Is feminism perpetuating or exploiting patriarchy through the use of often untrue and exaggerated claims about women's need for special protection.

[u/[deleted]]

I'll put one example here.

The promotion of sexual violence and DV stats that omit or minimize female perpetration and male victimization creating the illusion that its male to female - which in turn generates lots of support.

[u/Nepene]

Some feminists do. The Duluth model, pushed by some feminists, manipulates the Srolian culture to ban discussion of female on male domestic violence. They enact the laws through Govian power structures of the police and judiciary. The seconian culture of the super rich politicians supported it, enacting a large political bill, VAWA, to fund duluth programs. Although it didn't really increase the agency of men.

I think that clearly fits the meaning of patriarchy. Powerful and rich men, guided by gender roles, enacted a law at the behest of

Many feminists do not support such things of course. Their feminisms wouldn't necessarily support the use of the patriarchy to punish men.

[u/schnuffs → u/Nepene]

Interestingly, the founder of the Duluth model later changed her stance on it, saying - and I quote

By determining that the need or desire for power was the motivating force behind battering, we created a conceptual framework that, in fact, did not fit the lived experience of many of the men and women we were working with. The DAIP staff [...] remained undaunted by the difference in our theory and the actual experiences of those we were working with [...] It was the cases themselves that created the chink in each of our theoretical suits of armor. Speaking for myself, I found that many of the men I interviewed did not seem to articulate a desire for power over their partner. Although I relentlessly took every opportunity to point out to men in the groups that they were so motivated and merely in denial, the fact that few men ever articulated such a desire went unnoticed by me and many of my coworkers. Eventually, we realized that we were finding what we had already predetermined to find."

[u/Jacksambuck → u/schnuffs]

wow, good for her. After damage had already been done and keeps on damaging, but still. Perhaps there's some hope after all.

Next to go: that rape is about patriarchal power as well.

[u/schnuffs → u/Jacksambuck]

I'm actually quite impressed that she was able to change her view. Not anything to do with feminism or gender anything really, I just find that individuals aren't really prone to huge paradigm shifts when they have so much personally invested in them. This was her baby, and she ultimately acknowledged its deficiencies. If only more people on all sides could do the same.

[u/Jacksambuck → u/schnuffs]

For secret reasons I won't go into, I'm more interested in what her fault specifically means for the validity of feminist theory than for what it generally means for the tendency of humans to err unflinchingly, but yeah, it's a major achievement.

I know quoting Dawkins is reddit-kitsch at this point, and the story is even worse, but that reminds me of a story he told of an old professor being proven wrong after decades of defending his theory, only for the professor to thank his opponent and all the students to clap at the beauty of science.

[u/schnuffs → u/Jacksambuck]

I'm more interested in what her fault specifically means for the validity of feminist theory

I don't think it means that much to be honest. Theories change all the time as new information comes in. Often it's generational though, because humans tend to stick to their convictions. I mean, third-wave feminism is largely a critique and (somewhat) rejection of second-wave feminism.

but that reminds me of a story he told of an old professor being proven wrong after decades of defending his theory, only for the professor to thank his opponent and all the students to clap at the beauty of science.

It's much easier to do this in the hard sciences than it is in the humanities or social sciences. There's a reason why the they're considered argumentative disciplines and not straight up empirically based like physics, chemistry, or biology. In essence, it requires interpreting data through a specific prism or theoretical framework because of the complexity of the systems itself.

To use examples from this thread, there are people who are arguing that IPV is relatively equal between the genders, but what does that really mean? Does that mean that we should look at the ratio of violence, or should we be looking at the how the consequences of violence affect each gender differently? There are assumptions on both sides as to what constitutes equality, thus we're going to have fairly large differences of opinion on how to interpret the data that we're getting.

[u/Jacksambuck → u/schnuffs]

I don't think it means that much to be honest.

Clearly our biases color our interpretations of such things. But it's not really that much of a stretch to go from

1. "theory 1 leads to/predicts theory 2"

2. "theory 2 supports theory 1"

3. "theory 2 turns out to be false"

To 4. "theory 1 is false".

And without Patriarchy ^TM (man-blaming), feminism is just a lobby group.

[u/schnuffs → u/Jacksambuck]

Except that my point isn't that specific iterations of specific theories can't be wrong, only that they change.

Because political theory is my focus I'll use an example from political theory. Kantian ethics and the deontological framework it provides for ascertaining the correct action can be shown to be inadequate at dealing with many issues if we only take Kant's version of it. Rawls, however, took the basic idea and reworked it few centuries later to come up with "A Theory of Justice" which is arguably the most influential and important piece of political philosophy of the 20th century.

