Feminism and the emasculation of men

KyussBishop

tritium wrote: »

In the former sense, feminism is about advancing the equal rights of women. That means, in spite of the point KyussBishop makes, that the equal rights of men are an aside - if a feminist movement achieves advances in mens equality it is by definition a secondary consequence rather than an aim.

You can not make things 'more equal' for women, without also making things 'more equal' for men - if you support making things more equal between two (or more) groups, you support making things more equal for both of them, by definition.
Feminism (the word) doesn't just mean selectively finding ways women are treated worse than men, and balancing that out in the favour of women, while ignoring ways in which women are treated better than men - that's not equality.

The distinction you make, relies on ignoring the meaning of the word 'equal' - there's no such thing as one group of people being 'more equal' than another, because the very word 'equal' involves comparing conditions between groups.
It's simple logic: If you want A to be more equal to B, then by definition, you want B to be more equal to A.


To be honest, I think allowing the extremists within the feminist movement, to label themselves 'feminist' - even when they don't support equality (which is the definition of the word) - has allowed them to hijack it to an extent, and that they should not be allowed to label themselves 'feminists' at all, since it comes close to rendering the word meaningless.

Freddie Dodge

KyussBishop wrote: »

To be honest, I think allowing the extremists within the feminist movement, to label themselves 'feminist' - even when they don't support equality (which is the definition of the word) - has allowed them to hijack it to an extent, and that they should not be allowed to label themselves 'feminists' at all, since it comes close to rendering the word meaningless.

Leaving aside our earlier disagreement over the dictionary definition of feminism and what it actually means in reality, its a bit late in the day to try to oust the extremists from the feminism movement considering they have been there from the beginning, and as an intrinsic part of it at that.

The movement is bankrupt, but the word isnt even close to meaningless. Believe me, it has plenty of meaning to most men : Hate Organization which seeks advantage over them.

whats the point

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

Soooooo has this issue been resolved yet?

Yes it has, men are evil

Women are great.

Legs.Eleven

whats the point wrote: »

Yes it has, men are evil

Women are great.

Glad to hear it. Night!

whats the point

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

Glad to hear it. Night!

A three minute reply, so quickly to twelve minute video :P

whats the point

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

So she wouldn't ride you then, no? Hard luck.

belittle the man, are you looking for thanks?

Legs.Eleven

whats the point wrote: »

belittle the man, are you looking for thanks?

:P

whats the point

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

Well yeah. If you have a history of sexual harassment, it's probably best to stay away. At least you've realised that much.

Again make funny remarks, do you know this poster or just making assumptions based on his gender?

K-9

psinno wrote: »

You don't think it is intrinsically wrong to mandate that someones gender plays an explicit role in whether they are hired or not? It might be the lesser of two wrongs but that isn't the same as not wrong.

As I said I'm not convinced either way, I don't just automatically dismiss them as unfair.

Well to use the example of the RUC/PSNI I gave, I didn't think having a selective bias towards Roman Catholics was wrong, given the alternative I'd say it was very much the right thing to do, and to do nothing was wrong and dangerous for society.

30% of candidate will have to be women for the general election, less than 1 in 3, I think that is fair enough.

shruikan2553

dark crystal wrote: »

Women represent just over half the population of this country, yet at present, just 27.4% of Irish judges are female. In the District Court, almost 30% or 19 out of 64 are female. The Circuit Court has 37% female representation. In the High Court, women constitute 17% of the judges, and in the Supreme Court the figure is 12.5%.

Now, can you tell me how many women are editors of Irish national newspapers? Who is the head of RTE?

Ireland has one of the lowest number of female politicians among developed nations and the numbers have remained broadly similar since 2002. A report from the OECD says that some 15% of TDs and Senators are women, compared with an average of of 30% across 34 countries.

Just where do you believe the power lies in Ireland today? Which gender controls the financial institutions, the media, the courts, the government?

If you really believe women are the ones denying you your rights as a male, I'd like to know how you have come to that conclusion, given the lack of power women hold over the major decisions made in this country from all sectors. Specifically which women do you believe have made you a second class citizen in this country? What rights have women denied you?

Woman have an equal vote in who leads the country. You will not get 50/50 split in every job. If only a small percentage of people applying for a job are women then theres not much that can be done.

dark crystal

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Woman have an equal vote in who leads the country. You will not get 50/50 split in every job. If only a small percentage of people applying for a job are women then theres not much that can be done.

