Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Feminism and the emasculation of men
Comments
-
@donfers, putting the 2 extreme ends together in a room would be some craic. The whataboutery from both sides would be never ending.
Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
Femme_Fatale wrote: »Wasn't that just in reaction to one person's hostile-to-women post though?
Oh stop you with your pointing out the facts.
I am obviously a very bold girl and I must be chastised - it doesn't matter if I was patently responding to a ridiculous statement. I was talking back and must be put in my place....
Apparently.
:rolleyes:0 -
-
I think you might have issues with projection.Bannasidhe wrote: »I am obviously a very bold girl and I must be chastised - it doesn't matter if I was patently responding to a ridiculous statement. I was talking back and must be put in my place....
Apparently.
:rolleyes:0 -
Kind of is your problem really - if you're going to use generalizations, you need to back them up - so if you can't provide some stats to back them up, your generalizations can be considered nonsense.Not my problem is it? Defining how the number should be gathered is your problem right?
Maybe while they're at it they could call into every university feminist/gender studies department, ask them a few questions.
Yes, generalizing from a part to the whole is pretty much definitively wrong, since all you need is a single counterexample to disprove it - so if people are going to generalize, they better at least be able to back a weak generalization (which can count statistical generalization to a majority of population) using some kind of proof with statistics - which pretty much nobody generalizing about feminists has done.1. You said generalisations are inherently wrong
2. They're not randomly selected, they're self selected.
3. Why don't you prove it's representative.
Polling works, up to a point, in elections, with a clearly defined binary outcome.
Social science questions are a much greyer area, and more open to manipulation by framing.
I've seen polling results both in favour of and against abortion in Ireland for example.
This survey says the same number of people believe Obama is a Muslim.
(based on 3,000 people, conducted by these guys http://www.pewresearch.org/)
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g9Fu0WbCqTWm6kF5FRgE1KTl3fWQ
http://www.people-press.org/2010/08/19/growing-number-of-americans-say-obama-is-a-muslim/
Here's another poll with pretty much the same results as the last one, this time using random sampling:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-womens-movement-worthwhile/
So that's two polls now, providing almost the same stats - pretty much all the (cherry picked) flawed studies you're pointing to, just say "some studies are wrong" - not much to take from, so if you want to claim this study is wrong, you need to prove it by pointing out problems with its methodology (and I've now removed the usage, of the 'opt-in' criticism, by putting forward a randomized study).
Also, please provide proof for some of your generalizations here:
Please provide some stats showing that any of these groups/people (or all of them combined even) represent a significant (preferably majority) proportion of the feminist movement.Unrepresentative? Jebus, Women's Aid, Kathleen Lynch and Niall Crowley are 'unrepresentative' of the feminist movement?
They'd be among the most socially influential people in Ireland in the last 20 years.
Please provide stats showing that anything put forward in your post from earlier, make up representative samples of the feminist movement:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=89302055
Please provide stats showing your generalizations about feminsts here, are representative of the whole movement.LOL, good luck with that. Only if you take the 'equality' industry at face value could you be surprised at the way things are.
Scratch the surface and you'll see it for what it is, just rebranded radical feminism. Not only with the stated aims of excluding men from the category of potential victims of inequality, but they will actively agitate against the possibility of recognising the possibility.
Sure, there might be token words in the direction of fathers rights, and even that took 15 to 20 years of smearing and abuse.
But once they've wiped their feet on that particular doormat, they will plough on with their exclusively feminist worldview.
...
Or just: Stop generalizing where it's unbacked/inappropriate, and just appropriately label the parts of the feminist movement you have issues with.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Nope, it's the number that you quoted. You're the one making the assertion, you are the one obsessed with 'stats', collecting the number is your problem.KyussBishop wrote: »Kind of is your problem really - if you're going to use generalizations, you need to back them up - so if you can't provide some stats to back them up, your generalizations can be considered nonsense..
No, you said inherently wrongKyussBishop wrote: »Yes, generalizing from a part to the whole is pretty much definitively wrong,
See, this is where your argument falls down, because you seem to have difficulty reading responses.KyussBishop wrote: »since all you need is a single counterexample to disprove it
The claim is not, and never has been about all feminists.
So your assertion about a single counterexample is completely false.
