Saturday, November 29, 2008

In Defence Of Womens Studies

So I popped in to see what king of the asshats Glen Sacks was up to. (Once again, I do not link to misogynists) What did I find but more deception and lies.

image

The example here is a middle-aged woman's book club but college men endure this all the time as Women's Studies promotes anti-male exaggerations and falsehoods. Chrsitian Hoff Sommers accurately describes some of these not as "Hate Speech but as "Hate Statistics."

He would know this because he has taken courses of Womens Studies right?  This piece of work does not even have the slightest idea of how feminism works and he expects people to believe that he has taken a Womens Studies course. This is just one more example of the ways in which the MRA movement is more than willing to stand on its head to promote blatant falsehoods.  I am surprised he didn't tag this post feeding the trolls, because clearly that was what this little entry is about.

Unless something is focused completely on men, the MRA movement will immediately declare it misandry.  Imagine the nerve of those uppity WISE profs having the nerve to tell young women that they matter.  It certainly cannot qualify as true education if it isn't revolving around a poor marginalized dick.

Don't you just love the hyperbole of his usage of the term hate speech.  Right, hate speech to speak openly and honestly about issues that effect women.  Unless we are docile and bathing the royal penis we are being hateful.  Talk about extreme privilege denial. 

Glenn you don't know a thing about Womens Studies.  I would bet money that you could not list the organizing principles, outcomes, critiques and goals of 4 feminist theories without hitting wikipedia.  You are more interested in perpetuating the idea that agency in women is something to be rejected to promote your unearned gender privileges. 

I have read the commentary on your blog, and those idiots that worship you cannot tell the difference between a third wave feminist and a radical feminist. Let me tell you about womens studies: it promotes critical thinking, and is an inter disciplinary form of study.  To be successful in this field you need to have a working knowledge of history, economics, sociology, biology, and political science.  To be an MRA all you need to do is know how to worship a dick.

MRA do not employ intersectionality and continually use the monolithic man to represent all of masculinity.  They routinely deny privilege in all circumstances. They skew statistics and lie at every opportunity.

Here is something I find most interesting.  The big rally cry is fathers rights.  On and on your group blathers about how fathers are being unfairly treated by the courts. Ummm who wrote the laws?  Who are the majority of the judges? Gotta an issue, take it up with your fellow males.

Ummm last point, even though I could argue against your nonsense all day, if you claim to love your children so much, why is it that you routinely run down women?  Some of you must be fathers to girls.  Has it not occurred to you asshats that by making your misogyny so public you are teaching the daughters you claim to love so much that they are worthless?  You know one day they will grow up to be women and they will learn what daddy dearest thinks of the evil wimmins who dare to have a mind of their own.  You would think as concerned daddies it would behove you to support something that teaches your daughters that they are valuable people....ooops silly me I forgot that for MRA it is about the dick.


71 comments:

Anonymous said...

I think they want their daughters to feel useless. That way it is easier to convince them to be good, subservient wifey wifeys to the next generation of asshats rather than doing their own thing. At least until said asshats ditch them, anyway, at which point those women wouldn't dare ask compensation for years and years of cooking, cleaning, and childbearing (at the expense of her now-nonexistent career) nor for primary custody of children, despite her being the primary caregiver. Women who want anything are selfish and teh ebils, you see. If Glen Sacks and his ilk thought they could breed the spines out of womankind, I don't see why they wouldn't try.

(Not to say that all housewives are subservient Stepford Wives, but I'm sure that's how it works out in the MRA fantasy world.)

Amber Rhea said...

Great takedown.

Rj said...

It's easy when you don't really give a shit about anyone but yourself. Women, children--they are properties--hence the term Father's/Men's Rights. Rights for/to what? Domination.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, except I've sat in on Women's Studies courses. They routinely deny the humanity of men (much like you do here) and paint us as "other", "evil", and "aggressor", and place the blame for all problems on us, while painting that the world would be much better if run entirely by women.

Explain to me how that ISN'T misandry?

See, when you teach tons of women to hate men, that's misandry. Not "teaching them that they matter". Hating men won't make you "matter".

The comment above mine doesn't even make sense. The term "Men's/Father's rights" means women are property?