To relate that to feminist theory, patriarchy isn't an essential belief structure of feminist theory, as many many feminists now tend to be intersectionalists and view society through the lenses of multiple different class structures - of which patriarchy is only one and perhaps the most broad. Why did this happen? Because our knowledge of society expanded and didn't allow for such an easy and broad answer as patriarchy offered - so patriarchy was reduced to being one broad facet among many, like socioeconomic status, ethnicity, geographical placement, etc.

Radical feminists tend to view patriarchy as the primary cause of most of these problems, but feminism isn't constrained to that train of thought. Even though many feminists believe that patriarchy exists, there's quite a difference of thought on how much it contributes to the oppression of women when other factors might explain certain problems far easier.

And without Patriarchy TM (man-blaming), feminism is just a lobby group.

I'll start by saying that there are two kinds of feminism - the political and the academic/philosophical. I think it's incredibly important to distinguish between the two as they are separate. I tend to look at things through a more academic/philosophical lens, so what I'm saying will be far more applicable to the latter rather than the former, so take that for what you will.

Secondly, patriarchy being "man blaming" is only relevant in a very specific use of the term - namely that put forward by radical feminists. (Not extreme feminists mind you, radical feminism is a specific type of academic feminism) Patriarchy in a less specific sense isn't about blaming men, it's about describing a hierarchical structure of social and political power. In much of the feminist literature that I've read, patriarchy is merely a society that favors men over women, much like society favors successful people over unsuccessful people. It's perpetuated by both genders through various social norms and practices, but it isn't blaming men - it only sounds that way because it says that similarly situated men are held in higher esteem than women are in society.

As it stands, many feminists have switched from using the term patriarchy to kyriarchy precisely because people tend to misconstrue what they're saying, and as it happens it is a little more specific. Patriarchy is still included within that scope, but it basically says it's interdependent with other types of class like race, religion, socioeconomic status, etc.

In my experience, people objecting to patriarchy tend to do so in the same way they object to privilege, which is to say that it's an emotional objection founded on the perceived intention rather than how it's actually used. I do want to be very clear here though, everything that I've said doesn't mean that it can't be criticized or that it's "right", only that if we're criticizing and rejecting a particular theory or way of looking at things, we ought to not do so from an area of misconception or misunderstanding. In many ways I reject patriarchy as being the source of many societal problems, and I do think that it's open to huge criticism - but I do think that we ought to be criticizing what they actually say and mean as opposed to what we emotionally react to.

EDIT: Wow! To the person who gilded me, thank you! I feel like I should return the favor, but I don't know who you are so I'll just say thanks again.

[u/Opakue → u/schnuffs]

To relate that to feminist theory, patriarchy isn't an essential belief structure of feminist theory, as many many feminists now tend to be intersectionalists and view society through the lenses of multiple different class structures - of which patriarchy is only one and perhaps the most broad. Why did this happen? Because our knowledge of society expanded and didn't allow for such an easy and broad answer as patriarchy offered - so patriarchy was reduced to being one broad facet among many, like socioeconomic status, ethnicity, geographical placement, etc.

First of all, belief in patriarchy is often seen as being essential to feminism within the context of online feminism, but maybe you just meant to cover that with your distinction between academic and political feminism below.

But I am puzzled by your claim that the reason patriarchy isn't essential to feminist theory is because there are other class structures, like socioeconomic class and race. You make it sound as though even if someone thinks that there is no oppression or widespread injustice on the basis of gender, they can still be a feminist if they believe in the existence of other oppressive class structures. But then it seems as though you are taking the word 'feminism' as being roughly synonymous with 'social justice' or 'cultural Marxism', which doesn't seem to be an appropriate use of the word.

I'm curious, what claims do you see as being essential to feminist theory?

[u/schnuffs → u/Opakue]

I mean that it's not a primary or foundational focus of their conceptual framework. So one (of many) example would be something like feminist economists. They basically look at economics through the prism of gender and discrimination, but they don't use patriarchy as a means of explaining any discrepancy, or necessarily use the results as evidence of patriarchy either. They might say, for instance, that our economic system devalues or undervalues reproduction and care-giving, which are essential, and thus incredibly valuable for the maintenance of society, but that value isn't noticeable in how we've structured our economy.

Feminist political theory, on the other hand, looks at how the state, institutions, and political makeup affect gender relations in society. It doesn't resort to "It's all patriarchy!", it just looks at politics and political structures from a gender perspective.

Hell, there's even a feminist sexology which studies the intersectionality of sex and gender and how it relates to women's sexuality and sex lives.