This is all in your head. Nobody here is generalising about feminists.KyussBishop wrote: »- so if people are going to generalize, they better at least be able to back a weak generalization (which can count statistical generalization to a majority of population) using some kind of proof with statistics - which pretty much nobody generalizing about feminists has done.
They have been talking about the feminist movement.
Not that you seem capable of taking in that information.KyussBishop wrote: »Here's another poll with pretty much the same results as the last one, this time using random sampling:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-womens-movement-worthwhile/.
It's not by random sampling, it's a telephone poll of 1150 people.KyussBishop wrote: »So that's two polls now, providing almost the same stats - pretty much all the (cherry picked) flawed studies you're pointing to, just say "some studies are wrong" - not much to take from, so if you want to claim this study is wrong, you need to prove it by pointing out problems with its methodology (and I've now removed the usage, of the 'opt-in' criticism, by putting forward a randomized study).
A telephone poll is the lowest form of market research.
That's your reasoning?KyussBishop wrote: »Please provide some stats showing that any of these groups/people (or all of them combined even) represent a significant (preferably majority) proportion of the feminist movement.
Can you not read? Who said they were a majority?
For the umpteenth time:
They are the ones with the platform and the influence over policy.
Maybe you should put down your statistics book and read what people actually post.
These are the organisations with infuence. You think representative means n/N, you are wrong.
Women's Aid are the go-to domestic violence campaigners.
http://www.womensaid.org.uk/
Women's Aid is the key national charity working to end domestic violence against women and children.
They receive funding from the HSE and DOE, among other places.
The advise the Government and Garda on DV issues.
They were a driving force behind the Domestic Violence Act.
The Equality Authority is the instrument of the state to oversee the Equal Status Act. They guide Government policy and pursue test cases.
They can set the agenda in terms of social engineering.
Used to be headed by Niall Crowley.
http://www.equality.ie/en/
The Equality Authority replaced the Employment Equality Agency, and has a greatly expanded role and functions. The Employment Equality Act, 1998 and the Equal Status Act, 2000 outlaw discrimination in employment, vocational training, advertising, collective agreements, the provision of goods and services and other opportunities to which the public generally have access on nine distinct grounds.
How many people are in these organisations? How many people share their positions?
I don't know and I don't care. Nobody claimed they were a numerical majority. You are the only one making claims about strength of numbers.
You think 'representative' means taking a head count. It doesn't. They are two of the leading lights of the feminist movement, defined as such because they get results.
They contribute to setting the agenda, and they have allies in the media sympathetic to their cause who will go in to bat for them when required.
Furthermore, they have a radical feminist view of the world, which they have articulated over the years and evidence of which I posted before.
Although I don't hold out any hope of you absorbing any of this information.0 -
Bannasidhe wrote: »Post not the poster sweetheart.
Originally Posted by Bannasidhe
I am obviously a very bold girl and I must be chastised - it doesn't matter if I was patently responding to a ridiculous statement. I was talking back and must be put in my place....
Apparently.
Sounds like projection to me, given that nobody said anything like that.0 -
Freddie Dodge wrote: »Problem with that Island is that despite your attempts to be more "understanding" of women, few of them would be interested in joining you there. Maybe a few of the "all PIV is rape" crew might want you around for some menial or dirty tasks, but the normal lovely hotties would be on MY island. Piliger and tritium would probably be there too.
O_o This is a pretty peculiar post, feel like explaining?Besides you and Htrick would soon run out of money for your left leaning political system, and in your efforts to borrow your way out of the problem, we'd end up owning your Island.
To add insult to injury, I'd declare bitcoin the national currency there.
Let's not drag this off topic and turn it into a monetary debate, but the fact remains that our system of currency creation is a gigantic ponzi scheme which literally has cyclical disaster built into it, and as long as we continue to use it, we will continue to have catastrophic financial crashes every few years indefinitely into the future.
Also I support Bitcoin although Kyuss doesn't, not because I believe it's a good substitute itself for mainstream currencies but because it's opened the public's eyes to the fact that a fiat currency exists by nothing more than common consent, and we don't have to use ones governed by bank loans if we don't want to. I don't see Bitcoin as a solution, but a proof of concept? Certainly.0 -
Originally Posted by Bannasidhe
I am obviously a very bold girl and I must be chastised - it doesn't matter if I was patently responding to a ridiculous statement. I was talking back and must be put in my place....
