Your jimmies are all over the place @stayupset - Tumblr Blog

towerofglass

“serious things” like “men’s rights”

in-all-conscience-deactivated20

Yeah human rights are just a big joke, amirite?

paradisemantis-deactivated20181

Well at least you know what kind of housing you occupy but you still persist in throwing those stones…

dickslapthestate

Aw how quaint! They screenshotted my blog description and brought no objections of substance to the table.

A couple of serious topics regarding men’s rights that should addressed:

Men deserve genital integrity (3 links).

Men deserve to have their voices heard when raped or abused and deserve a help resource system that isn’t stacked against them. (2 links)

Men deserve to have their psychological needs listened to since they are at such a high rate of suicide.

Men deserve to have equal say in whether or not they become a parent.

Men deserve equal consideration for custody if they split with the mother of their child.

Men deserve equal treatment under the law.

Boys deserve an education system that isn’t designed to placate their natural drive and curiosity.

Feel free to tell me how such topics aren’t serious at all, OP.

towerofglass

my main issue with “men’s rights activists” is that they somehow believe they are the oppressed gender and are completely unaware how much easier they have it than the women in their lives. I understand wanting to be the victim, because it can be uncomfortable putting yourself on the side of the oppressor, but it is the reality of the situation.

I guess i’ll run down the list you posted: 1. i totally agree. fortunately my parents were nice to realize that that was a choice i should be able to make as an adult, but i recognize most people just go with it because it is the norm. it is a barbaric old world practice that really has no place in the modern era. 2. equally a feminist issue and such things would be easier to talk about if hyper masculinity wasn’t pushed on and expected of boys from a young age. You can throw as many statistics at me as you like, but from experience and talking to real human beings in my life, women are much more likely to be abused and assaulted. 3. i would refer back to the masculinity thing. Men aren’t given as much leeway when it comes to mental health as women and i think that’s a stigma that needs to be fixed. 4. I can’t be the only person who read that sentence and was deeply disturbed by what that could mean right? anyway, it’s a valid view that i’ve thought about a million times as a man. but if i were in that position i would have to come to terms with the fact that i had sex without protection and whether or not i want a child, that’s out of my hands now. it is a womans body and you are not going to force her to have a child or abort the child. it is simply her choice. if you don’t want children wear a god damn condom. this is a slippery slope for men who want to fuck women up and down the block and them dip out on responsibilities. 5. true. 6. of course 7. i only got halfway through the video. i can’t stomach half the shit she was saying. the oppression of women isn’t over just because there are more of them in college now. while most the stuff you posted was valid my issue with mens rights is that on tumblr and elsewhere on the internet it is usually used to shout down women who are focused on womens rights. which is shitty. you want to claim you are an “egalitarian” then try to actually talk to and listen to women so you can better understand their experience instead of googling statistics and then shoving them in their faces.

as a man i am totally comfortable admitting that i live a safer and better life than most women and will not have to suffer half the abuse if any that most of them experience. and if you want to ask for the “statistics” so you can cherry pick ones that better prove your point then i’m not really going to play that game.

dickslapthestate

my main issue with “men’s rights activists” is that they somehow believe they are the oppressed gender

Men’s rights advocates are interested in pointed out the disadvantages men face in today’s society. You yourself have conceded several of the flagship issues championed by the men’s rights movement. There is no oppression contest here. The men’s rights movement does not demand that men are to be viewed as “the oppressed” but it does attempt to bring attention to disadvantages faced primarily or exclusively by men that are not getting the attention they deserve.

and are completely unaware how much easier they have it than the women in their lives.

In some respects, this may be accurate, but overall I would challenge the notion that the group who gets sentenced harsher for the same crime, is more likely to end up homeless, and has less resources available to them if they are raped or abused by a partner does not has it “easier”.

In any case, advocates for men’s rights do not wish to take away efforts to address serious topics affecting women and girls (though they will criticize any that rely on lies or faulty statistical analyses). MRAs do not want to close domestic violence and rape resources aimed at helping women. They just want equal consideration in these issues for men and boys.

I understand wanting to be the victim, because it can be uncomfortable putting yourself on the side of the oppressor, but it is the reality of the situation.

