Do you think you have been the victim of sexual assault?

Fall_Guy

Fall_Guy wrote: »

Ah here.

You suggested multiple reasons...

The potential threat that a women faces from a man is far greater than that which a ma faces from a woman in general due to the fact that men are physically stronger than women.

Most women of my age (40s) are easily stronger than me. And I'm not terribly uncommon in this age of office work and computer-based jobs. A woman that stays at home, doing housework, carrying children, etc see's far more upper-body exercise than I do. Oh, in terms of bone strength I could be stronger, but in terms of muscle, I'm likely not. And now we have society accepting much heavier weight than they used to, so a woman could easily outweigh me too.

You're falling for the stereotypes of men. Not all men are fit and strong. Especially in their 30s/40s. Most of the guys I know around where I live, are not fit, not working out much, and honestly, for many of them, their wives/girlfriends are likely to be stronger. Although that could just be Ireland.

Yes there are ass-kicking women but all things being equal, the average man has tbe physical strength to force the average woman to do things against her will, whereas the same isn't true if the roles were reversed. This skews the power dynamics and means that the same actions by the different genders do not have equal effects.

Only because the women don't learn to defend themselves. This is not about "ass-kicking women". The body has soft spots and pressure points. These can be used to someone's advantage quite easily with a bit of learning and practice.

"ass-kicking women" is to be accepted because most women do not learn how to defend themselves. It's a victim mentality. They want men to protect them, but they don't want men to protect them. The world should be a safer place... but that's not going to happen anytime soon.

The options are there for women. Most towns/cities have multiple venues for learning martial arts or boxing. Some women go, but they're a minority compared to those who don't. That should change, but it probably won't. Much easier to simply blame men for whatever happens to them. :rolleyes:

But just because men don't feel as threatened by a woman grabbing their arse, it doesn't give a man the right to say a woman should laugh off the same, due to the inherent differences outlined above

Finally, we can agree. I'm generally a polite person. I don't think people should behave in such a manner. Male or female.

Fall_Guy wrote: »

I feel domestic violence is a strawman here as the difference in levels of threat that members of either sex would feel in a situation where sexual harrassment occurs is not related to prevalence of domestic violence, but violence of a sexual nature.

Only if you don't make a connection between sex and violence in the mind. You don't need to have penetrative sex for it to be 'essentially' rape, although not necessarily physical rape.

A women is many many times more likely to be the victim of sexual violence. Furthermore, most of the sexual violence that men are the victim of is perpetrated by other men.

Only based on the common perception of sexual violence, and TBH that interpretation is very focused on women being on the receiving end. Considering the degree of psychological 'disorders' or fetishes that people have for mixing sex with pain, violence, domination, etc it could easily be that the female version of sexual violence towards men hasn't been included.

I think many men can agree from dating, or casual sexual experiences, that sometimes we do meet women who have 'unhealthy' (trying to be polite) desires. Ever find during/after sex finding bites, scratches etc that drew blood? I'm sure I don't need to give other examples since I'm guessing most here have their own experiences of such behavior.

Fall_Guy

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You suggested multiple reasons...



Most women of my age (40s) are easily stronger than me. And I'm not terribly uncommon in this age of office work and computer-based jobs. A woman that stays at home, doing housework, carrying children, etc see's far more upper-body exercise than I do. Oh, in terms of bone strength I could be stronger, but in terms of muscle, I'm likely not. And now we have society accepting much heavier weight than they used to, so a woman could easily outweigh me too.

You're falling for the stereotypes of men. Not all men are fit and strong. Especially in their 30s/40s. Most of the guys I know around where I live, are not fit, not working out much, and honestly, for many of them, their wives/girlfriends are likely to be stronger. Although that could just be Ireland.



Only because the women don't learn to defend themselves. This is not about "ass-kicking women". The body has soft spots and pressure points. These can be used to someone's advantage quite easily with a bit of learning and practice.

"ass-kicking women" is to be accepted because most women do not learn how to defend themselves. It's a victim mentality. They want men to protect them, but they don't want men to protect them. The world should be a safer place... but that's not going to happen anytime soon.