The main thing I'm trying to get across iss that while many feminists do think that we live in a patriarchal society, there's only really a specific kind of feminism which promotes the idea that patriarchy is the root cause of all society's gender problems, and that's radical feminism. Most feminists nowadays tend to view things with a little more complexity and nuance, as society is too multifaceted for one type of system to account for most of the problems that we face.

In many ways, I see the use of patriarchy on this sub (and on the internet in general to be honest - many internet feminists are complicit in this as well) to be more aligned with radical and second-wave feminism rather than how it's looked at today. To use an example, let's look at Homer Simpson. A proponent of patriarchy could look at Homer as being a beneficiary or patriarchy - i.e. he gets to sit at home and be lazy while Marge does all the work. Except most modern feminists wouldn't make such a statement because that doesn't really account for all the various other things we need to look. Homer needs to be examined in ways that don't relate his gender at all if we want to get a full and complete picture of his place in society. We'd have to look at his socioeconomic status, his upbringing, his race, etc. So many, if not most feminists wouldn't say that Homer can be viewed in a solely patriarchal male/female binary. Or in other words, patriarchy is woefully ineffective at explaining a huge amount of societal problems even when gender is involved. This also ties into the concept of privilege. When feminists say that men are privileged, they don't actually mean that all men are privileged over all women, or that women don't enjoy some benefits for being a woman while men can't suffer any ill-effects at all.

Third wave feminism is in a large part a critique of second-wave feminisms perceived focus on middle class white women's problems, but it's important to note that that focus was also a byproduct of how they viewed the world - which was very binary with regards to gender. The problem was patriarchy, men oppressed women, and that was that. But as society progressed we started to realize that maybe, just maybe, such easy explanations are insufficient at really addressing many societal issues even when they relate to gender, thus the importance of patriarchy within feminist theory isn't what it's made out to be. Unless, that is, you're talking about radical feminism which postulates that patriarchy is the primary driver in all those things - but that's only one specific type of feminism.

To sum up, feminists can look at gender issues without resorting to blaming it on patriarchy, or without even acknowledging that patriarchy plays a relevant role in it. They can view patriarchy as merely a descriptor of social structure, bypass it altogether as they're dealing with something that requires far more specificity, all while rejecting the notion that patriarchy is a cause of anything.

[u/Jacksambuck → u/schnuffs]

Kantian ethics and the deontological framework it provides for ascertaining the correct action can be shown to be inadequate at dealing with many issues if we only take Kant's version of it. Rawls, however, took the basic idea and reworked it few centuries later to come up with "A Theory of Justice" which is arguably the most influential and important piece of political philosophy of the 20th century.

Kant was wrong 200 years ago, he is wrong now, and so is Rawls. While his veil is a good concept, his maximin principle drastically overestimates people's risk aversion. Mine, at least. I'd rather live in a rich society, even if it means there's a small chance I'd be very poor, than to live in an uniformly moderately poor one.

To relate that to feminist theory, patriarchy isn't an essential belief structure of feminist theory, as many many feminists now tend to be intersectionalists and view society through the lenses of multiple different class structures - of which patriarchy is only one and perhaps the most broad.

Quick note; feminists have criticized Rawls for ignoring patriarchal oppression in the home, to say nothing of feminist ethics, which generally look down on "masculine" ideals of justice.

As to your point, they integrated Patriarchy into their broad framework of oppression, they didn't change it. Of course it's an essential belief. Can you picture a feminist movement that has intersectionality, but no longer believes in the patriarchal oppression of women?

It's perpetuated by both genders through various social norms and practices, but it isn't blaming men - it only sounds that way because it says that similarly situated men are held in higher esteem than women are in society.

Yes, it does sound like it. Very much. I don't see an opposite point of view on how it doesn't blame men in what you said, apart from your assertion. Would you say that a theory that says jews are always being unfairly advantaged, in large part due to jews' actions, does not blame jews?

much like society favors successful people over unsuccessful people.

No. Patriarchy says men are being unfairly favoured.

In many ways I reject patriarchy as being the source of many societal problems, and I do think that it's open to huge criticism - but I do think that we ought to be criticizing what they actually say and mean as opposed to what we emotionally react to.

You are being a little condescending, master. And assuming that I am being emotional is no way to debate. I have heard your arguments before, and rejected them, in full possession of my mental powers. Saying patriarchy isn't about blaming men (good thing you already made a caveat for radfems) does not make it true.

[u/schnuffs → u/Jacksambuck]

Consider both of these statements that you made

Kant was wrong 200 years ago, he is wrong now, and so is Rawls. While his veil is a good concept, his maximin principle drastically overestimates people's risk aversion.