Yeah, the mrm also fights against his condescending nonsense. The idea that men are “the oppressor” is exactly why the mrm have difficulty getting men’s issues taken seriously. When National Men’s Day comes up in November and people try to bring awareness to men’s issues, people usually reply with “every day is International Men’s Day”. You yourself challenged the idea that “men’s rights” is even a serious topic in your OP. Could this be due to your notion that oppressors cannot have serious human rights issues that must be addressed?

Men are seen as in charge and therefore there is no need to view them as disadvantaged in any facet of life because if they were, they’d obviously just fix it with no difficulty.

I guess i’ll run down the list you posted:

And I’ll follow along.

1. i totally agree. fortunately my parents were nice to realize that that was a choice i should be able to make as an adult, but i recognize most people just go with it because it is the norm. it is a barbaric old world practice that really has no place in the modern era.

So you admit that a men’s human rights issue is serious? What was that about men’s rights not being a serious topic then? This problem, in the west, if faced exclusively by men. In places where female genital mutilation is still allowed, so is men’s.

Many people who champion the cause of female genital integrity still find no irony in the fact that male genital integrity is not even on the radar of most western countries, let alone any country where female genital mutilation is allowed.

2. equally a feminist issue and such things would be easier to talk about if hyper masculinity wasn’t pushed on and expected of boys from a young age.

Except feminists have a monopoly on domestic abuse and rape resources in the west and aren’t doing much to give men equal consideration in their help resources.

One such feminist initiative is the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) formed the Office of Violence Against Women, which controls funding on domestic violence programs in the United States. This office has codified bias against helping men and boys.

Domestic violence services are trained off of The Duluth Model for domestic violence. It’s a feminist concocted idea based off of patriarchy theory and the concept of men having patriarchal control being the cause of domestic abuse. It does not have any teachings on male victimization or female perpetration of abuse. In fact they outright state that they do not attempt to address this.

This is what the people who designed the Duluth Model have to say about male abuse:

On the societal level, women’s violence against men has a trivial effect on men compared to the devastating effect of men’s violence against women.

And when we looked at what men experience when they call for help from domestic violence resources:

One abused man said:

They laughed at me and told me I must have done something to deserve it if it happened at all.

Another said:

They asked how much I weighed and how much she weighed and then hung up on me…I was told by this agency that I was full of BS.

Twelve percent of the hotlines accused the man of being the batterer or responsible for the abuse. One abused man said:

They told me women don’t commit domestic violence – it must have been my fault.

Another said:

They accused me of trying to hide my “abuse” of her by claiming to be a victim, and they said that I was nothing more than a wimp.

Of the men who sought help by contacting local domestic violence programs, only 10% found them to be “very helpful,” whereas 65% found them to be “not at all helpful.” One abused man said:

They just laughed and hung up the phone.

Another said:

They didn’t really listen to what I said. They assumed that all abusers are men and said that I must accept that I was the abuser. They ridiculed me for not leaving my wife, ignoring the issues about what I would need to do to protect my six children and care for them.

The Duluth Model is one aspect with direct feminist influence that prevents men from getting the help they need when abused.

The police also trained on predominant aggressor policies, which is another feminist concoction claiming to address domestic violence, which they call “violence against women.”

Ok, so police need to understand the “dynamics of domestic violence.” Well let’s see what they have to say on the dynamics of domestic violence:

So the “General Information” that predominant aggressor laws are based around starts off with the assumption that women are the victims. I won’t say they deny the existence of male victims but they damn sure aren’t represented, not that I expect it from a “violence against women” site.

So back to the predominant aggressor standards and what they state:

I’ve underlined all the ones that are biased against men in most situations.

Seriousness of injuries

Since women bruise more easily and are generally smaller framed, situations where violence is reciprocal, even if the woman is the aggressor, would likely result in her injuries appearing more serious. Also there’s argument to be made that a police officer is also probably likely to downplay the seriousness of a man’s injuries and be more sensitive to a woman’s injuries, even if they aren’t on par with the man’s.

Height and Weight of Parties

This should immediately be obvious how men are more likely to be interpreted as aggressors with this standard.

Potential to Seriously Injure

This again, ties in with size and our impressions of who is more threatening. The man will generally lose this comparison.