I agree. Women should be encouraged more to enter politics, but unfortunately, it involves long, erratic hours, lots of travelling and being away from family and unfortunately, the work life balance is skewed for many women with young families, who are still generally seen as the main child carers in the family.

The lack of paternity leave and the abysmal child care system in this country doesn't help either and it's a disgrace that more isn't being done about both those things, neither of which I see as feminist issues, but as practical solutions for both genders.

KyussBishop

Freddie Dodge wrote: »

Leaving aside our earlier disagreement over the dictionary definition of feminism and what it actually means in reality, its a bit late in the day to try to oust the extremists from the feminism movement considering they have been there from the beginning, and as an intrinsic part of it at that.

The movement is bankrupt, but the word isnt even close to meaningless. Believe me, it has plenty of meaning to most men : Hate Organization which seeks advantage over them.

That you say you can speak for 'most men', while at the same time panning an entire set of movements that identify as 'feminist', shows (twice over) that you do not see any problems with wildly inaccurate generalizations - and they are part of what makes discussion here impassable.

If some people who self-identify as being part of the feminist movement, promote misandrist/sexist views, then they are not arguing for equality, and (by the dictionary definition) are not really feminists at all.

They should just be labelled for what they are - sexist/misandrist - and forget the false 'feminist' label; you just assist them in hijacking the term, and in tarring real (by dictionary definition) feminists, by association, through applying the 'feminist' label to them yourself, and using it to make sweeping (and inherently wrong) generalizations.

tritium

KyussBishop wrote: »

You can not make things 'more equal' for women, without also making things 'more equal' for men - if you support making things more equal between two (or more) groups, you support making things more equal for both of them, by definition.
Feminism (the word) doesn't just mean selectively finding ways women are treated worse than men, and balancing that out in the favour of women, while ignoring ways in which women are treated better than men - that's not equality.

Thats the point- feminism != full equality. You can of course make things more equal for one group exclusively, by focusing only on areas where that group is at a disadvantage. Very few of the issues that men's advocates focus on are new, they've just been selectively ignored or in some cases (eg male victims of domestic violence ) denied and marginalised for a time- in some cases by prominent feminist advocates (not exclusively or universally btw)

To be honest, I think allowing the extremists within the feminist movement, to label themselves 'feminist' - even when they don't support equality (which is the definition of the word) - has allowed them to hijack it to an extent, and that they should not be allowed to label themselves 'feminists' at all, since it comes close to rendering the word meaningless.

While I disagree fundamentally with how you're defining feminism I do agree with the sentiment. As another poster suggested there's probably scope at this stage for the more moderate voices on both sides to ditch the gender label and come together in a more balanced equality movement. Unfortunately, in academia in particular there's a substantial cohort of radicals who would oppose that as it would put a natural end to their long careers formenting hate speech.

Carlos Orange

K-9 wrote: »

30% of candidate will have to be women for the general election, less than 1 in 3, I think that is fair enough.

You think the government should be influencing who runs for elected office and massaging it until people vote for the right people?

hatrickpatrick

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

I guess, Patrick, it boils down to being of the view that an entire movement/party can be condemned due to extremist elements within its ranks, or not believing it. You believe the former, I'd subscribe to the latter.

If a party/movement's sole purpose is based on extremism, e.g. Youth Defence, the English Defence League, then I'd just condemn it outright. But if the party/movement's origins were not so malignant and the majority of its members/subscribers are decent people (e.g. the men's rights movement) I don't hold them all accountable for the extremist element.

What you and me disagree on is the proportion of extremists to moderates. Two key issues are dividing us, essentially:
1: I believe that the "your freedom of speech ends where my sensibilities begin" feminists are a far greater proportion than just some fringe minority. I have encountered many feminists both online and in real life who believe in censoring all kinds of things, from "objectifying" media such as porn and lads' mags, to "misogynist" media such as song lyrics, ads, etc. Enough to convince me that it isn't some nutty fringe minority we're talking about here. If it was, I of course wouldn't shun the entire movement based on them.

2: Let's imagine I'm wrong, you're correct, and the pro-censorship PC brigade within feminism is in fact just a fringe element. The fact remains that it has succeeded in restricting freedom around the world and mainstream feminism has been utterly silent about it. Maybe in your scenario most feminists don't support it, but they certainly don't seem to oppose or condemn it.