Okay, so "women's rights" means they want men as property.

You wouldn't hear about "Father's rights" if men weren't routinely abused by an increasingly woman-oriented court system.

Men have an almost 0% chance of winning custody of their children in a divorce. No matter what the condition of the mother, or her household. Men are routinely slapped with so much child support that they can barely afford their own place to live, thus ensuring that they will never have a suitable home to have custody of their children.

Men are routinely and falsely painted as abusers, or "bad" in courts (and this will automatically be believed without proof) and thereby have their visitations denied, while still having to pay for children that they aren't allowed to see.

Child support will go through arbitrary and often massive increases based on nothing more than the mother asking for even more money.

How many women do you see buried under a mountain of support? Do you ever hear the term "Deadbeat mom"?

Maybe if your women's studies courses vilified men a little less, people wouldn't point out that they teach misandry.

Birdseed said...

I've never understood the father's rights thing. Society sees caring for children as a "female" thing, an assigned gender role, and thus gives the mother custody consistently. And, er, what movement wants to break traditional gender roles and allow men to be caring?

So why on earth would a dismissed want-to-be-caring father be ANTI-feminist?

Arum said...

@ Anon

I've taken many women's studies courses. They didn't vilify men at all - men were a side issue. They were all about women, which is refreshing. Maybe men not be the centre of something counts as 'vilification' in your book?

As for the little rant about the courts - pah. In cases where custody is contested, men have about a 50/50 chance of winning. The reason your little myth about "women always getting custody" exists is because in the vast majority of cases, custody is not contested. Contrary to MRA claims, fathers just aren't all rushing for custody of their children.

But wait! Men are being expected to pay for the upkeep of their children - even when they don't see them?! HOLY CRAP! Someone stop the universe, no-one told me feeding kids cost money! But.... but.... I have a new wifey now, and I want to buy her pretty things! She's nice, she sucks my dick without gagging, nor does she do any of that shrill harpy whining about me pulling my weight in the house! IT'S NOT FAIR! WHAAAAAA

Ahem. Sorry for feeding the trolls, Renee. I'm just in that kind of mood tonight. Anyway, I look forward to the rape threats from his mates, who are probably on their way over as I type.

Renee said...

@ANON
Take an actual course. I don't believe you ever have, your statements make that clear. This is not a place for you to spread your MRA lies. Return to Sacks.

Rj said...

Arum, that response was so fucking refreshing. I think you did much better than I would have. LMAO.

Gosh, Renee, they jump in your ASS ass soon as you hit the post button after writing.

I've taken Women's studies rolled up with Black Studies. Not one time were men vilified. More interestly, Renee has brought this up in the past, in Womanism, Black men have been particularly uplifted--I don't feel like going into that right now.

Women's rights is women rising above oppression. Something men don't have to do.

Men are slapped with so much child support? Holy shit, is that why so many women and children make up the poorest people on earth?

I never knew child support was arbitrary and massive. I do know that if the child support agency is handling it, you can only go for a review every 3 years unless there has been a dire change in circumstance. And I know that child support is based off of a formula that counts both parents' income and divides it in half. I do know of many men, young and old, who have quit their jobs and signed over assets in order to circumvent child support.

I'm not feeding the troll, I'm showing him my dick.

Queers United said...

As a male who has proudly taken womens studies courses I can say anti-male sentiment is far from anything I have ever experienced. I was embraced and welcomed into the class and I enjoyed it very much.

New Friend said...

ehhh these trolls remind me of my brother and sisters when we were oh about 5-8 years old. We would be riding in the car on a vacation and one of them would pinch one of the others (or me lol). So we would pinch back. This would escalate until someone punched someone's arm. Then the screams would start and mom (or dad) would yell back if you kids don't stop we will turn around, or we will stop the car right here. Whatever threat was on their mind at that moment. So then one of the kids would then holler, but he/she hit me. Then that eprson would say they pinched me and on and on never getting to who actually started it. Not that who started it matters. I also remember them drawing lines in the car and saying you cannot go past here, this is my spot and the offender would scoot as close to the line as possible. ANTAGONIZERS!!!! That is what the MRA trolls remind me of.