The options are there for women. Most towns/cities have multiple venues for learning martial arts or boxing. Some women go, but they're a minority compared to those who don't. That should change, but it probably won't. Much easier to simply blame men for whatever happens to them.

If you are suggesting that women have to train in order to learn to fight in order to level the playing field is that in itself not an acceptance of the biological advantages men possess in relation to physical combat?

Also, of these women that do train and compete, why is it do you think that they compete against other females rather than against males?

Because all other things being equal, a man of the same weight will be stronger in the vast majority of cases. Its not about stereotypes, its about biology.

pilly

Fall_Guy wrote: »

If you are suggesting that women have to train in order to learn to fight in order to level the playing field is that in itself not an acceptance of the biological advantages men possess in relation to physical combat?

Also, of these women that do train and compete, why is it do you think that they compete against other females rather than against males?

Because all other things being equal, a man of the same weight will be stronger in the vast majority of cases. Its not about stereotypes, its about biology.

It's not about fitness either, my brother is one of the most unfit people I've ever met and much the same size as me, yet he can still hold me at arms length and I wouldn't be able to move. As you say FG, it's biology.

Fall_Guy

Fall_Guy wrote: »

If you are suggesting that women have to train in order to learn to fight in order to level the playing field is that in itself not an acceptance of the biological advantages men possess in relation to physical combat?

I needed to train to fight to level the playing field against men. I'm a man.

Also, of these women that do train and compete, why is it do you think that they compete against other females rather than against males?

Most competitions are set up for a single gender. Might as well complain about sports in general, and the perception of society.

We are not talking about sports though. We are talking about violence.

Because all other things being equal, a man of the same weight will be stronger in the vast majority of cases. Its not about stereotypes, its about biology.

Ahh biology. So you're saying that a man who doesn't go to the gym, works at a desk all day, etc will be stronger than a woman who is carrying one/two infants, doing housework etc?

EDIT: In any case, I'm not seeking to focus on the strength difference. There are disciplines that women can learn for self-defense.

Fall_Guy

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I needed to train to fight to level the playing field against men. I'm a man.




Ahh biology. So you're saying that a man who doesn't go to the gym, works at a desk all day, etc will be stronger than a woman who is carrying one/two infants, doing housework etc?

Well yes, there are obviously differences with regards how lucky people are with their genetics amongs males and females too....plenty of men who have naturally better physiques than me, are faster than me etc ...genetic diversity does exist of course...

Im saying all things being equal a man will be stronger....so a more fair example would be that a man who is carrying one or two infants, doing housework etc will be stronger than a woman who is carrying one/two infants, doing housework etc!

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

Ahh biology. So you're saying that a man who doesn't go to the gym, works at a desk all day, etc will be stronger than a woman who is carrying one/two infants, doing housework etc?

Eh.. all things being equal, yes. Yes he will be physically stronger. Women are on average around 70% as strong as the average man. Men, even unfit men have more muscle mass and stronger bones. I dunno how this is even a reasonable debate? And housework while being tiring at times is hardly going to increase muscle mass.

A couple of exes of mine were mad into the gym and not just the pink dumbbells and yoga type stuff. They were incredibly fit and way fitter than me. I'm not a particularly strong man but I was clearly stronger than them when it came to lifting heavy things. If it came to a physical fight I could easily overpower them. Hell I'd be in with a shot if both of them had come at me. And like I say Hercules I'm not. There's more meat on a butchers apron.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

My fella is big and tall but not at all fit or with any kind of muscle mass, he's a sedentary man in his 30s. I'm fairly fit and active and in my 20s, I've a small frame but I'm 5'8" and no weakling. The idea that we are anywhere near evenly matched is delusional. He's accidentally sent me flying or stunned me a few times, just by opening a door he didn't know I was behind, flailing in his sleep, things like that.

The idea that women are as strong or as violent as men is nuts. If you've to rely on that, you really need to look at what you're trying to argue and why.

Sure there's no reason a man couldn't fight a gorilla if he just took a few self defence classes.