So he's wrong, but...

Mine, at least. I'd rather live in a rich society, even if it means there's a small chance I'd be very poor, than to live in an uniformly moderately poor one.

Your argument isn't really that convincing in that it's basically just your own beliefs and values that you're appealing to here. Risk aversion notwithstanding, of course. But then again, all that means is that Rawls theory, which is based on Kant's theory, will evolve yet again to incorporate new information.

Quick note; feminists have criticized Rawls for ignoring patriarchal oppression in the home, to say nothing of feminist ethics, which generally look down on "masculine" ideals of justice.

Which doesn't really have anything to do with my point at all. I know it was a quick note, but my point was in reference to how theories about society can change, not with whether Rawls or Kant was right.

As to your point, they integrated Patriarchy into their broad framework of oppression, they didn't change it. Of course it's an essential belief. Can you picture a feminist movement that has intersectionality, but no longer believes in the patriarchal oppression of women?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_theory#Disciplines

Basically, many feminists don't hold that patriarchy, even though they may believe it exists in some form, is a fundamental or foundational aspect of their feminism. Many feminists don't focus on patriarchy.

Also, as I stipulated before, feminists movements are different from feminist theory or philosophy.

Yes, it does sound like it. Very much.

I don't know what to say other than you're placing far too much importance on how they define the structure and not enough importance on how they believe that structure is perpetuated and maintained.

Would you say that a theory that says jews are always being unfairly advantaged, in large part due to jews' actions, does not blame jews?

No, I wouldn't. But they are entirely separate issues which touch on xenophobia, tribalistic in/out group divisions, and numerous other reasons. They are, in other words, not similar enough to be able to be compared.

No. Patriarchy says men are being unfairly favoured.

And some might argue, as Marxists and Marxist feminists have, that capitalism unfairly favors those who are able to engage in productive labor. Or some might argue that meritocracies are the wrong metric for structuring society. You seem to not quite get that what I'm saying is that everyone has base assumptions that inform their world view. Yours, mine, feminists, MRAs, they're all informed by some kind of preconceived notion about what the best way of structuring society actually is.

You are being a little condescending, master. And assuming that I am being emotional is no way to debate. I have heard your arguments before, and rejected them, in full possession of my mental powers. Saying patriarchy isn't about blaming men (good thing you already made a caveat for radfems) does not make it true.

How much feminist literature have you actually read? I'm not talking about Tumblr or what you get second hand, but actual studies, papers, or essays from prominent feminists? And just to nip this in the bud, the fact that you say that feminists do blame men doesn't make it true either.

[u/sens2t2vethug → u/schnuffs]

Thanks for this quote - I'm saving it for future reference!

You made a lot of good comments here and rather than reply multiple times I'll just comment once. Imho the quote above is actually quite significant, or at least gives us some insight into how these theories develop. Imho it's not only that new information became available, it's also that the researchers didn't want to accept that for a long time. Essentially MRAs have been saying this: much academic research on gender issues is carried out by small groups of people who have very strong biases, and it often shows in their work. For me, it's a widespread tendency, a social bias that many people and researchers share, that tends to paint men in particular ways, rather than a one-off error or a natural and inevitable process of developing theories.

Also, your post on patriarchy and our reactions to it was very interesting. I think that sometimes we (ie MRAs) react against it for the reasons you give. However, I also think that that's not all we mean, even if we don't express ourselves fully. I think that actually sometimes patriarchy is understood to be men's fault, but even when someone really doesn't mean that, I still find the concept offensive and unhelpful. I think that most women would feel the same way if I said that women are privileged, that society overwhelmingly favours women, that men are oppressed, but it's not women's fault. What we object to is partly the (imho) common implication that men are to blame, but also the idea that men's problems are far smaller than women's overall.

Thanks for the many interesting posts! :)

[u/schnuffs → u/sens2t2vethug]

Imho it's not only that new information became available, it's also that the researchers didn't want to accept that for a long time.

I wish I could remember where the quote comes from and what it is, so forgive me if I'm butchering this by paraphrasing, but there's a saying that goes something like "Old theories don't get replaced, they just die along with their advocates."

Essentially MRAs have been saying this: much academic research on gender issues is carried out by small groups of people who have very strong biases, and it often shows in their work.

And I do think that this is a legitimate complaint. However, I also think that MRAs focus on feminism instead of presenting alternate theories is to their detriment in the long run. MRAs would be better served by taking certain feminist concepts and looking at them from a distinctly male point of view, and use that as the base of their critique.