That's okay. There are several articles on his site which will give me tons of material with more anti-female hate speech. I can't wait until the school break so I can work more on the site and get it up. This is gonna be fun.

julie said...

Nice post Renee,

I think most men are looking for support through these tough times and fairness. The support is coming but as anything through oppression ... it is slow. Plus the older feminist movements were seeing men as the problem only.

The men didn't make a manifesto in the early 70's as the feminists and GLBT did. (mind you bi-sexuals and trans-sexuals were not a part of the manifesto back then, either).

What held the gays back was the wanting of sex with children and animals. Their radicals held them back.

The MRM will come in soon enough. But it doesn't hurt for them to listen to other groups and to be listened to from other groups.

I think a lot of people in the middle would like to put both the radical feminists and the radical masculinists on an island and let them sort it out themselves.

Who knows, they may come up with a better way. (smile)

Renee said...

@Julie
What held the gays back was the wanting of sex with children and animals. Their radicals held them back.

Seriously Julie that is the most hateful false statement you have made to date. No more free passes. Your commentary will be deleted. What you wrote was hate speech. It is beyond offensive and ignorant. Any follow up along this vein will immediately be deleted.

Politicalguineapig said...

You know, I've pretty much HAD it with the market theory of rights..and I'd be willing to bet that most of the men who feel they got screwed over by the courts never spent a lot of time with the kids prior to the divorce.

julie said...

@Renne, what?

That was not hate speech. Do you want links to gays discussing it?

Renee said...

Julie:

There is a difference between homosexuality and pedophilia. What you said was hate speech and homophobic swill. Take the warning I issued seriously.

julie said...

OK Renee, but paedophilia is questionable. We make laws to say what age sex is OK. Even the humanitarian manifesto wants the age of sex lowered.

And we do give our 13 year old girls an injection now to stop cervical cancer during sex while we have a law saying they can't have sex at that age.

I think I may have come across wrong. Maybe we can talk about these things another time.

julie said...

@Renee, I think I should make a blog for all this of my own instead of over stepping boundaries on other blogs. I am sincerely sorry to keep doing it.

I think my newness into the bigger scene is causing you, your readers and myself trouble.

It will be good fun.

T. R Xands said...

I don't know what courses these guys were taking. My Women's Studies class never "vilified" men; we talked about everything in women's studies, as my professor said it was about equality not man-bashing. We actually uplifted men several times. I think the closest we came to "misandry" was the Steinem article about what would happen if men could menstruate. It really is so unfair to have a couple of hours a day to talk about women and their problems and we had plenty of guys in our small class.

I really don't get these MRA goons, what exactly is their problem other than having their heads so far up their asses? These people scare and terrify me at the same time...

T. R Xands said...

That should be "anger and terrify me at the same time", sorry about that.

mzbitca said...

Julie,
We don't say 13 year olds can't have sex, we say they are not adults and therefore cannot consent to sex with adults due the vast age difference and emotional and physical differences.

Learn to reason. Seriously

Anonymous said...

You need to stop writing about this guy. His topics are very disturbing and untruthful. Also, when you do write about him the blog become overwhelmed with hate filled back and forth comments. No good ever comes from it.


...Duane

Anonymous said...

Ah, so when someone points out truth, it's "mra lies", but when you spread lies, it's "feminist truth". Got it.

SO glad I don't have to encounter anyone as blatantly hypocritical as you in my daily life.

Renee said...

@ANON what MRA truth? I am surprised you could even type that without burning your fingers. Feminists don't need to skew stats on a daily basis. Your group doesn't even have a working set of theory, organizing principles are any decent scholarship that isn't filled with misogyny. Explain why it is MRA continually resort to sexism,homophobia and racism to prove a point... you can't because your movement is about retaining privilege for elite white males.

Danny said...

On and on your group blathers about how fathers are being unfairly treated by the courts. Ummm who wrote the laws? Who are the majority of the judges? Gotta an issue, take it up with your fellow males.
This makes me think of a question. Why it is only okay to invoke collective blame (under the guise of "responsibility") when its something men have done?


RJ:
Men are slapped with so much child support? Holy shit, is that why so many women and children make up the poorest people on earth?