Iris Future Servitude

Iris Future Servitude wrote: »

The idea that women are as strong or as violent as men is nuts. If you've to rely on that, you really need to look at what you're trying to argue and why.

Ok. I get that I'm wrong about the strength difference.

Sure there's no reason a man couldn't fight a gorilla if he just took a few self defence classes.

But a woman could fight a man if she knew how to defend herself and had the confidence from training.

I'm just over 4ft 11 inches and weigh around six and a half stones. Today I learned that I really can beat the living daylights out of a man, just like all those movies where a wee girl kicks the bejeezus out of a roomful of men have told me I can all along!

I daresay I also feel rather more worried by a threat posed by an average man than the average man is of a threat posed by me. Sure, I'm smaller than the average woman but apparently averages don't count for much anymore.

It's a bit of a rabbit hole on Boards lately.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

From what I remember of self defence classes the advice is get one incapacitating hit in, if you're confident of landing it, and then run very fast.

Now sure, if you're Gina Carrera or Rhonda Rousey or Buffy Summers, you have a shot. But even the people who train women in this train them to create the conditions to run, not to to try and win a fight on technique. One good full force hit to the face from a man, or if he can get you by the arms, and you're done.

My brother is tall and handsome, started working as a barman when he was about 19. I was fit to murder some bitches after the stories he told me. Once when his manager and her friends came in drinking after hours one of them kept grabbing him. Her friends intervened and it stopped (which according to the sexual assault thread over in AH is for some reason something that there's no point men trying but whatever), and they started talking about the general subject. One of the women who stopped her was talking aboutmen she knew who worked in Edinburgh and had to wear kilts, had to put up with constant dick grabbing. Little miss gropey pipes up with "ah but surely they kind of expect that, wearing kilts like, what do they think would happen". Just remembered that story there, the way my brother tells it he just walked away at that point, couldn't believe what he was hearing.

ancapailldorcha

I always knew there was a disparity but I hadn't realised that it was quite so large.

Anyway, I used to work in a hotel. There was a certain punter who groped me a few times though I think that's harassment, not sexual assault.

...And Justice

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I always knew there was a disparity but I hadn't realised that it was quite so large.

Anyway, I used to work in a hotel. There was a certain punter who groped me a few times though I think that's harassment, not sexual assault.

It's sexual violence and assault to say hello to a woman in her 20's these days.

ancapailldorcha

...And Justice wrote: »

It's sexual violence and assault to say hello to a woman in her 20's these days.

This sort of infantile nonsense is exactly the problem.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

But a woman could fight a man if she knew how to defend herself and had the confidence from training.

Well she'll increase her chances and definitely increase her chances of getting a dig in that might incapacitate the guy long enough so she can get the hell out of dodge. Kinda like me if I had training and went up against a stronger man, but if I stuck around I'm going to take a beating. Weapons equalise things, but hand to hand relying on strength and speed? Nope. It's kinda why we came up with weapons in the first place, to even the playing field. What was it somebody said(Twain?): god didn't make all men equal, Samuel Colt did.

Put very simply men have evolved to give and take more physical punishment than women. On average men have better spatial awareness so can throw a punch(or weapon) with more accuracy and block an attack more easily too. Men have wider shoulders which means more leverage when throwing a punch(or weapon), narrower hips which means faster rotation when throwing, more muscle mass, generally taller, bigger hearts and lungs, thicker stronger bones in the limbs and head and jaws and thicker skin. And if things get too real and escape is required they're also better built for running the fook away.

Hell look at women well versed in the art of knocking opponents into next week in a very accomplished way like the aforementioned Ronda Rousey. Outside of mad levels of training, fitness and giant ovaries made of steel to get into the ring in the first place their body shape in full on "welcome to your waterloo, boyo" mode is more "male" in layout. Wider shoulders, narrower hips, more muscle mass and certainly much more upper body strength. Ronda herself noted the difference when asked about Fallon Fox, a transgender fighter who born a physical male transitioned at 30 years of age. She came straight out and said she felt it was an unfair advantage. As another fighter said; "I’ve fought a lot of women and have never felt the strength that I felt in a fight as I did that night".