Prior Convictions

Since a man is more likely than a woman to be arrested and convicted when committing the same crime, this also is slanted against men.

Fearful or Controlling Demeanor

This is just a personal sentiment but I feel men are more likely to be interpreted as controlling and women as fearful. In cases where a man is being berated and hit it would be easy for her to put on a fearful and hysterical demeanor for the police. A man calmly explaining that his partner is hitting him might just be interpreted as a controlling man trying to thrown his spouse under the bus.

So far as I can tell (and I’m open to being wrong) there is no effort on the part of feminists to end predominant aggressor standards. As long as it continues there will be male victims who will be brushed aside (and possibly arrested) for seeking help.

Not only is this bias present in funding and training for domestic violence services, it also exists in the feminist-dominated domestic violence research. Psychologist Tom Golden has an excellent video that discusses the erasure of male victims in domestic violence research:

Erin Pizzey, founder of the first domestic violence shelter in the UK, also has spoken at length on her experience with the feminist movement since the 70s and how they targeted her for abuse (including bomb threats) after she tried to expand her services to reach men and boys:

I could see quite plainly that domestic violence was not a gender issue. Both men and women could be equally violent. What I had to say was suppressed. Feminist journalists and radical feminist editors in publishing houses controlled the flow of information to the public. By now the feminist movement had a strangle hold on the subject of domestic violence. They had found a cause to further their political vision of a world without the family and without men. They also had the access to money. The abuse industry was born.

Because of my opposition to the hijacking of the refuge movement, I was a target for abuse. Anywhere I spoke there was a contingent of screaming, heckling feminists waiting for me. Hounslow Council decided to proceed against me in court and I was packed to go to prison for most of the twelve years that I ran my refuge. Abusive telephone calls to my home, death threats and bomb scares, became a way of living for me and for my family. Finally, the bomb squad, asked me to have all my mail delivered to their head quarters. The final outrage occurred when I was asked to travel to Aberdeen University to stand as a candidate for the post of Rector for the University in 1981. I was hopeful that I could have an influence on the young students at the university. At the polling booths Scottish Women’s Aid made it their business to hand out leaflets claiming that I believed that women ‘invited violence,’ and ‘provoked male violence,’ this was the gist of their message.

Exhausted and disillusioned at the growing hostility towards men in the Courts and the lack of support for family life from the government, I went reluctantly into exile with my children and grandchildren. My plan was to go to Santa Fe, New Mexico to write novels. I thought then that I could reach the people who read my non-fiction in my novels. Very soon I was running another refuge nearby and working against sexual abusers and paedolphiles. I found to my cost that Santa Fe was sufficiently lawless to attract these dangerous people. When I returned to England for the publication of my book ‘PRONE TO VIOLENCE,’ I was met with a solid wall of feminist demonstrators. ‘ALL MEN ARE RAPISTS,’ ‘ALL MEN ARE BATTERERS,’ read the placards. The police insisted that I have an escort all round England for my book tour. By then I knew that my position in America could not be permanent. The women’ movement there was even stronger and their strangle hold over the refuges( called shelters) and access to government and state resources was almost absolute. Although I was invited to lecture, every time I did the gender feminists were waiting to invade my workshops and to heckle my speeches. The threats and the persecution began again. Finally, one of my dogs was shot on Christmas day on my property, and I knew the time had come to leave.

One of the sources I linked, Thirty Years of Denying the Evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence: Implications for Prevention and Treatment, also discusses the tactics used by feminist researchers to erase or downplay male victims and female perpetrators.

He lists 8 ways the evidence of male victimization and female perpetration is downplayed by feminist academics:

Conceal the evidence - When citing figures on domestic violence. A lot of researchers concerned only with women or media outlets reporting on female domestic violence take studies where data is available for both sexes and only reports on the rates of women who are victimized.

Avoid Obtaining Evidence on Female Perpetration - Many feminist researches simply don’t ask women about the violence they commit. Conversely they won’t ask men about their victimization. This obviously leads to a lack of data on male victimization and female perpetration.

Selective Citation of Research - If a single study shows much higher rates of female victimization, you can bet that that study will be cited on domestic violence help websites and “fact sheets”, despite the existence of hundreds of other studies showing equality between the victimization rates.

