Gender: Do not display
Member since: Sat Sep 15, 2012, 01:49 PM
Number of posts: 29,489
Member since: Sat Sep 15, 2012, 01:49 PM
Number of posts: 29,489
Your point about Sweden is demonstrably false. The gender gap is not the same. Sweden ranks number 4 on the gender gap index and the US 23rd. Political participation is a different category from economic participation. Some countries rank more highly in some categories than others. Neither the US nor Sweden ranks highly in wage equality, 75 for Sweden and 64 for the US, but that means there are 63 countries that rank better than the US on wage equality. http://reports.weforum.org/global-gender-gap-report-2013/#=
I see this post as an attempt to point to Sweden to insist there is something inevitable about inequality. Arguing that structural inequality is somehow natural or inevitable is really the worst sort of sexism, so it's not surprising that the article refers to the Obama administration's having the audacity to concern itself with ending discrimination in pay as "demagoguery." The Gender Gap Index by the World Economic Forum shows that the discrepancy is not as bad in many other countries. The excuses sited are in fact manifestations of sexism. Jobs that women predominate in are paid poorly, and as more women enter a profession the wages decline. The other factors listed are also examples of ways in which women are penalized for being women. That women give birth to children is a biological fact. That women disproportionately are responsible for the care of those children is a result of sexism.
The fact is there are a few invested in the oppression of the many, and that includes women. That commitment to keeping women subservient is evident in the argument that--even in the face of this kind of rampant structural inequality--feminists are responsible for fighting for the rights of men rather than women. Their sense of entitlement is so profound, they deny any legitimacy in women's activism on their own behalf. The argument that feminists fail in not fighting for the rights of men shows that they see women as duty bound to serve men.
Some are so committed to male dominance, as soon as a historically oppressed group starts to do well, like girls in schools, they insist something is wrong. Boys should do better simply by virtue of being male. That boys and men don't outperform girls on an even playing field is, for these reactionaries, the fault of feminists. Yet if MRAs really cared about boys' falling behind academically, they could set up volunteer tutoring programs, afterschool homework groups, etc. Instead, MRAs are more concerned with blaming feminism, and they really don't give a rats ass about academic achievement, least of all their own.
Posted by BainsBane | Thu Apr 24, 2014, 08:21 PM (1 replies)
by talking about prison crowding. I posted your response in full, along with the link. No twisting is necessary. Your words speak for themselves.
You haven't addressed any of the arguments I raised or questions about your initial or subsequent post. You move from one lame excuse to another. I never said rape was only a problem in America. Sweden is just now beginning to take rape seriously. Yet here you are arguing that jail isn't the solution for rape. That is the most repulsive statement that reveals profound disregard for victims of one of the most comment violent crimes. If rapists in this country went to jail for two years for each count, it would be a miracle. That would have resulted in a term of 80 yrs for the released California serial rapist. Most rapists, however, never see prosecution at all, and if they are convicted misogynist judges let them off, going so far as to blame 11 year old rape victims for seducing 40 yr old men. That is the fruit of the rape culture you insist doesn't exist or somehow makes "excuses." (the absurd lack of reasoning in such a claim defies comprehension).
Prison isn't the answer for rape? It hasn't been tried. How the fuck would you know if it's the answer? Is it the answer for women who make false rape accusations? Is it the answer for women who kill men? Or should they be left unprosecuted as well? We all know your answer to that.
If jail isn't the answer, what is? Legalize rape? Deprive human beings, mainly women, of the basic right to determine who they have sexual relations with?
Few rapists ever go to jail, so to argue prison isn't the answer is like saying rape isn't a crime. We aren't talking about a public health issue like drugs. These are violent felons. To suggest they shouldn't go to jail reveals a complete disregard for the lives of their victims and public safety more broadly.
You lament the fact that women don't face jail terms as long as men, when the fact is their crimes are less likely to be violent. Prison isn't the answer for violent felons. Instead, you whine that women aren't imprisoned for longer periods of time for NON VIOLENT crimes. You insist some sort of parity in prison terms based on gender rather than the severity of crime. That is not a rational argument.
It is perfectly clear that the last thing you care about equality, Your entire argument is built around increasing inequality, on disregarding women's lives and letting men get off for violent crimes, on establishing some sort of statistical parity between non-violent criminals and violent felons just because the latter are more often men and the former more often women. That is not equality. That is punishing women for being women.
Posted by BainsBane | Thu Apr 17, 2014, 05:54 AM (1 replies)
Misogynists in the men’s and fathers’ rights movements have developed a set of claims about women to support their depictions of them as violent liars and manipulators of men. Some suggest that women attack men, even sexually, just as much as men attack women. Others claim that vast numbers of reported rapes of women, as much as half or even more, are fabrications designed to destroy men they don’t like or to gain the upper hand in contested custody cases. What follows is a brief look at some of these claims and what the best science really shows. . . .
THE CLAIM In another effort to show that men are discriminated against, many men’s rights activists assert that women attack men just as much as men attack women, if not more. The website MensActivism.org is one of many that criticizes what it characterizes as “the myth that women are less violent than men.”
THE REALITY Men’s rights groups often cite the work of Deborah Capaldi, a researcher with the Oregon Learning Center, to back their claim. Capaldi did find that women sometimes initiate partner violence, although women involved in mutually aggressive partner relationships were more likely to suffer severe injuries than the men. But Capaldi studied only a very particular subset of the population — at-risk youth — rather than women in general, invalidating any claim that her findings applied generally. In fact, the 2000 Department of Justice study found that violence against both women and men is predominantly male violence. Nine in 10 women (91.9%) who were physically assaulted since the age of 18 were attacked by a male, while about one in seven male assault victims (14.2%) were victimized by females. Similarly, all female rape victims in the study were attacked by a male, while about a third of male victims (35.8%) were raped by a female.