Does this mean I discount self defence/martial arts for women? I most certainly do not. It is very good for fitness and confidence and both can really help in dodgy situations, especially confidence(for men and women), but a dose of realism has to come into it too.

I blame Hollywood and some Karate/self defence for women types for this notion. Watch any of the current TV shows and flics and you regularly see tiny framed women taking out bouncer sized man after bouncer sized man and some seem to think this is reality. It's really not. It's a choreographed dance, not a fight.

Wibbs

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This sort of infantile nonsense is exactly the problem.

Yes, but TBH AC I can kinda see where he is coming from. There is a more prevalent sense that the script has changed - for good and for ill - and that many men, particularly young men seem to me a lot less confident and sure within themselves in the mating/dating/"gender" game.

Icemancometh

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This sort of infantile nonsense is exactly the problem.

There's been an argument suggested in the AH thread that talking to women in a public space can be harassment. Assault is obviously a big step up on that though.

Pero_Bueno

All the time in nightclubs back in college - I would have my ass pinched.
Again I actually found it funny / harmless cos that's all it was - I remember being pissed off however that I couldn't just return the favour ...

ancapailldorcha

Wibbs wrote: »

Yes, but TBH AC I can kinda see where he is coming from. There is a more prevalent sense that the script has changed - for good and for ill - and that many men, particularly young men seem to me a lot less confident and sure within themselves in the mating/dating/"gender" game.

I can as well but pretending that you can face prison as a result of talking to a woman isn't helping. We both know of all sorts of daft cases which should have been binned but ended up in courts but they're very much the exception.

As for not being sure of oneself in the dating game, I'm not sure how much of that can be pinned on this script change. I think people are spending far, far too much time on the wrong sites and getting the impression that this sort of thing is the norm when it's nowhere near that. Morons on Twitter and certain newspapers are getting far too much attention and are being treated as though they're speaking logically and scientifically when they're just presenting tripe.

Icemancometh wrote: »

There's been an argument suggested in the AH thread that talking to women in a public space can be harassment. Assault is obviously a big step up on that though.

Depends on how it's done. Context as they say is everything.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ancapailldorcha

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

University campuses are a whole different dimension of crazy as far as I am concerned. I'm glad my time has thoroughly ended.

On the former point, I'm not so sure. I don't think you'd instantly get fired simply because someone said you made her uncomfortable. A warning or something would be more likely depending on exactly what happened.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

iptba

Stop groping us, McBusted’s Tom Fletcher tells mum fans

‘I went into the crowd and one woman grabbed my c*** really hard and wouldn’t let go. I was like, “Whoa!” If a man had done that to my wife, I’d be f***ing mad,’ the singer said.

https://www.metro.news/stop-groping-us-mcbusteds-tom-fletcher-tells-mum-fans/803487/

citytillidie

iptba wrote: »

https://www.metro.news/stop-groping-us-mcbusteds-tom-fletcher-tells-mum-fans/803487/

Classic double standard that a blind eye is turned too

citytillidie

citytillidie wrote: »

Classic double standard that a blind eye is turned too

I remember that going around. As far as I remember, the actor might have been playing a 17 year old, but was in fact in his twenties, so it's not quite as the picture would have you believe.

It's not quite as creepy as people in their 40's targeting teens, but it's certainly still creepy.

FishOnABike

Fall_Guy wrote: »

Ah here.

I used the words in general to cover this very issue. Of course there are women who engage in violence. If you are trying to argue that the prevalence of violent acts perpetrated by women on men comes close to the opposite scenario I think we are at an impasse

The prevalence of violent acts perpetrated by women on men does come close to the opposite scenario. If you read the research -
https://j4mb.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/46/2014/07/140729-elizabeth-bates-report-on-dv.pdf

The same was found by Erin Prizzey, founder of the first domestic violence shelters, who failed to get funding when she tried to establish a shelter for male domestic violence sufferers.