State Conclusions That Contradict the Data - This one is why you have to be especially careful with feminist studies. Often times the bias is hidden in how they defined the terms and they will group results together and summarize it in ways that is extremely misleading and often flat out wrong.

Block Publication of Articles That Report Gender Symmetry - Time and time again, authors or coauthors will withdraw from a study when symmetry between gender rates is being found. This can be due to personal bias, but more often it’s due to fear of retaliation for publishing controversial results. More on this in #7.

Prevent Funding of Research to Investigate Female Partner Violence - This happens quite easily because often times these funds are controlled by a government office dedicated to tackling violence against women. If the study includes men, then that office deems it to be unworthy of funding. This sort of sexism is standard practice in many modern western countries.

Harass, Threaten, or Penalize Researchers Who Publish Evidence on Gender Symmetry - This one should be quite obvious to anyone familiar with Erin Pizzey’s story. Dr. Strauss also talks about his experiences as well as those of Susan Steinmetz, a researcher at the University of Delaware.

He has far more information and data to back it up in his paper. I highly encourage everyone to read it if they want to get an understanding of the difficulties men face in getting their problems heard by academia and the public at large.

Here are some more quotes from researchers who pay equal attention to male and female victims of domestic violence and their experience with feminists in academia:

“My own experiences [with feminist harassment] have included having one of my graduate students being warned at a conference that she will never get a job if she does her PhD research with me. At the University of Massachusetts, I was prevented from speaking by shouts and stomping. The chairperson of the Canadian Commission on Violence against Women stated at two hearings held by the commission that nothing that Straus publishes can be believed because he is a wife-beater and sexually exploits students, according to a Toronto Magazine article. When I was elected president of the Society for the Study of Social Problems and rose to give the presidential address, a group of members occupying the first few rows of the room stood up and walked out.”

— Murray A. Straus, professor of sociology and co-director of the Family Research Laboratory, University of New Hampshire;Processes Explaining the Concealment and Distortion of Evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence (2007)

“Perhaps the most physically and personally intimidating behavior was directed at Suzanne Steinmetz, who had first brought the issue to the public’s attention. Steinmetz appeared on such shows as the Today Show and Phil Donahue. Her work was reported in various newspapers and magazines, including a full-page story in Time magazine. Yet, while Steinmetz’s work received some support, the public attack against Steinmetz and her family evidenced the public’s overwhelming rejection of her work. Verbal threats were launched against her and her children—at home and in public. Threatening phone calls were made to Steinmetz and the sponsors of her speaking engagements in order to prevent Steinmetz from further publicizing her work. On one occasion, a bomb threat was called into an ACLU meeting at which Steinmetz was scheduled to speak. Professionally, Steinmetz was also threatened. In an attempt to prevent her from receiving tenure, every female faculty member at the University of Delaware was lobbied by individuals calling on behalf of the women’s rights movement. Academicians also became involved in the personal attack, deriding her work as anti-feminist and simply biased to its funding source. Other social scientists committed to the study of husband abuse and family violence were similarly mistreated. Such tactics seem to have proven effective. Both researchers who were involved in the early projects, and even those who might have become involved, admit that they now choose to give the topic of battered men “wide berth.” Such a commentary is tragic, not only for those interested in female violence, but for all of us committed to protecting academic research and intellectual freedom.”

— Linda Kelly Hill (pictured: Steinmetz), professor of law at Indiana University School of Law; Disabusing the Definition of Domestic Abuse: How Women Batter Men and the Role of the Feminist State

“I suppose without sounding too dramatic, my life, my safety, constantly threatened. My dog was shot on Christmas Eve on my property when I was doing some of my work and it was a terrible sight, he didn’t die fortunately but it was terrible with his bleeding and screaming in pain. I don’t know if it was feminists or not, but in any case my books were heavily censored and in the specific case of “Prone to Violence” the feminists in particular tried to censor it and they often made efforts to steal it from the book shops so people couldn’t buy it. It’s about the care and treatment for violence prone women. Feminist editors at the various publishing houses have actually worked to take almost all my books out of print… I had one who told me flat out she hated my books and she had all my books at Harper-Collins remaindered and she pledged that nothing of mine would ever be published again. She was right, nobody would publish my books again in England, until after ten years of working I got Peter Owen Publishers to publish my book, but there were almost no reviews. The feminists who control publishing wanted me silenced. Back in the ‘80s virtually all the publishing house editors were radical feminists, including the men. But there is a much better climate in publishing now.”