This all still comes down to the point that one can oppose feminism without necessarily opposing the principle that men and women should have equal rights. You seem to accept this, therefore I actually have no further argument with you. My argument is with those who proclaim that "anti feminism = anti equality".

hatrickpatrick

KyussBishop wrote: »

You can not make things 'more equal' for women, without also making things 'more equal' for men - if you support making things more equal between two (or more) groups, you support making things more equal for both of them, by definition.

We all know that you can prioritize equality in certain areas over others. Whatever you might say about feminists supporting mens' rights as well, can we at least agree that ending court sentencing disparity or changing the law with regard to the definition of rape (penetration rather than intercourse, absolutely awful definition which defines it as impossible for a man to be raped), or getting rid of the underage sex double standard, etc etc etc?

You can say that feminism doesn't ignore these issues, but they're certainly nowhere near the top of the agenda for your average feminist lecture or meeting. :rolleyes:

Freddie Dodge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

What you and me disagree on is the proportion of extremists to moderates. Two key issues are dividing us, essentially:
1: I believe that the "your freedom of speech ends where my sensibilities begin" feminists are a far greater proportion than just some fringe minority. I have encountered many feminists both online and in real life who believe in censoring all kinds of things, from "objectifying" media such as porn and lads' mags, to "misogynist" media such as song lyrics, ads, etc. Enough to convince me that it isn't some nutty fringe minority we're talking about here. If it was, I of course wouldn't shun the entire movement based on them.

2: Let's imagine I'm wrong, you're correct, and the pro-censorship PC brigade within feminism is in fact just a fringe element. The fact remains that it has succeeded in restricting freedom around the world and mainstream feminism has been utterly silent about it. Maybe in your scenario most feminists don't support it, but they certainly don't seem to oppose or condemn it.

This all still comes down to the point that one can oppose feminism without necessarily opposing the principle that men and women should have equal rights. You seem to accept this, therefore I actually have no further argument with you. My argument is with those who proclaim that "anti feminism = anti equality".

Clearest post in the thread, and the one which makes my pov better than I did.

Thank you.

jocmilt

What are Men's Rights anyway? I don't want any rights for being a man. I just want to be left alone to do my thing. My 'role'? What's a 'role'? This is life not some sociology study. Again, I just want to be left alone to get on with my life. But that's where Feminism won't let me be. Everyday I come across Feminist influences that attempt and sometimes actually do portray me as a second class citizen, a menace, a potential rapist, the source of all evil, etc. On occaision this prejudicial discrimination, which appears to be sanctioned by the State, has had direct and dire consequences on my life.

I don't even care for 'equalit'. I think that is just a word that is used to mask 'privilige'. The same way the State uses 'law and order' to maske ' coercion and theft'. I'm all for everybody being able to use their abilities and free choice to live the way they want to. I'm all for things like sex, sexual orientation, race and religion being irrelevant to our public lives. But Feminists aren't. They don't see men as 'equal'. They see us as dirt, unless we are 'good men'. i.e. total whimps. Their ideology says white men in particular carry some sort of original sin. Is that prejudice or real? They say they want women to have choice but only if it is what they choose for women. If a woman wants to be a sex worker or be a housewife they say she is a drone who is being oppressed. They even deny strong, successful women like Margaret Thatcher, Sarah Palin or Mary Harney because they don't agree with Feminist ideology.

You see, Feminism isn't about 'equality', it's about pushing a leftist ideology. God help anyone who gets in the way. And the State? Well it seems to think it's all fine. If men are thrown out of the home and have their human rights denied then they are more easily controlled. If women can be convinced to get out and work then fine, more tax for the State and more children without guidance of a father to be molded into little Statists.

PucaMama

jocmilt wrote: »

What are Men's Rights anyway? I don't want any rights for being a man. I just want to be left alone to do my thing. My 'role'? What's a 'role'? This is life not some sociology study. Again, I just want to be left alone to get on with my life. But that's where Feminism won't let me be. Everyday I come across Feminist influences that attempt and sometimes actually do portray me as a second class citizen, a menace, a potential rapist, the source of all evil, etc. On occaision this prejudicial discrimination, which appears to be sanctioned by the State, has had direct and dire consequences on my life.