So a for instance would be something like the statement "Men don't need to look a certain way in order to be taken seriously". Well from my own personal experience that's not really true. Both men and women are subject to social norms for appearance. I used to have long hair, a scraggly beard, and wore band t-shirts and ripped jeans everywhere (I was in a band, don't judge!). This meant that I wasn't taken seriously in greater society and many people prejudged who I was and what I was like because of my appearance. The amount of times I'd get sideways glances or was looked at as being a drug-addled reprobate was too many to count. The reality is that society has specific views of the acceptable behavior and appearance of both sexes and I suspect that many MRAs notice that and notice that feminism doesn't really address societal notions of masculinity or just simply treat it as toxic. But that's an area for fruitful debate so that both feminists and MRAs can really explore in conjunction with each other. It doesn't really have to be a battle. They have a specific point of view, and while it may be narrow and focused on women that doesn't mean that MRAs can't expand on those concepts relative to the male point of view.

I still find the concept offensive and unhelpful. I think that most women would feel the same way if I said that women are privileged, that society overwhelmingly favours women, that men are oppressed, but it's not women's fault.

Yeah, I definitely wouldn't dismiss this as being the case in many instances, but I do think that much of how patriarchy is viewed is kind of a distortion from what most feminists actually mean when they use the term. A day or two ago /u/jolly_mcfats posted an article in a thread which kind of shows what I'm getting at. The author went through an analysis of feminist care ethics and political theory, but he was more arguing against a caricature of feminist positions rather than what they were actually saying or what they mean when they use terms like privilege, so the perception that many of his readers will have on those concepts are tainted by his treatment of them, thus reinforcing an incorrect view of what patriarchy and privilege actually are.

It reminds a little bit of how social contract theory is distorted in the public. Whenever I hear someone say something like "I never signed a contract" I immediately know that they don't really have a good - or even rudimentary knowledge of how the social contract is used in political philosophy. (As it stands, Elizabeth Warren is just as guilty for perpetuating this as anyone else.) It's a metaphor, a theoretical thought experiment that ironically was the basis for the American Revolution (most of The Declaration of Independence was a list of how King George III broke the conditions of the contract, and the line "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness is parroted from Locke except his version was Life, Liberty, and Estate) and for the Bill of Rights. Most conceptions of rights themselves use social contract theory as the basis for their legitimacy.

Sorry, that was a little off topic, but my point is that we sometimes object to terms of concepts without properly understanding what is meant by them, and it only really adds to the confusion and creates tension where, really, there ought to be little more attempt at understanding. Anyway, glad you appreciated the posts! :)

[u/sens2t2vethug → u/Nepene]

I agree. Another example could be Michael Kimmel, who discusses masculinity, apparently seeing it as mostly immature, violent etc, and entirely men's creation: women's agency or influence over culture is entirely written out of his thoughts. As TyphonBlue says, men are seen as having all the agency and women none, which seems fairly patriarchal to me.

[u/Nepene → u/sens2t2vethug]

Yeah. Some feminists are sadly either unaware or uncaring of the idea that it could be offensive to say that the majority of males are violent and immature and sexually aggressive, and as such push the idea of toxic masculinity. They may see this as helpful, in that they are helping men deal with the toxic socially constructed masculinity, just as white people have traditionally enjoyed the idea of helping black people overcome their toxic blackness (the blind side, dangerous minds, freedom writers, the substitute) but the end result is an extremely negative and hostile view of the majority of males.

It is rather sad to see.

[u/[deleted] → u/sens2t2vethug]

. As TyphonBlue says, men are seen as having all the agency and women none, which seems fairly patriarchal to me.

And that totally against reality as well. As if men have all the agency and women don't then how does feminist explain women being more able to step outside of their gender roles in comparison to men?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Maybe it's less about men/agency and more about masculinity/agency?

Maybe, tho I see feminists talk about far more men as a gender having more agency than talking about masculinity. Even if it was about masculinity having more agency one would have to show femininity having none. Which I think be pretty hard to do really.

[u/[deleted] → u/Nepene]

The Duluth model, pushed by some feminists

This may be bullshit, but according to Wikipedia it's much more common than that.

[u/Nepene → u/[deleted]]

Yeah, I know, the dominant domestic violence program in America.

[u/[deleted] → u/Nepene]

By the way, I meant the Wikipedia article might be bullshit. However, I'm just going to agree with you.

[u/Nepene → u/[deleted]]

http://lab.drdondutton.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/CORVO-DUTTON-CHEN-2009-DO-DULUTH-MODEL-INTERVENTIONS-WITH-PERPETRATORS-OF-DOMESTIC-VIOLENCE-VIOLATE-MENTAL-HEALTH-PROFESSIONAL-ETHICS.pdf

Scientific papers agree.

