Feminist Lies

Post Reply New Topic

As a male feminist and realist... I strongly and vehemently disagree with what you say here... There is a LOT of oppression against women... This is one source amongs thousands...

http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/0 ... nve/186151

You seem to be fabricating, from whole cloth your numbers... in the second page of the cited report "Although women are important contributors to family income, they face gender pay discrimination, earning only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men."


What? This is like comparing apples and bicycles... There are black females... and females among the young people...


Forbes disagrees with your 51% statement... and 85% of purchases includes groceries... and in the united states, in spite of the rise in two earner families, it is still traditional for most shopping to be done by the woman of the house.


There is a basic flaw in your logic... there is no percentage associated with oppression... it is a binary state...you are either oppressed or you are not.


Legal precedents need to be cited, as this seems to be a fabricated statement...


There are already laws in place to prevent death in the work place... well over 85% of these (according to ongoing studies) happen due to negligence in the workplace (either the deceased or the company's)... sexual harassment laws are not about women's feelings, but about basic human respect...


I would like to point out that this... is an oxymoron... ignorant: adj. -lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned... it cannot be deliberate...

Further... and this is not an attack, but your arguments are a prime example of the perpetuation of a phallocentric mindset that needs to stop... there is a war on women, and we live in a rape culture... While I do not believe your words were intended as misogynistic... I find it hard to wrap my mind around someone actually believing this argument...

As a male feminist and realist

Feminism and realism don't belong in the same category

A lot of women consider shopping to be a sport, or favorite hobby.

And so do a lot of men... This is a prime example of a phallocentric statement

You don't understand the MRA mindset.

A lot of women like shopping and therefore all women must like it because women are actually a homogenous hive mind obsessed with material wealth and opressing men. Also a man who likes shopping isn't a "real man."

This entire thread... makes me ashamed to share a gender with some of you

Condemning harassment of people for having "too much sex" or being "too easy" while simultaneously harassing people about not having "enough" sex or not "getting any". If you see one as horrible awful "slut shaming" deserving of calling out and the other as a perfectly legitimate way to attack people you don't like, then I don't know what word other than hypocrisy to apply. It's especially galling when it's so often the go to insult when feminists argue with men, when they're arguing that sex isn't a prize to be won and such, and then taunting people they think aren't getting any sex. You have to condemn both or neither, otherwise you just open yourself up to the double standard charge.

There is a lot of stuff to get through, and I'm not planning on spending all day on it, so I will try to be brief. I hope you guys realize that it's difficult to find good sources for all the different things being discussed on a very short notice. I'm not sure all of them will be good ones.

Geekonychus: Actually, you are the person I was thinking of when I said that I would not respond to deliberately ignorant statements. I have never seen you make a single rational argument in any one of your posts. Not a single concrete assertion which could be addressed. You don't seem to know the difference between making a rational argument and shaming tactics. I don't mind the other people who disagree with me so much because generally they address certain points I made and try to refute them. You have never done that.

Declension: I haven't really researched the content of the violence against women act. Maybe you're right. I just thought it was absurd that they put a title like that on a bill when women are already the safest demographic.

Vigilans, thanks for trying to support me, but I really doubt it that very many women want to reduce the size of the male population. I know there are certain women on a certain site who say they want to, but I don't think very many people, male or female, listen to them. Even if women were completely evil (I think rather that they exploit an evil system, because they are human beings and not saints), if they knew what was in their best interest, they would not kill very many men, because the majority of men willingly give them tons of s**t for free.

A couple people told me that I was wrong with the 93% stat. I actually thought it was fairly uncontroversial. Are you sure that you understand the difference between being paid less and being paid less for equal work? Men work longer hours in more difficult fields. When you account for things like that, you get somewhere between 5-7% unexplained discrepancy, some part of which could likely be discrimination, or so says wikipedia. I personally find wikipedia to be generally accurate and about as mainstream as possible, so you can take it up with their sources if you don't like it. I am under the impression that even the mainstream media admits these statistics from time to time.