I don't even care for 'equalit'. I think that is just a word that is used to mask 'privilige'. The same way the State uses 'law and order' to maske ' coercion and theft'. I'm all for everybody being able to use their abilities and free choice to live the way they want to. I'm all for things like sex, sexual orientation, race and religion being irrelevant to our public lives. But Feminists aren't. They don't see men as 'equal'. They see us as dirt, unless we are 'good men'. i.e. total whimps. Their ideology says white men in particular carry some sort of original sin. Is that prejudice or real? They say they want women to have choice but only if it is what they choose for women. If a woman wants to be a sex worker or be a housewife they say she is a drone who is being oppressed. They even deny strong, successful women like Margaret Thatcher, Sarah Palin or Mary Harney because they don't agree with Feminist ideology.

You see, Feminism isn't about 'equality', it's about pushing a leftist ideology. God help anyone who gets in the way. And the State? Well it seems to think it's all fine. If men are thrown out of the home and have their human rights denied then they are more easily controlled. If women can be convinced to get out and work then fine, more tax for the State and more children without guidance of a father to be molded into little Statists.

This kind of thing belongs in the conspiracy theories forum. Women are not out to rule the world and destroy men.

hatrickpatrick

jocmilt wrote: »

Their ideology says white men in particular carry some sort of original sin.

You're not describing feminists there so much as you're describing a new kind of political advocate known as a "social justice warrior". I dislike the term myself as social justice is actually a good thing, but what you're referring to is a movement which is obsessed with "privilege" and the idea that unless backed by institutional power, discrimination and prejudice are totally irrelevant. So for instance, a woman or a black man can make as many sexist or racist remarks as they like, but because they are "institutionally oppressed", it doesn't count as "real" racism or sexism. Unlike the censorship thing, this is a movement which in my experience most feminists make massive efforts to distance themselves from and condemn.

Reddit's entire "SRS" ("Sh!tRedditSays") section is a good example of the kind of ideology you're talking about - they don't restrict themselves to pretending to be feminists though, they essentially advocate for every demographic they see as being oppressed by the evil white male overlords. They also manage to piss off the very people they claim to defend by assaulting any of them who don't subscribe to their views - a woman who doesn't believe in their extreme form of "feminism" is a "special snowflake", someone who has been brainwashed by internalized misogyny, etc etc etc :rolleyes:
Femme Fatale I must confess that when you made the remark about finding it odd that Clairefontaine would oppose feminism despite being a woman, I assumed you had some leanings in this direction. From your later posts in the thread that was a horrible conclusion to jump to and doesn't seem to be true at all, so sorry about that.

Egalitarians and a lot of feminists advocate for a gender blind society. The SJW position is that because of the "original sin" of privilege, one needs to tip the scales in the opposite direction to redress historical wrongs. Much like the pro-censorship types, they make feminism look bad in a lot of people's eyes, but the key difference I see is that (1) they haven't succeeded in actually restricting people's freedom beyond their own forums and clubs etc, and (2) they do tend to be condemned by your average feminist just as much as they are condemned by non feminists.

But I agree, they absolutely are batsh!t insane.
This image nicely sums up the movement you're describing
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/423/402/39c.jpg

Femme_Fatale

I have a problem with very extreme hardcore porn, which would probably be deemed a feminist view (I don't think it's just a feminist view though) so does that mean I'm, by association, "in cahoots" with the fanatics? I may have that view on extreme porn but I do not agree with men being belittled or that they're predators etc etc - all that crap (which has NOT all been caused by feminism).

Freddie Dodge wrote: »

its a bit late in the day to try to oust the extremists from the feminism movement considering they have been there from the beginning, and as an intrinsic part of it at that.

Since back in the early days of women's lib like?

whats the point wrote: »

Yes it has, men are evil
Women are great.

Nobody even slightly said that so the posting (and thanking) of such a petty strawman is just childishness.

jocmilt wrote: »

What are Men's Rights anyway? I don't want any rights for being a man. I just want to be left alone to do my thing. My 'role'? What's a 'role'? This is life not some sociology study. Again, I just want to be left alone to get on with my life. But that's where Feminism won't let me be. Everyday I come across Feminist influences that attempt and sometimes actually do portray me as a second class citizen, a menace, a potential rapist, the source of all evil, etc. On occaision this prejudicial discrimination, which appears to be sanctioned by the State, has had direct and dire consequences on my life.