Actually one of the biggest gripes they have with the the child support situation is the fact that a large portion of the payments end up in the state's pocket in the form of fees, charges, and other nonsense.

whatsername said...

rabble rabble rabble! Yay womens studies!

Like ok I don't have a very good working knowledge of economics, but I understand how statistics works and yah with the others. Bugs the shit out of me when I can tell people are criticizing my field when they've clearly never been in one of our classrooms. :\

BeccaTheCyborg said...

Awesome takedown Renee, as always.

Aspasia said...

"Here is something I find most interesting. The big rally cry is fathers rights. On and on your group blathers about how fathers are being unfairly treated by the courts. Ummm who wrote the laws? Who are the majority of the judges? Gotta an issue, take it up with your fellow males."

THANK YOU! Every time I see them bleeting on about some aspect of society their fellow males created but the MRAs want to blame women for I just feel so...homicidal. But of course they will never take these issues up with their fellow men, Renee. They're all a bunch of beta males still trying to get into the Ol' Boys Club and they're insecure about that fact and blame it on women instead of their own, personal ineptitude.

Valerie said...

julie said...

OK Renee, but paedophilia is questionable. We make laws to say what age sex is OK. Even the humanitarian manifesto wants the age of sex lowered.

And we do give our 13 year old girls an injection now to stop cervical cancer during sex while we have a law saying they can't have sex at that age.


Just gross, 'Julie'. You have officially gone from embarrassing to creepy.

New Friend said...

@ T. R Xands

MRAs are a throwback to the mid 20th century. Basically the MRAs back then wanted a way to be able to leave a marriage quickly so they created the no-fault divorce. Women were staying home and caring for the chidlren and that was also when the tender years doctrine came into effect. Well these women often had 4 or 5 chidlren (back then large families were the norm). These women were unable to support the chidlren due to not having any sort of career, so child support was created. The MRAs got angry about that and the shift slowly swung to men having more rights. Now it has gotten so bad that men generally get some form of custody in contested cases. nearly 70% of all contested cases result in the father receiving some form of custody from shared legal to joint legal/physical to sole custody. Sadly some of the sole father custody cases are abusive men who have no problems lying in court about the marriage.

I would like to share a story with you. Now some might think I am over reactiung about this but i feel I am not. What would you do if your chidl was exposed to an angry wild animal and there were no prtections in place. This wild animal could be quite capable of removing a finger or breaking a wrist or causing severe cuts and mutilation. Of course if this was your chidl you would be beyond angry. Now what would you do if the person who exposed the child to this danger was the other parent? Not much can be done unless you have tons of money to take the issue back in court.

I have many stories about the bad choices my daughters other parent has engaged in and does anything happen to him? No because he is dad and dads can make many more bad choices than motehrs can and they do not lose any rights. If I was to take this back to court, I would lose more rights. So I am left with trying to teach an immature child about good choices and bad choices and balancing it with also trying to refrain from alienation. This is what the MRAs are about.

They hate paying child support and the only way to get out of paying is to have joint physical or sole phsyical custody. Then they can get support from the mother who typically makes much less than the dad. I could take up so much on this, but will refrain until the school winter break when I get the anti-MRA site up and running. I will be pointing out on this site all of the female hate speech that Sacks and his posters engage in. And believe me, I have tons of material to work with. Glenn has been posting on his blog since 2006 (almost 2 years now) and I will have enough material to show hatred of women to write 10 posts a day for the next 20 years.

New Friend said...

@ Renee

MRAs will not teach their daughters that they are valuable people. They will teach them that men are always right and it is the females role to worship the mehnz. This will only create another generation of women being abused by mehnz. They will also teach their sons that women should worship them and if the women do not worship them then they have the right to discipline such mehnz haters.

Anonymous said...

Interesting that you did not deny the claim the the court system is biased agaisnt men. Rather, you brushed it off as "blame males". Did you just mistakenly give merit to Mr Sacks argument?

_ben

Anonymous said...