THE CLAIM Close to half or even more of the sexual assaults reported by women never occurred. Versions of this claim are a mainstay of sites like Register-Her.com, which specializes in vilifying women who allegedly lie about being raped. Such claims are also sometimes made by men involved in court custody battles.
THE REALITY This claim, which has gained some credence in recent years, is largely based on a 1994 article in the Archives of Sexual Behavior by Eugene Kanin that found that 41% of rape allegations in his study were “false.” But Kanin’s methodology has been widely criticized, and his results do not accord with most other findings. Kanin researched only one unnamed Midwestern town, and he did not spell out the criteria police used to decide an allegation was false. The town also polygraphed or threatened to polygraph all alleged victims, a now-discredited practice that is known to cause many women to drop their complaint even when it is true. In fact, most studies that suggest high rates of false accusations make a key mistake — equating reports described by police as “unfounded” with those that are false. The truth is that unfounded reports very often include those for which no corroborating evidence could be found or where the victim was deemed an unreliable witness (often because of drug or alcohol use or because of prior sexual contact with the attacker). They also include those cases where women recant their accusations, often because of a fear of reprisal, a distrust of the legal system or embarrassment because drugs or alcohol were involved. The best studies, where the rape allegations have been studied in detail, suggest a rate of false reports of somewhere between 2% and 10%. The most comprehensive study, conducted by the British Home Office in 2005, found a rate of 2.5% for false accusations of rape. The best U.S. investigation, the 2008 “Making a Difference” study, found a 6.8% rate.
We've seen a lot of these arguments around. It's important to know that they are generated by right-wing hate groups dedicated to attacking the civil rights of half of the population. It's important to call these arguments out for exactly what they are: Extremist right-wing hate.
Posted by BainsBane | Thu Apr 17, 2014, 04:42 AM (102 replies)
One of the more irritating things I see is that seemingly sentient beings continue to conflate opposition to objectification with not liking sex. In the past I have expressed bewilderment that some have such trouble distinguishing the output of capitalist media from their own sex lives. Who besides John Legend and their other SOs are having sex with the SI cover models? No one on DU, and even John isn't having sex with the magazine image. He has sex with his partner, a real life breathing woman, Chrissy Teigen, not her retouched image as sold by Time Warner. In fact, there is a pretty good chance if you're spending a lot of time looking at girly mags and watching porn, you're probably not having much sex. Aside from the bizarre discontent in the poor folks who can't tell if they are actually touching another human being or looking at two dimensional images, objectification carries other downsides, as author Neal Samudre observes.
One of the worst fears I have for my future children is that they will grow up in a culture where beauty has a shallow definition. Today, we seem so at peace as we continue to objectify women (and men to a lesser degree) on a daily basis. I'm terrified this culture will continue for my children, and one day they'll dishonor the beautiful people around them, just because they're not dancing naked in front of them.
I don't want my future children to grow up like this. I don't believe any of us do. So why don't we stop it in its tracks today?
Maybe the reason sexual objectification still occurs today is because we're not thinking of the cost we'll have to pay for it tomorrow.
It's difficult to think about tomorrow, but if we go through life with blinders towards the repercussions of our current actions, we'll only taint our future culture.
So, I'm doing something new every time I encounter sexual objectification in mainstream music videos, commercials or advertisements. Instead of writing off the objectification of women and men, I think about everything we have to lose from perpetuating this culture
On his list:
1. Good Art
2. Sensitivity to Beauty
Sometimes, I believe we are numb to what true beauty is. It's not being looked at and craved after for only a moment; it's seeing the heart and essence of a person draped in their natural wonder.
If we continue to objectify women and men, we'll lose our ability to recognize true beauty when we see it.
3. Rational Reasoning
4. Realistic Expectations
6. A Culture of Freedom
We pride ourselves on being a country of complete freedom when ironically, that freedom is mocked in our own advertising. We oddly perpetuate a culture where equality is subtly stepped on by how we picture men and women.
The idea that freedom is linked to capitalist commerce in images of female bodies strikes me as having a great deal in common with the notion that money equals freedom of speech. How can people who denounce the link between money and freedom in political speech insist their own freedom is bound up in the profits generated by capitalist media culture that reduces the human body to profit-based commodities, at the expense of the real freedom that comes from equality and respect for our fellow citizens, regardless of gender? You aren't arguing for your own freedom is defending media images of women. Instead, you arguing on behalf of the profits of media conglomerates like Time Warner, News Corp, and other multinational corporations that depend on objectified images to amass hundreds of billions of dollars of profit over the rights of your fellow citizens and women in particular. In so doing, you feed into the notion that money equals free speech.
Posted by BainsBane | Wed Apr 16, 2014, 10:37 PM (91 replies)
An active group with very recent posts. Look at the subject headings.
Men's Rights NewsBoys, Young Men Report Being "Coerced" Into Sex By Female Aggressors: MU Study
Men's wages stagnant. Men make less today then in 1972 when adjusted for inflation.
Why Women Don’t Make Less than Men
Six Reasons Why Men Are Avoiding Marriage by Helen Smith.
Female Privilege Is Real, And We Need To Talk About It (Like Adults)
'Factual Feminist': Gender Wage Gap is Based on Bogus Statistics
National Organization for Women Workshop Guidelines support women's equality, but prevent any discussion of the advantages of women and girls, or any discussion of male victims of domestic violence (including gay male victims).
Sound familiar? Any thoughts?
Posted by BainsBane | Sun Apr 13, 2014, 08:43 PM (20 replies)
If you find yourself saying that, think for a moment about who THIS guy would appoint to the Supreme Court.
Posted by BainsBane | Wed Apr 2, 2014, 10:43 PM (159 replies)
Go to Page: 1