— Erin Pizzey, bestselling author and founder of Refuge, one of the first women’s shelters in the world; Hi I’m Erin Pizzey. Ask me anything! (2013)

With regards to rape and how male rape is a feminist issue, I direct you to Mary Koss.

Here’s a radio show that did a segment on male rape. At 8:15, there’s an interview with Mary Koss, the widely acclaimed feminist researcher. Here’s what she had to say about male rape:

Theresa Phung: “For the men who are traumatized by their experiences because they were forced against their will to vaginally penetrate a woman..”

Dr. Mary P. Koss: “How would that happen…how would that happen by force or threat of force or when the victim is unable to consent? How does that happen?”

Theresa Phung: “So I am actually speaking to someone right now. his story is that he was drugged, he was unconscious and when he awoke a woman was on top of him with his penis inserted inside her vagina, and for him that was traumatizing.

Dr. Mary P. Koss: “Yeah.”

Theresa Phung: “If he was drugged what would that be called?”

Dr. Mary P. Koss: “What would I call it? I would call it ‘unwanted contact’.”

Theresa Phung: “Just ‘unwanted contact’ period?”

Dr. Mary P. Koss: “Yeah.”

She also maintained that same attitude in her paper Detecting the Scope of Rape : A Review of Prevalence Research Methods:

Although consideration of male victims is within the scope of the legal statutes, it is important to restrict the term rape to instances where male victims were penetrated by offenders. It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman. p. 206

She’s not just some random internet feminist. She’s made a career out of researching sexual assault. She is mainstream feminism.

Today, her methods and standards are still used by the CDC. In their 2011 Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence survey:

Being made to penetrate is a form of sexual victimization distinct from rape that is particularly unique to males and, to our knowledge, has not been explicitly measured in previous national studies

They ask about being made to penetrate, but categorize it separately from rape.

If you think that feminism has nothing to do with the lack of help for men and boys, you’re grossly misinformed. Anyway back to your response:

You can throw as many statistics at me as you like, but from experience and talking to real human beings in my life, women are much more likely to be abused and assaulted.

I provided you with hundreds of studies spanning over 40 years. You have the experiences of one person (you) and the limited number of people you’ve come in contact with. The people represented in the studies I linked are real human beings too. Just because you haven’t met them doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

3. i would refer back to the masculinity thing. Men aren’t given as much leeway when it comes to mental health as women and i think that’s a stigma that needs to be fixed.

So yet again you admit that a men’s human rights issue is a serious topic. It’s really not taking very much for you to backpedal on your original posts sarcastic framing of men’s rights issues as serious.

You know what also might be hindering the help for men’s mental health issues? The idea that men are oppressors who control society for their benefit. After all who the hell would care about oppressors trying to bring up issues they face?

Your biased framing of the source of the problem doesn’t negate the fact that it is men’s rights advocates who are the ones who consider this an important issue. This is the response from feminists when they try to bring this topic of discussion to the public:

“At the U of Toronto, as I understand it, the organization that sponsored me, called the Canadian Association for Equality (CAFE), had been sponsoring other speakers on boys and men’s issues. The Socialist Workers’ Party’s feminist group apparently did not like that the U of T had anything on campus that supported men’s issues in this manner, and had begun ripping down posters of previous speakers. When I was invited, that was “the straw that broke the camel’s back” and it catalyzed a poster-ripping down campaign like I’ve never seen and a more than 100-person protest that formed a feminist human blockade of the door to prevent people from hearing me. In the past, this had only happened to me once in a much more minor way, when, right after The Myth of Male Power came out, four people protested me outside Town Hall in NYC. I persuaded the organizers to give them free admission, and they became supporters after the talk. This group was not in that league! The police wouldn’t let me near them, and after I saw the videos, I’m glad I took their advice!”