Ben-
I think there has been a variety of discussion of how the legal system treats fathers, and there isn't really a clear direction of favoritism. The point about the legal system is not "blame males", instead, the point is being made that the courts and laws are mostly composed of and by men, so that IF (which I'm not sure there is) there is unfairness, it is not because women are orchestrating that unfairness, and they should recall that their male dominated system made the rules.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous #32,

You just reiterated what was already said by replacing the words "blame males" with "male dominated system." In either case, someone is lying because the national organization of women said the the court system is biased against women. Sacks says it's biased against men because some 80% of custody battles are won by women. Then here you are saying its fair? Hmmmm... Again, can we set aside who's being unfair long enough to evensettle the debate of whether or not it is unfair? After all, if it is unfair then there's no need to point fingers.

-Ben

Anonymous said...

Ben, can it not be agreed upon that there are both men and women who get unfair decisions in court? Also, can you agree that it's fact that women are told they must let their abusive ex-husbands visit the kids? I'm sure it's a fact that mothers get custody more than dads and that there are some great dads who would love to see their kids more than they are able. Also true is more single moms are in poverty than single dads. Also, before divorce moms are more likely to be more a part of their children's life than dads. They are more likely to be the "primary caregiver". Society sees mothers as being more capable of taking care of children.
Do you disagree with any of this?
-Lyndsay

Danny said...

The point about the legal system is not "blame males", instead, the point is being made that the courts and laws are mostly composed of and by men, so that IF (which I'm not sure there is) there is unfairness, it is not because women are orchestrating that unfairness, and they should recall that their male dominated system made the rules.
Again with the collective blame. Contrary to whatever conclusions you may have drawn men are not some monolithic collective that is united in the purpose of subjugating women.

Rest assured there is unfairness and even if women are not orchestrating it there are some that support it. Question. If I as a man do not actively speak out against how women are treated unfairly does this mean I am supporting the patriarchy?

Anonymous said...

Lyndsay,

You are correct and I would say yes to both your first and second questions. However, your assertion that *society* sees mothers as *more capable caregivers*, is, I think, an unfair one. This is the crux of the matter. If men and women are to be equals in society, then this gender discrepancy that *society says* that women are better for children than men has to go. Just my opinion.

-Ben

Male Rights Network said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Rj said...

I still don't understand this "equality" thing anyway....until men can carry fetuses in utero, give birth, and breastfeed..until men are arguing for breastfeeding rooms at work, time off, and expanded childcare centers and benefits....oh, but they are not

And you're right, Danny, men aren't a collective group, like "the gays" or "the blacks" but at the same time they DO collectively hold the power. We are fighting against that power, men are...fighting us???

80% of custody battles probably aren't "won" by women, but rather given to women...uncontested. So how is that a bias? If it is, it would actually still be a bias AGAINST women for having been primary caretakers.

All of this is really about reducing and eliminating child support and maintaining power and control. Period. There's nothing else.

Rj said...

Jew? Legal abortion? Ideological bias? Shove it up your "whole"? Feminist scum? Damn, are you angry about something? Impotent? You came all the way to this blog to say that?

Renee, you should delete his [or her] linking info, and stop letting people get free publicity for hate networking on your website.

GallingGalla said...

"Male Rights Network", thanks a bunch for that filthy display of violent antisemitism and misogyny. Now we know just who the MRA's are at heart.

Renee said...

@RJ my apologies...for being slow on moderating. I will be introducing a new commenting system on the blog this week that will reduce the amount of trolls spreading their hate. Please bear with me, I do my best to delete the most offensive comments as soon as I see them.

Dori said...

Ben,

You know who first started and continues to debunk the idea that men are not good caregivers?

Feminists.

read some bell hooks.

Specifically, her chapter on Radical Parenting in the book "Feminism: From Margin to Center"
The basic premise is that men are not idiots, and women are not baby machines, so stop treating them like they are.

Jana said...

Renee,

Just as an ironic heads up, the person who wrote the article, is not a Christian Hoff Summers, but a Christina Hoff Summers, who is 100% female, and writes on how feminism is destroying the gender subjugating status quo. She wrote a book called the war against boys and threw in the hardship of being a black boy in school to illustrate her point. She conveniently forgot to discuss the intersectionality of race and gender. So I think she is worse than a man, she is a colluder.

Renee said...

@Jana you are right that makes her a colluder. I simply copied the commentary directly from Glenn's page. I was not aware of the type o.

Jana said...