Apparently.
Sounds like projection to me, given that nobody said anything like that.
tongue in cheek
phrase of tongue
1.
speaking or writing in an ironic or insincere way.
"one suspects that he is writing with tongue in cheek"0 -
Advertisement
-
All of you are stupid and should stop now.0
-
-
I've provided the stats to back my claims...where are the ones to back your claims?Nope, it's the number that you quoted. You're the one making the assertion, you are the one obsessed with 'stats', collecting the number is your problem.
No, you seem to be having trouble reading my response, so I'll put it a different way:No, you said inherently wrong
See, this is where your argument falls down, because you seem to have difficulty reading responses.
The claim is not, and never has been about all feminists.
So your assertion about a single counterexample is completely false.
Generalizations from a sample of a group, to make a statement about all of a group are definitively/inherently wrong nearly all of the time, because you just need a single counterexample to disprove the claim of all.
People have made generalizations like this regarding feminists - and even genders; just have to look at some of Piliger's misogynistic posts.
This doesn't stop you, from using less absolute forms of generalization that don't specify 'all' - but you have to back those up with stats.
Eh, generalizing about the feminist movement without any backing, is what I've been taking issue with for the past number of pages - I've not been limiting it to the dictionary definition for a while now.This is all in your head. Nobody here is generalising about feminists.
They have been talking about the feminist movement.
People can't even provide stats to back their generalization of the feminist movement.
Make you're mind up, whether you think generalizing is acceptable or not - and if you're going to hold others to a high standard on stats, don't be a hypocrite that tries to absolve yourself of the same standards.
You seem to be missing enough points along the way yourself, to fall foul of your own pissy sniping - be a bit less of a condescending arsehole, cheers (and before whining about a personal attack, as many of the condescending types on boards seem to unironically do, whenever challenged on that: it's a direct and legitimate criticism, based on the content of your posts).Not that you seem capable of taking in that information.
Yes I'm sure the non-telephone-owning portion of the population are going to be ardent anti-feminists...It's not by random sampling, it's a telephone poll of 1150 people.
A telephone poll is the lowest form of market research.
That's two studies so far - both providing uncannily similar results - so I don't give a toss for convincing you of the statistics, as you'd make up any reason to nitpick over it; it's plenty for other posters to work with, seeing as these are the only stats anyone has provided in the thread.
So make this clear then: Any idiot that can get put in the public spotlight, and calls themselves a feminist (no matter how much of a minority they are), you think is representative of the feminist movement overall?That's your reasoning?
Can you not read? Who said they were a majority?
For the umpteenth time:
They are the ones with the platform and the influence over policy.
Maybe you should put down your statistics book and read what people actually post.
These are the organisations with infuence. You think representative means n/N, you are wrong.
Women's Aid are the go-to domestic violence campaigners.
http://www.womensaid.org.uk/
Women's Aid is the key national charity working to end domestic violence against women and children.
They receive funding from the HSE and DOE, among other places.
The advise the Government and Garda on DV issues.
They were a driving force behind the Domestic Violence Act.
The Equality Authority is the instrument of the state to oversee the Equal Status Act. They guide Government policy and pursue test cases.
They can set the agenda in terms of social engineering.
Used to be headed by Niall Crowley.
http://www.equality.ie/en/
The Equality Authority replaced the Employment Equality Agency, and has a greatly expanded role and functions. The Employment Equality Act, 1998 and the Equal Status Act, 2000 outlaw discrimination in employment, vocational training, advertising, collective agreements, the provision of goods and services and other opportunities to which the public generally have access on nine distinct grounds.
How many people are in these organisations? How many people share their positions?
I don't know and I don't care. Nobody claimed they were a numerical majority. You are the only one making claims about strength of numbers.
You think 'representative' means taking a head count. It doesn't. They are two of the leading lights of the feminist movement, defined as such because they get results.
They contribute to setting the agenda, and they have allies in the media sympathetic to their cause who will go in to bat for them when required.
Furthermore, they have a radical feminist view of the world, which they have articulated over the years and evidence of which I posted before.