I don't even care for 'equalit'. I think that is just a word that is used to mask 'privilige'. The same way the State uses 'law and order' to maske ' coercion and theft'. I'm all for everybody being able to use their abilities and free choice to live the way they want to. I'm all for things like sex, sexual orientation, race and religion being irrelevant to our public lives. But Feminists aren't. They don't see men as 'equal'. They see us as dirt, unless we are 'good men'. i.e. total whimps. Their ideology says white men in particular carry some sort of original sin. Is that prejudice or real? They say they want women to have choice but only if it is what they choose for women. If a woman wants to be a sex worker or be a housewife they say she is a drone who is being oppressed. They even deny strong, successful women like Margaret Thatcher, Sarah Palin or Mary Harney because they don't agree with Feminist ideology.

You see, Feminism isn't about 'equality', it's about pushing a leftist ideology. God help anyone who gets in the way. And the State? Well it seems to think it's all fine. If men are thrown out of the home and have their human rights denied then they are more easily controlled. If women can be convinced to get out and work then fine, more tax for the State and more children without guidance of a father to be molded into little Statists.

The last bit: what the actual fuk?

But anyway, I have no problem with Mary Harney whatsoever - the way she was pilloried (I don't remember much of it coming from feminists tbh) was utterly uncalled-for IMO. Thatcher and Palin - I disagree with a lot of their far-right ideologies. As for their take on feminism: Thatcher... no problem with her not agreeing with aspects of feminism. What I do object to is a woman whom early feminism helped get to where she wanted to be, being dismissive of all feminism. Doubt she'd have appreciated being told to stay in the kitchen.
All I know about Palin is she believes in women staying at home to raise kids and other traditional stuff, rather than career. No prob with a woman believing that... although it's interesting the way she believes in it for women... except for herself. Ditto that Coulter woman.

You asked what men's rights are... and then at the end you gave an example of how men could end up being out on the streets because of their relationship ending and still having to pay for a mortgage. There you go, that's an example of how men's rights are breached because of their gender. Not sure that status quo is there because of feminism though. The incorrect notion of men as always being able to fend for themselves is as old as the hills.

clairefontaine

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

You're not describing feminists there so much as you're describing a new kind of political advocate known as a "social justice warrior". I dislike the term myself as social justice is actually a good thing, but what you're referring to is a movement which is obsessed with "privilege" and the idea that unless backed by institutional power, discrimination and prejudice are totally irrelevant. So for instance, a woman or a black man can make as many sexist or racist remarks as they like, but because they are "institutionally oppressed", it doesn't count as "real" racism or sexism. Unlike the censorship thing, this is a movement which in my experience most feminists make massive efforts to distance themselves from and condemn.

Reddit's entire "SRS" ("Sh!tRedditSays") section is a good example of the kind of ideology you're talking about - they don't restrict themselves to pretending to be feminists though, they essentially advocate for every demographic they see as being oppressed by the evil white male overlords. They also manage to piss off the very people they claim to defend by assaulting any of them who don't subscribe to their views - a woman who doesn't believe in their extreme form of "feminism" is a "special snowflake", someone who has been brainwashed by internalized misogyny, etc etc etc :rolleyes:
Femme Fatale I must confess that when you made the remark about finding it odd that Clairefontaine would oppose feminism despite being a woman, I assumed you had some leanings in this direction. From your later posts in the thread that was a horrible conclusion to jump to and doesn't seem to be true at all, so sorry about that.

Egalitarians and a lot of feminists advocate for a gender blind society. The SJW position is that because of the "original sin" of privilege, one needs to tip the scales in the opposite direction to redress historical wrongs. Much like the pro-censorship types, they make feminism look bad in a lot of people's eyes, but the key difference I see is that (1) they haven't succeeded in actually restricting people's freedom beyond their own forums and clubs etc, and (2) they do tend to be condemned by your average feminist just as much as they are condemned by non feminists.

But I agree, they absolutely are batsh!t insane.
This image nicely sums up the movement you're describing
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/423/402/39c.jpg

It's all very nice to talk about equality, but at what cost? Quotas? Biased legislation? Restraining orders at the whim of the plaintiff without evidence? The overpowering cultural fear of domestic violence over ANY OTHER KIND OF CRIME?

And this is where my sympathy ends for it. I will not support any ideology which compromises the democratic process or fairness in the courts against the individual. There is just too much at stake for it.

Femme_Fatale

PucaMama wrote: »

This kind of thing belongs in the conspiracy theories forum.