I should correct that last statement and say that she is just a colluder,as colluders can be of any gender. Don't want to be accused of misandry. I love men! I'm gonna love me one tonight!

Renee said...

@Jana I am jealous my unhusband is off to work, but tomorrow I have "real work" for him to do ;)

Anonymous said...

Right Ben, I never said it was fair that society sees women as more capable caregivers, just that it happens, which you seem to agree with if you're saying it has to go. You know, it is amazing how much people could agree on if they stopped looking only at facts that prove where they think the bias is. And feminists are interested in making the court system more fair for women who have been abused which is absolutely necessary as well as changing the idea that all women can be better mothers than all men.

- Lyndsay

Danny said...

RJ:
And you're right, Danny, men aren't a collective group, like "the gays" or "the blacks" but at the same time they DO collectively hold the power. We are fighting against that power, men are...fighting us???
Its men who are not in power fighting against men who are in power or men who want things to change against men who don't want things to change. That's the think about saying that men collectively hold power. It has the potential to lead to assumption that all men want to maintain power over women when that is not the case (if anything male feminists would prove that assumption wrong).



80% of custody battles probably aren't "won" by women, but rather given to women...uncontested. So how is that a bias? If it is, it would actually still be a bias AGAINST women for having been primary caretakers.
Yes it is unfair for the courts to assume that women are supposed to be caregivers. But at the same time it is also unfair for the courts to assume that men cannot be caregivers (that is where the bias you're looking for is).


All of this is really about reducing and eliminating child support and maintaining power and control. Period. There's nothing else.
Wrong. Some of the people involved with MRA efforts are all about getting rid of child support but there are a good number of them that would like to see the courts put a fraction of the effort they put into enforcing child support into enforcing visitation. If it was all about trying to keep money there wouldn't be any noncustodial dads that literally go broke trying to get the visitation that was awarded in court but was not enforced. It would be cheaper to just shut up and make the payments or go on the run.



Lyndsay:
You know, it is amazing how much people could agree on if they stopped looking only at facts that prove where they think the bias is.
I've made that observation before and almost every time I was told that the other side (which would change depending on where I was saying it) really isn't interested in making things better for everyone.


Dori:
You know who first started and continues to debunk the idea that men are not good caregivers?

Feminists.

So does that mean that every man that goes against that idea must declare himself a feminist or that feminist approved methods are the only way to go against said idea?

New Friend said...

@danny

"80% of custody battles probably aren't "won" by women, but rather given to women...uncontested. So how is that a bias? If it is, it would actually still be a bias AGAINST women for having been primary caretakers.
Yes it is unfair for the courts to assume that women are supposed to be caregivers. But at the same time it is also unfair for the courts to assume that men cannot be caregivers (that is where the bias you're looking for is)."


The problem is that the 80% of uncontested cases is the husband and wife agreeing to the current placement. This is NOT the courts saying how this will be - hence the word uncontested. The other 20% are what we were discussing here.

"If it was all about trying to keep money there wouldn't be any noncustodial dads that literally go broke trying to get the visitation that was awarded in court but was not enforced."

I can tell you that I have been dealth with much more harshly regarding vistation than my ex has regarding support and monetary issues. I was trying to look after my child's best interest where he was not, and I was told that if I continued the course of action I was on taht I would lose custody and go to jail. Yet he continually was withholding support and nothing was done.

In closing, there have been studies done and documentaries filmed and it has been proven that in the 20% of contested custody cases, there are nearly always allegations of abuse. AND, just because those allegations are unable to be proven does NOT mean the abuse did not happen.

Rj said...

to see the courts put a fraction of the effort they put into enforcing child support into enforcing visitation.

There is a difference that the Father's Supremacists aren't pointing out that you may not be able to recognize. That is forcing visitation versus enforcing visitation.

Again, in uncontested cases, which represent the majority, parents are in agreement with whatever they decide--which could include the father being in OR out of the picture. However, in disputed cases, the desire for the father to maintain power and control, and the woman's will to protect herself and her child from abuse, is the scenario which creates FORCED visitation.

Society tells woman to leave the abusive relationship, but provides the abused no protection from further abuse. Forced visitation by any means, is what is occurring in the family court system today.