— Warren Farrell, three-time member of the NY board of NOW, bestselling international men’s studies author, taught five different courses at six universities, including women’s studies; I am Warren Farrell, author of Why Men Are the Way They Are and chair of a commission to create a White House Council on Boys and Men AMA! (2013)

It was the feminist MP Jess Phillips who openly laughed at the idea of discussing male suicide in British Parliament for International Men’s Day last year.

It’s not enough just to blame the expectations of masculinity and call it a day. It’s men’s rights activists like psychologist Tom Golden who are actually diving into the problem and trying to talk about how to help men in ways that are effective for them.

4. I can’t be the only person who read that sentence and was deeply disturbed by what that could mean right?

Men being able to choose parenthood just as women are? No… I’m not at all disturbed by that.

anyway, it’s a valid view that i’ve thought about a million times as a man. but if i were in that position i would have to come to terms with the fact that i had sex without protection and whether or not i want a child, that’s out of my hands now.

Just because you have come to terms with the fact that you have less legal rights than women when it comes to choosing parenthood doesn’t mean the rest of us do. Is the woman also not present when sex without protection happens? Are you fine with saying that it’s simply out of her hands too? No of course not. Surely the father just needs to “man up” eh?

Only the man is expected to just deal with the fact that he’s financially responsible for a child with no choice in the manner. The mother still gets to choose plan B, abortion, adoption, or the ability to surrender her child to a police station or fire station without any further legal obligation to the child. If the mother doesn’t choose any of this, then the man has no choice in severing legal obligation to a child he did not choose to have. Why is it that you would defend a mother’s right to choose motherhood at every stage of pregnancy, yet the father’s input only comes with wearing a condom (which can fail and then what? no choice still?).

it is a womans body and you are not going to force her to have a child or abort the child. it is simply her choice.

I’m fine with not being able to force a woman to carry a child to term and not being able to force her to have an abortion. However, if it’s simply her choice, then why is it not also her responsibility? Why is it that a man who did not want a child is held financially liable for something he had no control in choosing? Also, in the case of adoption, it’s absolutely fucked up that the mother can give up her baby for adoption with no legal obligation to inform a father who wants to raise his child that this is being done.

this is a slippery slope for men who want to fuck women up and down the block and them dip out on responsibilities.

Wow… I mean you kinda called this one yourself. Just because men retain a right in certain contexts doesn’t mean there can’t be measures to assess when legal paternal surrender would and would not be applicable. You don’t just get to dismiss the whole topic because you can think of certain cases where this could be abused. It just means the approach needs to be more nuanced than you care think about.

5. true. 6. of course

So these two topics are indeed serious issues that are perfectly valid for men’s rights advocates to discuss then? You’re not doing very well at defending your criticism of my blog description…

7. i only got halfway through the video. i can’t stomach half the shit she was saying. the oppression of women isn’t over just because there are more of them in college now.

The topic at hand is not the oppression of women. It’s the disadvantages facing men and boys and whether or not these topics deserve serious consideration. Is the fact that boys are falling behind girls in academia a serious.

while most the stuff you posted was valid

I’ve lost count of how many times you’ve backed away from your initial post sarcastically mocking the idea that men’s rights is a serious topic worth discussing. I could scroll up and count, but honestly I really don’t think I have to.

my issue with mens rights is that on tumblr and elsewhere on the internet it is usually used to shout down women who are focused on womens rights. which is shitty. you want to claim you are an “egalitarian” then try to actually talk to and listen to women so you can better understand their experience instead of googling statistics and then shoving them in their faces.

I do talk to women about these issues. I do criticize feminists when they misrepresent data on various topics (female and male feminists), but that doesn’t mean I’m shouting down women as a whole. In fact, tons of women are the reason I’m critical of the one-sided narrative feminism paints. I actually have many women to thank for helping me understand that men’s rights is even a legitimate topic worth advocating.

@listener-blue @the-critical-feminist @the-antifeminist-atheist @the-archmagister @zeusdethroned @feels-by-the-foot @cheshireinthemiddle @ima-fuckingt4ble @sillybitchynerd @opossumom @thespectacularspider-girl @antifeminist-nature-blog @female-anti-feminist @tenaflyviper and others off of tumblr like Karen Straughan, Shannon G (Liberal Lunacy), Ashe Schow, Erin Pizzey, Janice Fiamenco, Alison Tieman, Christina Hoff Sommers and many more women challenge the feminist oppression narrative. Just because one is critical of how feminists discuss gender relations does not mean we do not want women who have issues to have those problems addressed.