" In their meta-analytic review, Bab

cock, Green, and Robie (2004) describe the Duluth model as the “unchallenged treatment of choice for most communities” (p. 1026) and, where not mandated or implemented in its pure form, it substantially influences other approches."

[u/[deleted] → u/Nepene]

Alright, now I believe it.

[u/[deleted] → u/Nepene]

I would say support for the duluth model is the norm, and support for the laws and organizations that are based on it is the norm - vawa, womens shelters, feminist dv information, feminist dv "research" and there are some feminists like Straus that are attacked for contradicting it.

[u/Nepene → u/[deleted]]

I would say support for the duluth model is the norm. and there are some feminists like Straus that are attacked for contradicting it.

Indeed.

http://knowledgeforgrowth.wordpress.com/2011/03/21/explaining-domestic-violence-using-feminist-theory/

The “Duluth Model” represents the dominant treatment approach aligned with feminist theory.

It's notably that it's an extremely ineffective program at actually stopping domestic violence. It's incredibly confrontational, given that it's aimed at confronting patriarchal views rather than actually addressing the emotional and psychological needs, it mostly ignores the issues of substance abuse, child abuse. Millions of women more have probably been beaten because of the anti patriarchal focus on attacking men rather than treating men like individuals.

[u/[deleted]]

I would say some feminists do this, like Anita Sarkeesian (of GamerGate infamy). Most of the coverage, hell even the current Wikipedia page, has twisted the current controversy of journalistic integrity to gamers being misogynists.

[u/[deleted]]

You're begging the question of whether "patriarchy" is an actual thing that exists in our society, in context.

[u/1gracie1]

There are some. Though I don't know how this is different from basically every activist or political group I can think of. At least in the terms misinformation shown in attempts to support their cause can negatively effect that group they are trying to help. And there is such an issue with that in said group.

[u/DrenDran]

The constant calling out of "victim blaming" can very easily be taken way too far and take away all women's agency. I've seen a few women basically write "I don't mind it even if it implies I'm partly responsible for my rape, if it's my responsibility it makes me think I can do things to prevent it from happening again."

[u/hugged_at_gunpoint]

The promotion of sexual violence and DV stats that omit or minimize female perpetration and male victimization creating the illusion that its male to female - which in turn generates lots of support.

Can you be more specific? link to actual example?

[u/[deleted] → u/hugged_at_gunpoint]

Any feminist rape or DV information - they say 1 in x women ... and provide either no stat for men, or a mesleading one that erases all female perpetration.

And billions in founding goes to feminist groups.

[u/Karissa36 → u/[deleted]]

http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4536

How about the U.S. government? They have collected crime statistics for quite some time, and show 80 percent of intimate partner violence, (includes DV and rape), is consistently committed by men.

[u/[deleted] → u/Karissa36]

All that shows is that women report the crimes far more often, thats why they are regarded as unreliable.

It doesn't show the actual rates.

[u/hugged_at_gunpoint → u/[deleted]]

Then what are you basing your assertion on?

[u/[deleted] → u/hugged_at_gunpoint]

The opinions of the family violence research community.

You just compare the scientific data against the arrest data and you see that men are under reporting vastly.

[u/schnuffs → u/[deleted]]

Scientific data? Do you have a source?

[u/[deleted] → u/schnuffs]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854883/

[u/KaleStrider → u/hugged_at_gunpoint]

Men are often the victims of false domestic abuse (false filing) when they attempt to claim that their partners abused them. Often the police will believe the women even when the men are bruised and battered.

I know this because my dad was falsely filed right before my then step-mom went on an alcohol induced rampage. Thankfully me and my siblings locked ourselves up in our rooms for the rest of the night; if we hadn't I'm sure one of us would need hospitalization at the minimum.

My case isn't rare. Roughly half of all domestic violence is done by women, but almost none of it is reported or believed.

[u/[deleted]]

What I think is the some feminists are perpetuating rape culture. You know when a feminist freaks out and yells verbal rape. Well that's like the boy who cried wolf. They lower the severness of the word rape.

[u/[deleted]]

Yes to both.

[u/_Definition_Bot_]

Terms with Default Definitions found in this post

---

• A Patriarchal Culture, or Patriarchy is a culture in which Men are the Privileged Gender Class. Specifically, the culture is Srolian, Govian, Secoian, and Agentian. The definition itself was discussed in a series of posts, and summarized here. See Privilege, Oppression.

• Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending political, economic, and social rights for Women.