Danny said...

New Friend:
The problem is that the 80% of uncontested cases is the husband and wife agreeing to the current placement. This is NOT the courts saying how this will be - hence the word uncontested. The other 20% are what we were discussing here.
I wonder under what conditions those fathers "agreed" to such placement.


I can tell you that I have been dealth with much more harshly regarding vistation than my ex has regarding support and monetary issues. I was trying to look after my child's best interest where he was not, and I was told that if I continued the course of action I was on taht I would lose custody and go to jail. Yet he continually was withholding support and nothing was done.
That is what is precisely happening to a whole lot of fathers out there. Unfortunately the definition of "best interests of the child" that you and those fathers go by is different than the definition that those vindictive (if not outright abusive) exes go by.

AND, just because those allegations are unable to be proven does NOT mean the abuse did not happen.
True. And it also means that because those allegations are unble to be proves does mean that the abuse did happen. Abuse allegations are a nice tool to throw at someone during a custody battle. Makes that whole "best interests of the child" thing a little cloudy.

Anonymous said...

Feminists don't need to skew stats on a daily basis.

LOL.

Sure it does.

For instance, if you ask a feminist, violence against women is this huge epidemic problem, and super important.

In reality, however, 70% of the victims of violent crime are men. Not women.

Ergo, violence against men is much, much more epidemic issue. Yet, gasp, no one comments on it, nor are we supposed to care, because hey, it's just men, and who cares about them? We're expected to think women are much, much more important.

I'd call that skewing stats. You've managed to take the minority of victims of violent crime, and make it appear that they are the primary victims of all violence.

You've managed to create a movement where every single thing a man does, no matter what, is based in "sexism", but everything a woman does is good, and not sexist. Where Solanas can write about violence against men and it's called "Brilliant satire", but when a man does the same it's "misogyny".

Where if a woman wants custody, it's because she's better than her ex-husband, but if he wants custody it's because he's "obviously controlling and abusive".

You're so filled with hatred and vitriol, and the worst part of it is, you think it's all justified and wonderful.

Disgusting.

Valerie said...

In reality, however, 70% of the victims of violent crime are men. Not women.

Even if that stat is true, it's still men committing the vast, vast majority of the acts of violence. So men beat men and men beat women. The problem is still men!

I'll tell you what's disgusting: you still thinking men are the victims.

Anonymous said...

Yes, because a tiny minority of the victims of violent crime are WAY more important than the majority. Got it.

So, you're delusional AND sexist.

Or you just don't care if men are victims of crime. You only care if women are. More sexism. But, as women's studies teaches us, that's okay! Sexism is okay if it's against men, by women!

Yes, let's always say men are the problem. Men are always the problem, women never do anything wrong, ever!

Women are perfect, men are faulty. More of that good ol' women's studies knowledge, that.

Renee said...

@ANON54

You are in complete denial. Look even if men are victims of violence to a greater degree they are victims at the hands of men. This does not mean that feminists discount the violence but what exactly do you expect us to do about it. We cannot stop you from raping women or violently beating your wives and daughters and you want us to somehow magically stop you from beating and killing each other...Let's put on a reality thinking hat shall we.

Valerie said...

@ Anon 54

Thanks for saving anyone else the trouble of revealing your utter lack of knowledge about women's studies or feminism in general.

Danny said...

Valerie:
So men beat men and men beat women. The problem is still men!
No the problem is violent men.

Renee said...

@Danny the point is that the MRA are using this to claim that men are somehow magically more victimized while completely ignoring who the perpetrators of the crimes are. Screaming at women about male violence with addressing those that are committing the violence (that would be the men) will not solve the issue.

Anonymous said...

Danny makes a good point. Why blame all men instead of the violent men? This is the main problem that women's studies suffers from. It's scope aims to examine and deconstruct the patriarchy as whole. In doing that, it fails to fault individual beahviors of certain men over others. Furthermore, feminism used to be in support of those in the minority, but if men are in the minority on a issue like men being victimcs of domestic violence at the hands of women, then feminism or women's studies has nothing to say. Women's studies can't seem to draw a line between patriarchy "the system" and individual beavior.

-Ben

Anonymous said...

