was very much correct to be afraid, since domestic violence with a woman abusing a man is much more likely to escalate to the woman attacking the man with a deadly weapon than when the DV is male-on-female.
That's irrelevant to the post of mine that you quoted.
The point, though, is why did it make him feel powerless? He keeps saying that it was illegal for him to defend himself, but his reasoning for that is because that's what a police officer told him. One need only peruse the myriad cop threads we've had to realize how much that really means.
Oh, and threats of violence and death are a bit more than" being mean".
So, then the answer is "yes" but actually "no"?
Next up we're going to have an argument talking about how women should just stop complaining because at least they're not living in the middle east.
Would your argument still work if we actually had true oppression of males in our societies? Because it still wouldn't weigh up to other countries?
Sigh, yes, I would consider myself a Feminist.
It's sad I can't answer a simple yes or no question about that. Makes me look like a damn politician.
WoW
Dear Satan.....
Hitting someone for real > nasty threat emails.
You're free to disagree, of course.
Victimized by his girlfriend, yes and that's fucking terrible.
This victimization by the feminist controlled system though I'm not seeing considering that as far as things could have turned out they came out as best you could have hoped for in a bad situation. Like is he implying that its an issue that he was forced to get a female third party to help him move out? Is that not the most sensible thing you could do? Along with not attempting to "restrain" her which could well have ended with a knife in the gut or both parties with broken teeth? What is all this talk about policemen who "would" "might" "could" have arrested him at any point? Why would the hypothetical arrest have necessarily even stuck?
And then the realization that in a conversation about domestic violence we've somehow come around to the "well men are the real victims here" stage of discussion is what pushed me into exasperated snark. Yeah fuck those domestic violence laws, women couldn't possibly know what its like to be victimised by an unfair system. A policeman said he might have arrested me.
Which is unnecessary, true. I apologize, I'll try to keep it contained. Maybe that means taking a break for a while.
Sorry, my answer was really really snarky.
I apologize, and it was not necessary.
But I mean, life is complicated yo
All is good, ole' chap.
To be honest, answering that question makes me think about what Feminism really is. Also, it makes me kind of depressed.
WoW
Dear Satan.....
Oh Sorry.
Anyway, I don't think anyone is trying to diminish namroks story here. We just have a problem with someone claiming a law that has helped tons of people avoid serious physical harm and death is somehow worse than the abuse it prevents.
I mean, the answer for men having less protections than woman it's for woman to have less protection. Its for men to have more.
This isn't the Abuse and Oppression Olympics. Some of us elect to weigh discrete issues independently.
In order for men to have any, the entire framework of "cherished" domestic violence laws and treatment for such would have to be nuked. It's based on an inherent bias: Men abuse women. Men who abuse women are broken and need to have behavior modification therapy to keep them from being violent toward women.
There's nothing in the system to even treat or divert a woman, assuming it was even possible to apply domestic violence laws to a female abuser, rather than simple assault or some other charge that will not trigger all the special bells and whistles which apply to male aggressors in domestic violence situations.
Now there are lots of women who support these laws, and men as well. But that doesn't mean the whole set-up isn't stinky and reeking of sexism. It's terribly sexist. Women can be aggressive, they can be violent, they can attack people. That men do it more often is a rather stupid reason to set up a whole system based on the false assumption that "often" means "exclusively".
I point out a blatant hypocrisy and you cry oppression olympics. Charming.
I would like to more.
Part of the problem with the idea of privilege is that we have these cartoonish concepts of privileged people that an't include a real person, or yourself. Privilege is something we all commit, it's a block that the privilege have that prevents them from understanding the plights of the unprivileged, a block that can be hurdled over but can't be destroyed.
Bagginses, consider this your first golden opportunity to reapproach the way you participate in topical threads. If good-faith discussion is too challenging for you, I have a button here that can help.
It looks very much like he double checked the laws to confirm what the officer told him in his story. I'm guessing he either checked printed statutes or that it's been enough years for him to lose the link. He was certainly able to summarize the laws more completely than the officer told him.
I'm not really sure how that breaks any forum rules. I'm definitely not the first to post sarcastically or note moving goalposts and false scotsmen, and you have to see how the people who passed those laws are in no way inconsistent with the dominant definition of "anyone who supports equal rights for women" other than the fact that they did something unpopular.
So the groups that lobbied for the laws aren't responsible for the laws?
Obviously white people can't be trusted with the power to create laws given the awful laws they have lobbied for.
Exactly. It's the essential, "If you were as enlightened as I was, you would realize I'm right." I see privilege as a tool for introspection. When you use it as leverage against those who don't agree with you, you're doing it wrong.
That's something we learn as children. You're closing off options when you frame privilege as, "If you were less ignorant, you'd see I was right."
You assume a lack of introspection... why? I just don't see how you can have a proper debate with someone when your attitude is, "You're wrong... Go think about it and get back to me when you've realized I'm right."
I assume a lack of introspection because you say that privilege is a tool for introspection. Is it teleological? Clearly not, because as it's been said in this thread no feminist agrees with another over what feminism precisely means. But if you go through the introspection process of privilege, if you try to put yourself in the shoes of someone who doesn't have the advantages you have, and still argue the same points that you made before you went through that process, then yeah you need to think about it more. An introspection process would suggest something changing, some greater amount of self awareness, or a changed behavior. To go through a transformational process without changing wouldn't make sense.