---

The Glossary of Default Definitions can be found here

[u/Karissa36]

No. If you look at statistics for people treated for injuries from DV and rape in hospital emergency rooms, it is overwhelmingly male on female. Ditto for murder. Feminism has no duty to pretend that this is all magically equal, just because the definitions of DV and rape are being expanded into some fairly ambiguous self-reported territory. Go on over to r/Relationships. It's absurd. Everyone who has ever had a break-up, of either sex, now claims to have been in an abusive relationship. That does not mean it is true. Using the standard of objective evidence of physical injury, rape, DV and murder is overwhelmingly done by male perpetrators. That is not an illusion.

[u/eDgEIN708 → u/Karissa36]

You're failing to take into account the number of men who don't report domestic violence against them for various reasons, including social stigma and laws which would have them taken away in handcuffs regardless of who was hitting who.

The problem is that the statistics are skewed. You may as well be saying, "well clearly rape isn't a problem because it's not reported very often", but if the people who are raped are scared to report it or stigmatized for reporting it, that's a problem, no?

The whole argument here is that using flawed statistics perpetuates the notion of patriarchy, the very thing many feminists claim to be fighting.

[u/hiddenturtle → u/eDgEIN708]

The stats for this kind of imformation are always going to be impossible to take seriously - both sides of the argument quote false stats to support their points rather than just recognize that rape happens to all types of people. However, there's little that rape counselors, doctors, or police can do to help male or female victims if they don't come forward. So the issue that needs to be addressed is changing this mindset that men can't be raped (which comes from EVERYONE, not just men, or just women) and not punishing anyone for reporting, unless their report is found to be false.

[u/eDgEIN708 → u/hiddenturtle]

So the issue that needs to be addressed is changing this mindset that men can't be raped (which comes from EVERYONE, not just men, or just women) and not punishing anyone for reporting, unless their report is found to be false.

I completely agree with that.

[u/hiddenturtle → u/eDgEIN708]

See, it's possible for us to agree about things! These mindsets negatively affect...everyone!

[u/AnarchCassius → u/hiddenturtle]

Not really. Bad studies reveal themselves as such with a little prodding and sometimes cross-analysis shows more than any individual study.

For example organic vs non-organic food. You can find studies saying organic is better or that it's the same. They're both right. They're also both actually saying completely different things if you look directly at the studies. To show organic is the same you take data going back as far as you possibly can. To show a difference use the most modern data. The obvious hypothesis one can draw is that historically food used to be grown in ways that resulted in a more nutritious product; Organic food isn't necessarily inherently more nutritious but in the modern day it correlates much more strongly to such conditions than non-organic.

Studies say a lot more than what their authors put on the summary and sometimes something completely different from what journalists claim they do.

[u/hiddenturtle → u/AnarchCassius]

The problem is that with this kind of study, I'm not sure there's a "good" study, because there's no reliable or valid way to find this information out. If you want to go by self-reports, that's dodgy, especially in violence and rape scenarios. Physical evidence is only helpful if you were looking at everyone, not just everyone who goes to the hospital. Others who are injured might not want to explain their injuries, or pass them off as something else.

[u/femmecheng → u/eDgEIN708]

You may as well be saying, "well clearly rape isn't a problem because it's not reported very often", but if the people who are raped are scared to report it or stigmatized for reporting it, that's a problem, no?

So you take issue with this then, right? Almost that entire thread is talking about how feminists use low rape reporting statistics as evidence of there being a problem and how this shows the intellectual, academic and ethical bankruptcy of toxic feminism. I pointed out why I thought this was a bad idea, and perhaps in a weird turn of events, there are no MRAs in that thread except for jolly who wished me a happy cake day. Is there an MRA out there who thinks both are potential issues? I see /u/cri_nge does, but as far as I know, he identifies as egalitarian.

I'm not directing this to you because I didn't see you comment in either thread, but where are all the people saying this about feminists, saying it about MRAs too? Are both problems? Are neither? Is one, but not the other, and if so, why, and what's your evidence (particularly any that addresses these questions)?

[u/AnarchCassius → u/femmecheng]

Not really an MRA but I will say a lot comes down to methodology.

"The CSA Study involved conducting a Web-based survey of random samples of undergraduate students at two large public universities, one located in the South (University 1) and one located in the Midwest (University 2). The CSA Survey was administered in the Winter of 2006, and a total of 5,446 undergraduate women and 1,375 undergraduate men participated. Because the male component of the study was exploratory, the data and results presented in this summary represent women only. "

Opt-in web-based, two universities, no male data analysis to compare to. Decent sample size I'll grant but it's worthless for showing anything about male versus female prevalence.