Although I don't hold out any hope of you absorbing any of this information.
Also, you skipped some examples like this:
Here you are generalizing about the 'equality' industry, making sweeping claims about the views of that industry - got any stats to back these claims?Henry9 wrote:Only if you take the 'equality' industry at face value could you be surprised at the way things are.
Scratch the surface and you'll see it for what it is, just rebranded radical feminism. Not only with the stated aims of excluding men from the category of potential victims of inequality, but they will actively agitate against the possibility of recognising the possibility.
Sure, there might be token words in the direction of fathers rights, and even that took 15 to 20 years of smearing and abuse.
But once they've wiped their feet on that particular doormat, they will plough on with their exclusively feminist worldview.
In reply to my quote here:KyussBishop wrote:If you claim that feminists are against equality, you have to show this (and with something better than anecdote) - you have to show that they are against it, not that they fail to advocate for mens rights issues (which has other more innocent explanations).
This is particularly difficult, given that - by the very definition of feminism - the vast majority of the population can be considered feminist, and considered as supportive of both men and womens rights.
I asked for proof that feminists (not 'any old feminists', but feminists in general) were against equality, and you made this entire post of generalized claims about feminists:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=89302055&postcount=907
Don't bother trying to evade the argument, by trying to rehash a reply to my old post - that post sets the context, for what you replied to.0 -
KyussBishop wrote: »I've provided the stats to back my claims...where are the ones to back your claims?
No, you seem to be having trouble reading my response, so I'll put it a different way:
Generalizations from a sample of a group, to make a statement about all of a group are definitively/inherently wrong nearly all of the time, because you just need a single counterexample to disprove the claim of all.
People have made generalizations like this regarding feminists - and even genders; just have to look at some of Piliger's misogynistic posts.
This doesn't stop you, from using less absolute forms of generalization that don't specify 'all' - but you have to back those up with stats.
Eh, generalizing about the feminist movement without any backing, is what I've been taking issue with for the past number of pages - I've not been limiting it to the dictionary definition for a while now.
People can't even provide stats to back their generalization of the feminist movement.
Make you're mind up, whether you think generalizing is acceptable or not - and if you're going to hold others to a high standard on stats, don't be a hypocrite that tries to absolve yourself of the same standards.
You seem to be missing enough points along the way yourself, to fall foul of your own pissy sniping - be a bit less of a condescending arsehole, cheers (and before whining about a personal attack, as many of the condescending types on boards seem to unironically do, whenever challenged on that: it's a direct and legitimate criticism, based on the content of your posts).
Yes I'm sure the non-telephone-owning portion of the population are going to be ardent anti-feminists...
That's two studies so far - both providing uncannily similar results - so I don't give a toss for convincing you of the statistics, as you'd make up any reason to nitpick over it; it's plenty for other posters to work with, seeing as these are the only stats anyone has provided in the thread.
So make this clear then: Any idiot that can get put in the public spotlight, and calls themselves a feminist (no matter how much of a minority they are), you think is representative of the feminist movement overall?
Also, you skipped some examples like this:
Here you are generalizing about the 'equality' industry, making sweeping claims about the views of that industry - got any stats to back these claims?
In reply to my quote here:
I asked for proof that feminists (not 'any old feminists', but feminists in general) were against equality, and you made this entire post of generalized claims about feminists:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=89302055&postcount=907
Don't bother trying to evade the argument, by trying to rehash a reply to my old post - that post sets the context, for what you replied to.