Are you gonna put your money where your mouth is and listen to those women when they speak of their experiences? Or are you going to just wave them away as having internalized misogyny simply because they don’t want to be the victims you want them to be?

I do not simply “google and shove” as you stated. I actually read the data I present and read the data put forth by feminists and determine for myself whether or not what they’re saying holds water. It’s not my fault that it often doesn’t. That doesn’t mean I, or any other men’s rights advocate, denies that women can have problems.

Just because many of us disagree with (male and female) feminists and how they present women’s issues does not mean we oppose women getting help for any issues they face. We just favor a more nuanced approach to assessing these issue than the approach feminists give. Feminists are not representative of women as a whole.

Countless hours of my life have gone into reading these studies to assess the validity of the data presented. I read them from those sympathetic to men’s issues and from feminists alike.

Men live shorter lives and are more likely to be victims of violence overall (this includes murder, robbery, assault, etc). They’re equally likely as women to be raped and abused by a partner. I’ve provided data to back this all up. I don’t give a shit if you think I’m playing a game and whether you deem response a worthy use of your time.

I assess the data as I see it and you have not demonstrated in any way that I’ve misrepresented the data I’ve put forth. You’ve just simply asserted things like cherry picking without quantifying that assertion in any capacity.

TL;DR The rights of men and boys that I’ve detailed here are serious and valid topics of discussion, as you yourself have admitted throughout your post. Your OP is a dismissive and ultimately baseless by your own admission. I don’t care what bias you have against men’s rights advocates and what you think you understand about the experiences of women. Put up or shut up.

letsgetthingsright-deactivated2

Swedish girls go party with refugee ‘children’, get stabbed in the face for refusing sex with adult man

Two girls, of 16 and 17, went to party with refugee ‘children’ in an asylum center in the South of Stockholm. The party ends when one of the girls is stabbed in the face for refusing sex by a man that might be 30 years old.

The prosecutor wants the man deported from Sweden, but now there is unclarity about his actual age, minors can not be deported so easily and it is difficult to precisely determine his age. The party The party took place last November in an accomodation for unaccompanied refugee children in Southern Stockholm, according to court documents there was drugs and alcohol at the party.

The refugees had a lot of interest in the girls, one of them, Karim Ageri, specifically. He grabbed her behind, forced kisses on her and made it clear he was going to have sex with her. The two girls decided in desperation to try and escape by climbing out of a window. Karim followed and stabbed her twice in the face, shouting something in a language she did not understand.

Sentencing Prosecutor Marie Skeppstedt Törnström claimed Karim was at least 21 years old, and that the man should be deported after his sentence. But Södertörn District Court denied that claim and decided to try Karim as a juvenile and dismissed the demand for deportation. Further appeal tore up the ruling and sentenced Karim to 1,5 years in jail and to be deported. Refugees throwing away identity papers Courts in Sweden require proof ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, the highest burden of proof. If it can not be proven without any doubt that a refugee is an adult he is to be seen as a child.

Hedstrom also talks about the problem of adult asylum seekers claiming to be minors. “The situation has evolved, there will be more refugees that throw away their documents in order to prevent us knowing their real age,” she says.

“There are also just street children of Moroccan, Tunisian or Algerian descent who use different identities, sometimes up to ten or fifteen different identities.” Karim’s multiple identities Bone scans determined Karim to be at least 19,5 years old. Karim has previously applied for asylum in Germany with documents that stated he was really born in 1986, making him 30.

His country of origin is equally unclear, the passport he used in Germany said he is from Tunisia, but he also used a Moroccan passport and claimed to be an Algerian in Sweden. No help from Arab countries “The investigation to his true identity and age is slowed down considerably by Arab countries. They don’t want their refugee children and criminals back. Interpol and embassy inquiries are usually met with very evasive answers,” explains Hedstrom. “The bottom line is that you can choose any age that suits you.”

Source