There's plenty more research e.g. by Dr. Murray Strauss in Canada and by the CDC in America which shows that domestic violence is not a gender issue and there is not a great difference in the perpetrator gender balance in intimate partner violence.

Recognition of this is largely a cultural matter.

Fall_Guy

FishOnABike wrote: »

The prevalence of violent acts perpetrated by women on men does come close to the opposite scenario. If you read the research -
https://j4mb.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/46/2014/07/140729-elizabeth-bates-report-on-dv.pdf

The same was found by Erin Prizzey, founder of the first domestic violence shelters, who failed to get funding when she tried to establish a shelter for male domestic violence sufferers.

There's plenty more research e.g. by Dr. Murray Strauss in Canada and by the CDC in America which shows that domestic violence is not a gender issue and there is not a great difference in the perpetrator gender balance in intimate partner violence.

Recognition of this is largely a cultural matter.

Yeah sorry, I qualified this point later as I meant
to make it clear that I was referring to sexual violence, the dynamics at play in instances of domestic violence are very different.

citytillidie

Candie wrote: »

I remember that going around. As far as I remember, the actor might have been playing a 17 year old, but was in fact in his twenties, so it's not quite as the picture would have you believe.

It's not quite as creepy as people in their 40's targeting teens, but it's certainly still creepy.

Sure look at the new one that is making headlines now. A 27 year old model telling a 14 year old actor to hit her up in 4 years is being laughed at as a joke comment, where as you know if it was the other way around it would rightly be called out as being perverted and creepy

Lux23

FishOnABike wrote: »

The prevalence of violent acts perpetrated by women on men does come close to the opposite scenario. If you read the research -
https://j4mb.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/46/2014/07/140729-elizabeth-bates-report-on-dv.pdf



There's plenty more research e.g. by Dr. Murray Strauss in Canada and by the CDC in America which shows that domestic violence is not a gender issue and there is not a great difference in the perpetrator gender balance in intimate partner violence.

Recognition of this is largely a cultural matter.

I think I would agree with that statement, but up until very recently men were the main breadwinners, they owned property and so on meaning that women and their children were disproportionally affected by intimate partner violence. However, it is also important to recognise that male violence is a huge problem, most men are killed by other men and so you can't ignore that either. Which is what I think lots of these Men's Rights activists want to do, they don't want to accept that traditional masculinity is flawed.

Wibbs

Lux23 wrote: »

Which is what I think lots of these Men's Rights activists want to do, they don't want to accept that traditional masculinity is flawed.

What "traditional masculinity"? You mean the actual traditional masculinity that said men should never hit women? The one where molestors and rapists would likely be beaten even killed if found out? The one that said men should stand up and look out for and protect those around them? The one that said you don't pick on the weak, don't start fights with others and keep your anger(and other emotions) in check? That one? I don't think you have a notion what traditional masculinity is.

El_Duderino 09

Wibbs wrote: »

What "traditional masculinity"? You mean the actual traditional masculinity that said men should never hit women? The one where molestors and rapists would likely be beaten even killed if found out? The one that said men should stand up and look out for and protect those around them? The one that said you don't pick on the weak, don't start fights with others and keep your anger(and other emotions) in check? That one? I don't think you have a notion what traditional masculinity is.

I spent days asking the learned folk of these threads what they mean by ‘traditional masculinity’ and it turns out they didn't have a clue how to define it. So climb down off that little pony.

givyjoe

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I spent days asking the learned folk of these threads what they mean by ‘traditional masculinity’ and it turns out they didn't have a clue how to define it. So climb down off that little pony.

Come off it will you, hardly a high horse. One poster has an understandably biased (based on other thread posts), negative view of what 'traditional' masculinity is and was succinctly reminded of what many of us (including me) were brought up to understand what being a man is.

Not an exhaustive list, but not one that I would say is flawed.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Wibbs wrote: »

What "traditional masculinity"? You mean the actual traditional masculinity that said men should never hit women? The one where molestors and rapists would likely be beaten even killed if found out? The one that said men should stand up and look out for and protect those around them? The one that said you don't pick on the weak, don't start fights with others and keep your anger(and other emotions) in check? That one? I don't think you have a notion what traditional masculinity is.