Kyuss, this is getting silly and it feels like fighting for the sake of it. You must fully realise the unlikelihood of any population survey existing whereby every (most) feminsists actively concede they hate men. Thats apart from the fact that (with a few notable exceptions) it hasn't been stated here. Given that only a quarter of the group you've defined as feminist will actually say in an anonymous poll that theyre feminist (which I suspect you'd hold as a positive statement) how many are likely to agree to a fairly negative statement? (Let's not worry about agreeing the dictionary definition because at this stage we're unlikely to agree)
Let's put it this way, would you concede that within the feminist movement that there is a considerable, vocal and highly influential anti men group who actively promote policies that either discriminate against men or marginalise men's issues?0 -
You acknowledge yourself in this post, that posters have been making generalizations like what I'm taking issue with, so you contradict yourself when you say I'm just arguing for the sake of it; and it's a recurring theme, by multiple posters, not just a few exceptions.Kyuss, this is getting silly and it feels like fighting for the sake of it. You must fully realise the unlikelihood of any population survey existing whereby every (most) feminsists actively concede they hate men. Thats apart from the fact that (with a few notable exceptions) it hasn't been stated here. Given that only a quarter of the group you've defined as feminist will actually say in an anonymous poll that theyre feminist (which I suspect you'd hold as a positive statement) how many are likely to agree to a fairly negative statement? (Let's not worry about agreeing the dictionary definition because at this stage we're unlikely to agree)
Let's put it this way, would you concede that within the feminist movement that there is a considerable, vocal and highly influential anti men group who actively promote policies that either discriminate against men or marginalise men's issues?
Posters have also been defending use of such sweeping generalizations, which is what the last 3-4 pages have been about, largely; if people want to defend generalizations, they're going to be asked for stats to prove them - I'm not going to let up on that (and remember, this isn't some imaginary problem, you've acknowledged yourself above, that it's been happening).
I've said multiple times, all through the thread, that the feminist movement has a notable element who promote misandrist/discrminatory views - never said otherwise.
The second bolded part above isn't clear, but I'm interpreting it as asking "how many of the group who identify as feminist, agree with negative (misandrous/disciminatory) views?":
This is what people who are defending generalizations about feminists, need to answer - and I'm waiting on an answer to that myself, because until that's provided, the generalizations people make are unbacked.0 -
-
The second bolded part above isn't clear, but I'm interpreting it as asking "how many of the group who identify as feminist, agree with negative (misandrous/disciminatory) views?":
This is what people who are defending generalizations about feminists, need to answer - and I'm waiting on an answer to that myself, because until that's provided, the generalizations people make are unbacked.
What I'm actually pointing out is that what you're asking for is effectively close to impossible, the only way you can recognise groups who fit the criteria is by selecting instances where they demonstrate the behaviour
The why is fairly intutive - if you ask an loaded question like "Do you support hateful ideologies?" The natural inclination is to say no, hence it becomes pointless to even ask the question (the exception is of course where the extreme view has become normalised within society , eg anti semetic views in Nazi Germany)
If you consider your own example only 20%ish admit to being feminists- it may have a bad press but its hardly as severe an admission as saying you support hate against 50% of the population. If its even partially true, or at least accepted by many people then under your own equality =feminism argument that figure should be much closer to the 80% who support equality. Can you see then the futility of asking an even more loaded question?
That's before we even get to the topic of how you could conduct such an study in an impartial way given the level of emotion associated (its pretty clear that neither feminists or mras could run this without being accused of having severe bias, and no other group is likely to see the value in doing such a study)0 -
Your claims are just as applicable to surveys of racial attitudes, yet such surveys are done regularly enough, and give useful statistics on what kinds of racist attitudes people may have, and proportions of people holding them.What I'm actually pointing out is that what you're asking for is effectively close to impossible, the only way you can recognise groups who fit the criteria is by selecting instances where they demonstrate the behaviour
The why is fairly intutive - if you ask an loaded question like "Do you support hateful ideologies?" The natural inclination is to say no, hence it becomes pointless to even ask the question (the exception is of course where the extreme view has become normalised within society , eg anti semetic views in Nazi Germany)
If you consider your own example only 20%ish admit to being feminists- it may have a bad press but its hardly as severe an admission as saying you support hate against 50% of the population. If its even partially true, or at least accepted by many people then under your own equality =feminism argument that figure should be much closer to the 80% who support equality. Can you see then the futility of asking an even more loaded question?
That's before we even get to the topic of how you could conduct such an study in an impartial way given the level of emotion associated (its pretty clear that neither feminists or mras could run this without being accused of having severe bias, and no other group is likely to see the value in doing such a study)
Your claim is that people will be lead in a particular direction when answering (away from radicalized feminist views), due to potentially loaded questions, and that is a subtle form of fallacious argument, because you're already presupposing both how questions would be formed, and what people will think when answering the questions - so the claim you're making, is itself 'loaded' with unsupported presuppositions.0 -
Just saw this article on the Indo. Words literally can't describe how angry articles like these make me.
http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/health/2in2u-know-the-signs-of-dating-abuse-30074826.html
Anyone spot the problem with the article? Here's a clue:It points out that young women don't need to be in a 'domestic' relationship to experience control and abuse. Abuse can happen to any woman, in any type of relationship.