We cannot stop you from raping women or violently beating your wives and daughters

Actually, in terms of child abuse, the mother is more often the perpetrator than men. Look up crime statistics, thanks.

@Renee

Doesn't change the fact that men are victims of violence more than women are, period.

Valerie said...

No the problem is violent men.

Thought that was obvious.

Why blame all men instead of the violent men?

No one was doing that.

It's (women's studies) scope aims to examine and deconstruct the patriarchy as whole. In doing that, it fails to fault individual beahviors of certain men over others.

This comment is exactly why you need to take a woman's studies course instead of just declaring yourself an expert on them.

Valerie said...

Actually, in terms of child abuse, the mother is more often the perpetrator than men. Look up crime statistics, thanks.

OMG you didn't qualify the word 'mothers' with the word 'abusive'! Waaaahh! Just kidding.

Why don't you look up child sexual abuse stats (mostly men abusing girls) or child abuse stats that take time spent caring for children into account. Per hour spent caring for children, men are by far the more frequent abusers.

Anonymous said...

Statistically, in cases of child abuse, plain and simple, the mother is more often the perpetrator. That's just the way it is.

Danny said...

Renee:
@Danny the point is that the MRA are using this to claim that men are somehow magically more victimized while completely ignoring who the perpetrators of the crimes are.
They aren't ignoring who commits the crimes but instead separating themselves from the ones that do.

Screaming at women about male violence with addressing those that are committing the violence (that would be the men) will not solve the issue.
And neither will trying to hold all men responsible for the wrongdoings of some of the gender.



Valerie
Thought that was obvious.
By simply saying "men" without a "some" or "violent" or something like that it the statement is left hanging in ambiguity. I know that some of you like that so when someone says something you can just move the ball to another shell to keep the game going.

No one was doing that.
But it just saying "men" it looks that way. The same reason I learned from Renee about when I do critisize feminists I shouldn't generalize. But for some reason for some people it seems okay to make generalizations about men, MRAs, and anyone that doesn't fully (even if its blindly) agree with them.

Erica said...

I think the problem that people like Sacks have with WGS courses is that they see them and they can't comprehend that something can truly be NOT ABOUT THEM. A rape victim tells her story, a sociologist discusses the wage gap, a professor explains the damage to self-esteem done by advertising so corporations can sell more skin cream. And Sacks, because he's so used to the world being ALL ABOUT HIM cannot begin to comprehend that it's not about him.

A lot of men can't seem to comprehend feminism, and the lack of power women hold in society because they themselves don't feel powerful. He can't understand privilege because he doesn't feel privilege. Part of privilege is the ability to not even realize that it's there. But the thing that a man who ISN'T a douche can take away from a women's studies course is recognition of what power he has had without even knowing it, what privilege he has enjoyed without ever having to think about it.

Sacks can't take that lesson, because he's a douche.

Valerie said...

By simply saying "men" without a "some" or "violent" or something like that it the statement is left hanging in ambiguity. I know that some of you like that so when someone says something you can just move the ball to another shell to keep the game going.


You may be right, however, I have never personally spoken to another feminist who thought raping women, being violent, or general douchery were characteristics shared by all men, which is why I didn't feel the need to qualify it.

Woodrow Wilson said...

Most feminists aren't feminists, but rather another self interest group.

Renee said...

@Woodrow Wilson, do you have anymore ignorance you would like to share with the readers?

Danny said...

Valerie:
You may be right, however, I have never personally spoken to another feminist who thought raping women, being violent, or general douchery were characteristics shared by all men, which is why I didn't feel the need to qualify it.
Very well. And its not just assuming that all men are violent its also the assumption that things like violenct, greed, corruption, etc. are male traits that I was talking about as well.

And I appreciate that fact that you didn't just shrug me off with something arrogant like, "Well if you interpreted it that way then its your problem."

Valerie said...

@ Danny

Right, although I am wary about how easily a discussion can be derailed and turned toward focussing on men and soothing ruffled feathers, which, after months of lurking here I can almost guarantee is not the point of this blog.

In others words, I gave you the benefit of the doubt by clarifying my statement.

Yohan said...

The present text of this article about MRAs is totally different from what was written here before.

Why did you change the original text?