This is an excellent article by Cathy Young, exposing some of the widespread misandry within feminism.
I don’t agree with every point she makes. I think the 1848 demonizing of men is way more serious and shouldn’t be so easily dismissed. But that doesn’t take away from her main point: feminism is full of misandry, and if they want to be taken seriously by men, they need to address that.
From the Wikipedia article it seems to work rather well:
And the feminist author seems to have realized it short comings herself. But sure like with anything there will be bad expressions of feminism.
I really don’t get why you prescribe the violent aggressive man to feminist theory. It’s the opposite - that is the classical view of men and often the root of the problems men face in society. Feminism on the other hand tells men that they can have other roles, they don’t need to be the defender, protector, earner etc. - does not mean that they can’t - but that they can chose. It’s the conservative view that puts all the pressure on that you are experiencing.
Misleading, at best. Standard feminist behavior, apparently.
A 2011 review of the effectiveness of batterers intervention programs (BIP) (primarily Duluth Model) found that “there is no solid empirical evidence for either the effectiveness or relative superiority of any of the current group interventions,” and that “the more rigorous the methodology of evaluation studies, the less encouraging their findings.” That is, as BIPs in general, and Duluth Model programs in particular are subject to increasingly rigorous review, their success rate approaches zero.
A 2014 news report reported zero percent recidivism within five years for a batterers intervention program based on Nonviolent Communication, and contrasted this with a recidivism rate of 40 percent within five years for a batterers intervention program based on the Duluth Model as reported by the Domestic Abuse Intervention Project.
Because the feminists who created and pushed the Duluth model to be adopted changed data collection methods to ensure they only collected data that showed men as violent, and dismissed data that showed women as violent.
i.e., they exerted a lot of effort to control the narrative to ensure that men faced violent sexist discrimination from law enforcement, based only on a woman’s word, because to a feminist that is a win.
You’re defending a supremacist hate group, again, after being presented with evidence of their sexist bigoted actions that specifically harm all men
Edit: It is also an obviously malicious example of the Gamma Bias
And those particular feminist are representetve for all feminist?
It’s funny since you do exactly the same thing unhinged feminist are doing: taking extreme examples and claiming they are representetve for everyone.
Also I’m definitely not convinced feminist are suppermacist.
I’ll leave you with a response to the “That’s not a true feminist” logical fallacy authored by Karen Straughn:
So what you’re saying is that you, a commenter using a username on an internet forum are the true feminist, and the feminists actually responsible for changing the laws, writing the academic theory, teaching the courses, influencing the public policies, and the massive, well-funded feminist organizations with thousands and thousands of members all of whom call themselves feminists… they are not “real feminists”.
That’s not just “no true Scotsman”. That’s delusional self deception.
Listen, if you want to call yourself a feminist, I don’t care. I’ve been investigating feminism for more than 9 years now, and people like you used to piss me off, because to my mind all you were doing was providing cover and ballast for the powerful political and academic feminists you claim are just jerks. And believe me, they ARE jerks. If you knew half of what I know about the things they’ve done under the banner of feminism, maybe you’d stop calling yourself one.
But I want you to know. You don’t matter. You’re not the director of the Feminist Majority Foundation and editor of Ms. Magazine, Katherine Spillar, who said of domestic violence: “Well, that’s just a clean-up word for wife-beating,” and went on to add that regarding male victims of dating violence, “we know it’s not girls beating up boys, it’s boys beating up girls.”
You’re not Jan Reimer, former mayor of Edmonton and long-time head of Alberta’s Network of Women’s Shelters, who just a few years ago refused to appear on a TV program discussing male victims of domestic violence, because for her to even show up and discuss it would lend legitimacy to the idea that they exist.
You’re not Mary P Koss, who describes male victims of female rapists in her academic papers as being not rape victims because they were “ambivalent about their sexual desires” (if you don’t know what that means, it’s that they actually wanted it), and then went on to define them out of the definition of rape in the CDC’s research because it’s inappropriate to consider what happened to them rape.
You’re not the National Organization for Women, and its associated legal foundations, who lobbied to replace the gender neutral federal Family Violence Prevention and Services Act of 1984 with the obscenely gendered Violence Against Women Act of 1994. The passing of that law cut male victims out of support services and legal assistance in more than 60 passages, just because they were male.
You’re not the Florida chapter of the NOW, who successfully lobbied to have Governor Rick Scott veto not one, but two alimony reform bills in the last ten years, bills that had passed both houses with overwhelming bipartisan support, and were supported by more than 70% of the electorate.
You’re not the feminist group in Maryland who convinced every female member of the House on both sides of the aisle to walk off the floor when a shared parenting bill came up for a vote, meaning the quorum could not be met and the bill died then and there.
You’re not the feminists in Canada agitating to remove sexual assault from the normal criminal courts, into quasi-criminal courts of equity where the burden of proof would be lowered, the defendant could be compelled to testify, discovery would go both ways, and defendants would not be entitled to a public defender.
You’re not Professor Elizabeth Sheehy, who wrote a book advocating that women not only have the right to murder their husbands without fear of prosecution if they make a claim of abuse, but that they have the moral responsibility to murder their husbands.
You’re not the feminist legal scholars and advocates who successfully changed rape laws such that a woman’s history of making multiple false allegations of rape can be excluded from evidence at trial because it’s “part of her sexual history.”
You’re not the feminists who splattered the media with the false claim that putting your penis in a passed-out woman’s mouth is “not a crime” in Oklahoma, because the prosecutor was incompetent and charged the defendant under an inappropriate statute (forcible sodomy) and the higher court refused to expand the definition of that statute beyond its intended scope when there was already a perfectly good one (sexual battery) already there. You’re not the idiot feminists lying to the public and potentially putting women in Oklahoma at risk by telling potential offenders there’s a “legal” way to rape them.
And you’re none of the hundreds or thousands of feminist scholars, writers, thinkers, researchers, teachers and philosophers who constructed and propagate the body of bunkum theories upon which all of these atrocities are based.
You’re the true feminist. Some random person on the internet.
I never claimed that those were not real feminist, just not generally representative for all feminist.
Just the feminists with institutional power over men, the only ones really worth talking about
Since, ya know, all those other feminists are doing fuck all to stop them or even slow the misandrists down (almost like they encourage it or are otherwise complicit!)
So by your logic the whole men-rights movement is misogynist? Since there are clearly some misogynistic elements in it.
removed as bad-faith argument
Again, you miss the entire point (or, more likely, intentionally misrepresent it)
In the MRA sphere, genuine misogynists are not in power, and generally have their misogyny called out
In feminism, misandry is encouraged and the people running the show are the worst of all of them.
The blatant difference in power, scale, and harm of the bullshit comparison you tried to make outs your bad faith intent, despite your claims to just be here for “discussion”