"The Women's Aid 2in2u campaign highlights how what felt like positive attention at the beginning of a relationship can turn into negative, controlling attention, and it becomes harder for the woman to break up or seek help," a spokeswoman said.
"Violence and abuse are often not recognised as such by the woman, or her friends. That's why we have put together a Relationship Health Check Quiz at www.2in2u.ie.
"We hope if a young woman is worried about any aspect of her relationship, she will ring the Women's Aid Freephone Helpline (1800 341 900) or talk to someone she trusts."
Dating abuse means that your boyfriend may try to:
{HTML_BULLET} control what you wear
{HTML_BULLET} isolate you from family and friends
{HTML_BULLET} bombard you with texts, or check your social networking accounts to keep tabs on you
{HTML_BULLET} physically attack you
{HTML_BULLET} threaten to kill you or himself {HTML_BULLET} rape you or force you to do sexual things against your will
You may feel like you are 'walking on eggshells' and living in fear of his temper. Dating abuse is wrong and no one deserves to be threatened, beaten or in fear for their lives.
Literally the only part of that article they got right was the last line. The brief 'relationship' (if one can even call it that) I had in my late teens ticks every single box on that list - yes, including the suicide threats part - so why is it that none of these articles are ever written in a way which applies to me? This line in particular: "Violence and abuse are often not recognised as such by the woman, or her friends." - true, but at least she gets regular ad campaigns and articles such as these to help her figure it out. Bit more difficult for a lad and his friends since according to the media, girlfriend-perpetrator manipulation doesn't exist at all.
I'mma stop typing now as I'm literally boiling with rage - do they honestly not realize how harmful this is to young men who can be just as confused as young women about relationships? :mad: :mad: :mad:0 -
Here's another article about violence - oh wait, it only talks about violence when it happens to one half of the population but not the other.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/righting-the-wrong-that-is-violence-against-women-1.17182440 -
Advertisement
-
hatrickpatrick wrote: »Here's another article about violence - oh wait, it only talks about violence when it happens to one half of the population but not the other.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/righting-the-wrong-that-is-violence-against-women-1.1718244
From the articleHow are we going to right the wrong of a quarter of our population being beaten and/or sexually assaulted because they are women?
Doesn't that mean half of all women? Or are men not part of the population anymore?0 -
hatrickpatrick wrote: »Just saw this article on the Indo. Words literally can't describe how angry articles like these make me.
http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/health/2in2u-know-the-signs-of-dating-abuse-30074826.html
Anyone spot the problem with the article? Here's a clue:
Literally the only part of that article they got right was the last line. The brief 'relationship' (if one can even call it that) I had in my late teens ticks every single box on that list - yes, including the suicide threats part - so why is it that none of these articles are ever written in a way which applies to me? This line in particular: "Violence and abuse are often not recognised as such by the woman, or her friends." - true, but at least she gets regular ad campaigns and articles such as these to help her figure it out. Bit more difficult for a lad and his friends since according to the media, girlfriend-perpetrator manipulation doesn't exist at all.
I'mma stop typing now as I'm literally boiling with rage - do they honestly not realize how harmful this is to young men who can be just as confused as young women about relationships? :mad: :mad: :mad:
That article is about a campaign by Women's Aid. Of course it's going to be aimed at women.
There are similar campaigns aimed at men too.0 -
dark crystal wrote: »That article is about a campaign by Women's Aid. Of course it's going to be aimed at women.
There are similar campaigns aimed at men too.
And yet they never seem to get covered in the papers to the same extent.
The wording of these campaigns is very harmful. Even the phrase "violence against women" suggests that when violence happens, if the victim happens to be a woman it's much worse than it otherwise would be.
As I say, this kind of one sides stuff about abusive relationships really messed me up as a teenager and I doubt I'm the only one.
Again, why not just say "person" and "partner"?0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcMd1F1acSo
Advertisement