The following bit especially:

jocmilt wrote: »

And the State? Well it seems to think it's all fine. If men are thrown out of the home and have their human rights denied then they are more easily controlled. If women can be convinced to get out and work then fine, more tax for the State and more children without guidance of a father to be molded into little Statists.

****ing hell. And to say the above is a product of feminism? Shame when lies are resorted to.

clairefontaine

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

The following bit especially:

****ing hell. And to say the above is a product of feminism? Shame when lies are resorted to.

It asbolutely is. Thanks to Clinton's Violence Against Women Act, his repayment for the feminist vote, all you have to do to get your partner out of the house, lose contact with property and children, is to go down to court and say "I'm scared." You don't need evidence, you don't need proof. You just need to say how scared you are, and wham instant victory.

However, what has happenned in the US, is that this has spread not just to men being victims, but any party involved, women, friends, family... it doesn't matter. It just so happens that men don't have the confidence to do this so they don't do it as much, but they can and some do. It is still mostly women who take advantage of this law.

I regularly encounter homeless in my area, and often stop to chat to listen to how they got where they are, and I have met a handful of men who are now homeless and no contact with their children because of the feminist influence in the courts.

Femme_Fatale

Shame that it's not a case of "Those women are horrible c*nts" but "It's all the feminists!" though.

clairefontaine

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Shame that it's not a case of "Those women are horrible c*nts" but "It's all the feminists!" though.

I genuinely cannot understand the persistent denial of feminist influence on legislation on both sides of the pond.

Whatever it's not all feminists, but it's enough of them to reek destruction everywhere.

dark crystal

clairefontaine wrote: »

It asbolutely is. Thanks to Clinton's Violence Against Women Act, his repayment for the feminist vote, all you have to do to get your partner out of the house, lose contact with property and children, is to go down to court and say "I'm scared." You don't need evidence, you don't need proof. You just need to say how scared you are, and wham instant victory.

However, what has happenned in the US, is that this has spread not just to men being victims, but any party involved, women, friends, family... it doesn't matter. It just so happens that men don't have the confidence to do this so they don't do it as much, but they can and some do. It is still mostly women who take advantage of this law.

I regularly encounter homeless in my area, and often stop to chat to listen to how they got where they are, and I have met a handful of men who are now homeless and no contact with their children because of the feminist influence in the courts.

Did you hear both sides of those stories, or did you just presume the evil feminist overlords ruined these men's lives over nothing?

clairefontaine

dark crystal wrote: »

Did you hear both sides of those stories, or did you just presume the evil feminist overlords ruined these men's lives over nothing?

Look, I've spent enough time in family courts to hear a lot of sides of stories.

You see many custody cases being disguised as domestic violence cases too.

Law makers and enforcers are catching on though, and there will be new legislation pushing ahead at some point.

I also don't need to assume anything about the feminists, it's all there in black and white on their influence. They got major leverage after OJ Simpson and the pendulum swung way too far the other way.

dark crystal

clairefontaine wrote: »

Look, I've spent enough time in family courts to hear a lot of sides of stories.

You see many custody cases being disguised as domestic violence cases too.

Law makers and enforcers are catching on though, and there will be new legislation pushing ahead at some point.

I also don't need to assume anything about the feminists, it's all there in black and white on their influence. They got major leverage after OJ Simpson and the pendulum swung way too far the other way.

Can you expand on that please? Not being smart, I genuinely don't know what legislation was enacted after the murder of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson.

clairefontaine

dark crystal wrote: »

Can you expand on that please? Not being smart, I genuinely don't know what legislation was enacted after the murder of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson.

These public cases cause mass outrage. Simpson got a not guilty verdict when it was very obvious that he was guilty.

What it did was cause enough outrage to swing the pendulum the other way so that irrational reactionary laws were passed with the support and energy of the feminist lobby. [Megan's Law is another example of Clinton's pandering to irrational ill thought out laws, but I can't necessarily blame that one on feminists even though for the most part men have been the victims of that one too.]

The momentum after the OJ Simpson trial, was able to push through the Violence Against Women's Act, elevating victim status. There was also a lot of talk at the time from feminist groups about assuming guilt in rape accusation trials. I went to college in the 1990s and such was the culture then that we got rape whistles in our welcome packs.

Now what you have in the US, the abuse of restraining orders to get men out of their homes. About 80% are bogus claims. And custody disputes disguised as domestic violence trials.

The illness of the family courts are such, that there is no jury, no right to a public defendant, and no laws around double jeapardy.