But that is the traditional masculinity which sees men killed in huge numbers. If you don't think there are models of masculinity in which violence and aggression and dominance are valorised then, I don't know, turn on the tv. Walk through a city centre late at night. Go to an A&E, find the people who've taken a kicking and ask who did it.

She didn't say traditional masculinity is entirely without merit, she said it's flawed. That OTT response is actually a pretty good case in point.

Wibbs

Iris Future Servitude wrote: »

But that is the traditional masculinity which sees men killed in huge numbers. If you don't think there are models of masculinity in which violence and aggression and dominance are valorised then,

Of course they are. EG the whole notion of the hero-warrior. Masculinity utilised in defence of a society, even to the point of dying for your flag/culture so you can be eulogised after you're gone. It's throughout history and cultures. However...

Walk through a city centre late at night. Go to an A&E, find the people who've taken a kicking and ask who did it.

That same traditional masculinity warrior meme values restraint outside of wars and the like and takes a very dim view of drunken muppets punching the heads off each other for no reason. There wouldn't be a "warrior code" anywhere on the planet that would support that. Traditional masculinity it is not.

She didn't say traditional masculinity is entirely without merit, she said it's flawed.

I've never seen any examples of merit given.

That OTT response is actually a pretty good case in point.

How so? Because I disagreed with her and questioned what I see in my opinion is her ignorance on the matter and no doubt coming from the notion of "toxic masculinity" popular of late?

El_Duderino 09

Cherry picking going on there. What I learned from these masculinity discussions is that the term can mean all things to all men. The ability to box the head off someone is heralded as a masculine trait, as is showing restrain. There’s no problem with the contradiction. Equally it’s masculine to be kind and generous, and to be a ruthless to gain success in business.

A small bit of honesty would allow you to see that you’re unlikely to be discussing the same thing as anyone else when you both use the term ‘traditional masculinity ‘. It’s as easy to cherrypick the good as the bad because it’s so broad.

iptba

Lux23 wrote: »

Which is what I think lots of these Men's Rights activists want to do, they don't want to accept that traditional masculinity is flawed.

It's hard to be a true expert as an amateur but it is my impression this is not a strong theme among men's rights activitsts. A stronger theme would be unhappiness in the way men have been used and continue to be used as fodder in wars with conscription, military service, etc. Even in countries with a strong feminist influence, women generally don't have to do military service.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Wibbs wrote: »

Of course they are. EG the whole notion of the hero-warrior. Masculinity utilised in defence of a society, even to the point of dying for your flag/culture so you can be eulogised after you're gone. It's throughout history and cultures. However... That same traditional masculinity warrior meme values restraint outside of wars and the like and takes a very dim view of drunken muppets punching the heads off each other for no reason. There wouldn't be a "warrior code" anywhere on the planet that would support that. Traditional masculinity it is not.

But that's conflating 'traditional masculinity' with the social meme of the hero-warrior. It's cherry picking to be honest. It's like if someone said that traditional femininity is flawed in that it encourages learned helplessness, fetishises submission, absolves women of a degree of personal responsibility, and I came back and said that traditional femininity is the archetype of the earth mother and that's it, end of, point invalid. Have you seriously never seen a crowd of men egging two men on to fight? How many people do you know of who very unironically think Scarface is class? Heard of masculine subcultures in places like East London, Eastern Europe, Australia, which are based around proficiency in violence, not being good at restraining it? Does popular culture which is coded masculine - say, Rambo, the expendables, gangsta hip-hop, and so on, does that communicate that what's cool is not fighting? You personally, and plenty of men generally can refuse to identify their own masculinity with that carry on and that's fine. But it doesn't mean it doesn't exist and isn't a part of masculinity on a macro scale. I don't care about weddings or babies, I don't spend much time grooming, but that doesn't mean I can just flat out deny that that is part of the social reality of femininity.

I've never seen any examples of merit given.

By definition, saying something is flawed is saying it has merit.