LKL posted this link: http://www.rainn.org/get-information/st ... lt-victims
The stats there are simply false. They are incompatible with stats taken from government bureaucracies, like the FBI, or the BJT. I will use the 27.3 per 100 000 stat given on the wikipedia article on the subject. If r is the rape rate, then 1 - r is the chance that you don't get raped. (1-r)^y, where y is the number of years, is the chance you don't get raped after y number of years. So if you set (1-r)^y = 5/6 and do algebra, you get log(5/6)/log(1-.000273) = 668. So you'd need to be alive for 668 years in order to have a 1/6 chance of being raped according to that stat. I don't think it accounts for unreported rape, so it might be that you only have to wait 2 or 3 hundred years before having a 1/6 chance of being raped. I think the actual rape victimization stat is something a little less than 5% for the USA, if I remember correctly. If I remember correctly about the source of those false statistics, I believe the lady who did the poll made up her own definition of rape, which included regretting consensual sex the day after. When the same women in her study were explicitly asked whether they had been raped, the numbers they gave fell in line with the real data. If you estimate that the real rape rate is about double what is reported, and you assume the 5% stat, and you plug it into the equation above, then you get that you have to live to 85 before you have a 5% chance of being raped. Living to 85 sounds much more reasonable than living to 300. You're much more likely to be raped when you're young than when you're old, but I don't think they factored that into the stat, so I didn't either.

Feral sauce:

I already addressed the 77 stat

The BJT does statistics. Sometimes it looks at crimes committed against black people, sometimes against women, sometimes against gay people. They are aware that those aren't exclusive categories. What their data shows is that being black is more likely to make you a victim of violent crime than being a woman is. It is true that young females are more likely to be victims of violent crime than old people, but that is because they are young, and not because they are female.

You didn't give a website for the forbes thing, and I couldn't find it when I googled it, so I'm going to continue believing the other stats I've seen. The one I posted seems to come originally from mediapost. I'm not sure how reliable that is, but as it was cited by lots of other websites, it seems a lot of other people seem to think it is reliable. I looked at a couple pages from google about that subject, and did not find any stats that were very far out of line with those that I posted.

Oppression is not binary. I know it sounds kind of goofy to refer to it with percentage points, but it's not like any sort of mild oppression automatically makes you as oppressed as any other person in history. I think most people would agree that having segregated places for blacks and whites under jim crow laws was some sort of oppression, but I also think most people would agree that it was a very great improvement over white people owning black people as property. Compared to what blacks fought for in the civil rights movement, I really can't think of a single thing that is comparable in the women's movement.

If you want legal precedents for unfair legal practices against men, then you can google, "rape shield laws", or "domestic violence men assumed guilty". You should get lots of hits. Part of the problem is that when a man is accused of rape, generally he looses his job and his friends immediately, and even if he is later proven innocent, his life is still ruined. Women who were proven to have lied about rape suffer no consequences. So basically a woman can accuse a man of rape or domestic violence whenever she wants, and it will ruin his life even if he is found not guilty. If she fails, she suffers no negative consequences for lying. My understanding is that the rate of false rape accusations is about 8% (FBI I think says this), and that the rate of false domestic abuse charges, especially in divorces, is rather large.

As far as being deliberately ignorant: I find that generally people choose to believe what makes them feel good. This means that they are as likely to change their perception of reality to suit their preferences as to try to change their actual condition. Deliberate ignorance is what I call that sort of thing. It is somewhat like double think in 1984. Like how Christians believe that God loves them unconditionally, but will torture them for ever if they don't dunk their head in water and worship jesus, or like how they say the bible is infallible, but they eat shellfish, work on sundays, and wear clothing of mixed fabric. Or like how TeaEarlGreyHot thinks the double standards with respect to sex are bad, but doesn't seem to understand that making fun of men who can't get sex is a part of that double standard.

And? Simply put, these laws do NOTHING to negate the fact that it is a man's world, women are oppressed and we live in a culture of rape...

Where did I mention anyone's sex life?

Phallocentric just means someone who knows something about the bearers of vaginas?

I dug back a little. Dox47 didn't accuse you of specifically mentioning anything about anyone's sex life. He was talking about a tendency among many feminists.



Both are shaming tactics. The one directed at women may be more intended to control than the one directed at men. Still, it is all about "Nyah, nyah, nyah!"

Here is a vagino-centric statement on men vs. women shopping.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24vgDovxJyo[/youtube]

Since she doesn't have a cock, you can't accuse her of sexism.

No... penis centered...

Even I enjoy *some* types of shopping, but most of the shopping that I, and most people, do is along the lines of picking up milk and bread at the store. It's an 'errand.' It's a chore. It's something you do because it has to be done.