How so? Because I disagreed with her and questioned what I see in my opinion is her ignorance on the matter and no doubt coming from the notion of "toxic masculinity" popular of late?

No, because you're immediately defensive, dismissive "you don't have a notion" and presumptuous "no doubt coming from" and fought a strawman while being so.

Yes.

On nights out I've had my crotch grabbed, my ass grabbed.

tritium

Lux23 wrote: »

I think I would agree with that statement, but up until very recently men were the main breadwinners, they owned property and so on meaning that women and their children were disproportionally affected by intimate partner violence. However, it is also important to recognise that male violence is a huge problem, most men are killed by other men and so you can't ignore that either. Which is what I think lots of these Men's Rights activists want to do, they don't want to accept that traditional masculinity is flawed.

Is there an unflawed option to replace it with.

While we're replacing it can we apply the same critical lenses to other groups.

Or to put it another way why is it only traditional masculinity that is subject to this negative critique and why is the alternative so much better?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The Bishop Basher

Lux23 wrote: »

Which is what I think lots of these Men's Rights activists want to do, they don't want to accept that traditional masculinity is flawed.

What the

I don't think i've ever read such poorly thought out, meaningless and ignorant statement in all my life..

Traditional masculinity is neither right nor wrong.. It just is.. In exactly the same way as traditional femininity just is..

Now if you want to change either by all means let's start having that discussion but to start with the idea that masculinity is flawed means you've shut down the discussion before it's even begun..

Have to say i'm growing to despise a great number of "feminists" lately and as a result their message is completely lost on me..

I try to be a good person first and foremost. After that I try to be a good father, husband, son, brother and friend..

If any feminists want to take issue with and get all sensitive and judgmental about any aspect of my behaviour, well they can just **** right off..

Some of them might have something important to say but the message is completely drowned out by the sheer number of nut jobs taking up the position of being outraged and offended by anything male and playing the victim..

Just **** off the lot of ye..

One eyed Jack

Lux23 wrote: »

I think I would agree with that statement, but up until very recently men were the main breadwinners, they owned property and so on meaning that women and their children were disproportionally affected by intimate partner violence. However, it is also important to recognise that male violence is a huge problem, most men are killed by other men and so you can't ignore that either. Which is what I think lots of these Men's Rights activists want to do, they don't want to accept that traditional masculinity is flawed.

I'm not a men's rights activist, but I do have my own perception of masculinity, and that doesn't include perpetuating violence against other men, nor women for that matter. To me it appears that it's not masculinity is flawed, but rather your perception of masculinity is flawed, that you would associate masculinity with violence, ignoring the fact that by far and away the vast majority of men do not commit violence against either men or women. Such divisive perceptions fuel the online gender wars.

I read this piece this morning and thought it was worth sharing. I've no interest in celebrity abuse scandals, so figured here may be the best place for it -

#MeToo: 'Some contributors use it as a platform to pour scorn on all men'


Particularly worth noting, for me anyway, was this bit -


Too much of the debate in the mainstream and social media around gender issues is dictated by a strain of feminism that views masculinity as inherently problematic. On the other hand, too many men react hyper defensively to women discussing their grievances and concerns.

The rest of us look on and think to ourselves it’s neither men or women that are the problem, it’s just ****ty people.

silverharp

Lux23 wrote: »

I think I would agree with that statement, but up until very recently men were the main breadwinners, they owned property and so on meaning that women and their children were disproportionally affected by intimate partner violence. However, it is also important to recognise that male violence is a huge problem, most men are killed by other men and so you can't ignore that either. Which is what I think lots of these Men's Rights activists want to do, they don't want to accept that traditional masculinity is flawed.

at the risk of being a grammar nazi, most men die of natural causes and dying in a car crash is far more likely than being murdered.
"traditional masculinity" being flawed doesnt really mean anything. male biology is different to female so its natural that in total there is more aggressive males than females, but i could easily pull up a story of a woman killing her kids , stabbing her husband and apparently lesbian relationship have among the highest levels of violence where no men are involved.
its been a little bluntly put that men are either builders or destroyers so the trick has always been to harness male energy and have many more builders than destroyers. General statments about traditional masculinity doesnt add anything and is just used to slur men or to make a meaningless debating point.

Valmont

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You probably just don't remember; someone could have looked at your bottom in work.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Lux23

Wibbs wrote: »

What "traditional masculinity"? You mean the actual traditional masculinity that said men should never hit women? The one where molestors and rapists would likely be beaten even killed if found out? The one that said men should stand up and look out for and protect those around them? The one that said you don't pick on the weak, don't start fights with others and keep your anger(and other emotions) in check? That one? I don't think you have a notion what traditional masculinity is.

Some of what you've mentioned isn't traditional masculinity. For instance, a man could rape his wife legally up until the 90s, he was allowed to beat her and her kids as a man was traditionally responsible for keeping order in his household. As for the sentence, I have just bolded, very few of the men who are posting in this thread feel they should stand up and protect anybody but themselves.

goz83

I was 14/15 years old when I was a lounge boy and being eye-balled, flirted at, ass slapped/pinched/groped was definitely not uncommon at work. All of this was from women in their 30s and 40s or older. The male customers wouldn't have got away with doing the same (at least not physically) to the lounge girls, as it would have been child abuse, but it was ok for the women to do it to the lounge boys....none of us were older than 17.

Generally throughout the years I have seen some "inappropriate" behaviour from both sides and men usually just ignore anything that happens to them, where women have on occasion blown the lid for the same behaviour.

I have seen talk of power dynamics in this thread. I don't for one second believe that the man has the edge here. A woman crying into her napkin is going to be believed over a man standing his ground. The imbalance and double standards are just sickening. The recent Adam Sandler allegation is the perfect example of hyper feminazi ball crushers. A completely innocent touch on the knee being dubbed as sexual assault. Pathetic stuff. It takes away from real sexual assaults, because all this wolf crying is way out of hand.

optogirl

goz83 wrote: »

Generally throughout the years I have seen some "inappropriate" behaviour from both sides and men usually just ignore anything that happens to them, where women have on occasion blown the lid for the same behaviour.

Unfortunately for women it is generally more intimidating because the threat of something more sinister is always there.

Wibbs

Lux23 wrote: »

Some of what you've mentioned isn't traditional masculinity.

Yes it is.

For instance, a man could rape his wife legally up until the 90s,

Not quite. The law regarded consent was a given for sexual relations within marriage and neither spouse was referenced. It was wrong, but a little different to how you framed it.

he was allowed to beat her and her kids as a man was traditionally responsible for keeping order in his household.

Nope he was not allowed to beat his wife, or her to beat him and from the 1970's onwards this was nailed down in law. And both mothers and fathers were allowed to administer corporal punishment to their children. I note how mothers doing so was left out of your sentence and that they were "her" kids. Speaks volumes for the angle you're coming at here...

optogirl wrote: »

Unfortunately for women it is generally more intimidating because the threat of something more sinister is always there.

This I would agree with. Do men suffer unwanted sexual attention? Yes. Do men suffer sexual assault? Yes. Do women suffer from more unwanted sexual attention and sexual assault? Most certainly yes. I think my attitude to the notion of "rape culture" and "Every woman has been raped!" is well established, but at the same time the risks of this are demonstrably lower for men, just as the risks of physical assault are demonstrably lower for women. To suggest otherwise is just as farcical as that kinda thing from "feminists".

goz83

optogirl wrote: »

Unfortunately for women it is generally more intimidating because the threat of something more sinister is always there.

I like the way you conveniently ignored women in their 30s and 40s groping 14 and 15 year old boys.

Wibbs

goz83 wrote: »

I like the way you conveniently ignored women in their 30s and 40s groping 14 and 15 year old boys.

Ah C'mon. Yes it happens and it is Wrong lest anyone doubts my position on the matter, however it is a plain fact that women of all ages are far more likely to be sexually intimidated and groped than men are.

If someone came on a thread here discussing physical violence on men and suggested that women were equally likely to suffer from it, I'd call shenanigans on that too.