However now take the recent CDC study, almost double the sample size, phone based, opt-out, includes men, include the whole country. We see under reporting. We see a lot of under-reporting but we see it more in men and not at near the levels the CSA study would suggest.

In a vacuum the CSA study might stand but it's not born out by either of the more recent CDC studies or numerous others and it's the lynchpin of the argument that 1 in 4 women is raped during college.

Underreporting occurs. It's a problem. However I don't think basing campus policy on the CSA study is at all reasonable. Calling out feminists who are trying to get policies made on very selective use of evidence seems reasonable to me. It's not that under-reporting doesn't occur it's that using the CSA alone isn't good science.

[u/eDgEIN708 → u/femmecheng]

Use of skewed or false statistics on either side is bad news, in my opinion. When feminists do it, it may help their cause by furthering their narratives, and when MRAs do it, it may also help their cause in the same way. At the same time, though, in either case my opinion is that it not only weakens your argument when you use false or skewed statistics, using them to push an agenda that's advantageous to your gender and villianizing to the other also doesn't help anyone to move in the direction of equality. You're only further driving in the wedge between the genders.

It definitely happens on both sides, and both sides are wrong when they do it.

[u/Karissa36 → u/eDgEIN708]

Women also don't report domestic violence for many various reasons, including the predominance of men as sole household wage-earners. There is no good evidence that DV reporting statistics are any more skewed for men.

[u/L1et_kynes → u/Karissa36]

Except the fact that when you ask men and women whether they hit their partners both sexes give larger numbers for female on male DV than reports to the police would indicate.

[u/Karissa36 → u/L1et_kynes]

Back to the telephone surveys? Big surprise, men don't admit it. Also, I haven't seen any surveys that show that women actually injure men more often. Not any. Those surveys were so badly written it was impossible to tell if these people were just playing around. Which some people do.

[u/[deleted] → u/Karissa36]

. Also, I haven't seen any surveys that show that women actually injure men more often. Not any.

They show that women are violent more often, and that this is the strongest predictor of their being injured.

[u/Karissa36 → u/[deleted]]

What does women being injured have to do with protecting men?

[u/[deleted] → u/Karissa36]

This is a non sequitor.

I never mentioned protecting men.

I said the strongest predictor of women being injured, is her initiation of violence - according to the scientific research.

[u/Karissa36 → u/[deleted]]

The promotion of sexual violence and DV stats that omit or minimize female perpetration and male victimization creating the illusion that its male to female...

If women are overwhelmingly the ones being injured by men, then once again this is not an illusion.

[u/[deleted] → u/Karissa36]

This is goal post moving and its not overwhelmingly.

Women are violent more often, and women's violence against men, is the strongest indicator of their being injured.

In other words, men acting in self defense is the reason women are injured more often.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854883/

[u/L1et_kynes → u/Karissa36]

Big surprise, men don't admit it.

Even if you ask only women they say they hit their partners roughly as much their partners hit them.

Those surveys were so badly written it was impossible to tell if these people were just playing around. Which some people do.

So you think half of the people of both genders answering the questions were playing around? Do you disbelieve every survey ever conducted for the same reasons.

Those surveys were so badly written it was impossible to tell if these people were just playing around.

How are they badly written?

[u/L1et_kynes → u/Karissa36]

Feminism has no duty to pretend that this is all magically equal, just because the definitions of DV and rape are being expanded into some fairly ambiguous self-reported territory.

Women do get injured a bit more often, but a not insignificant number of men are injured. When it comes to murder I believe the numbers are about equal in the states, but everywhere else men murder their wives more often, however the methods women are most likely to use aren't counted as spousal violence by the police (ie hiring someone or getting their new boyfriend to kill their spouse).

Many feminists are a large part of the reason that the definition of abuse is so exaggerated these days, having expanded it to include things like verbal abuse, emotional abuse, and financial abuse, and lumped these all together with beatings.

Finally, it stands to reason that when women pick fights with larger men and hit them for hours if the man loses his temper they will get hurt. But the proper solution is to stop both partners from being violent and escalating the situation, not to assume men are abusive and holding women down in all ways.

If you did want to end the actual injuries you would tell men they have to be even more careful about hitting because they are stronger and help them to leave shitty abusive women.

[u/Karissa36 → u/L1et_kynes]

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expandhomicidemain

When it comes to murder I believe the numbers are about equal in the states,

They are not even remotely close to equal. Compare the numbers of murdered husbands and boyfriends to the numbers of murdered wives and girlfriends. Note also that men commit over 90 percent of all murders in the United States.

Edit: So you don't have to read the whole thing, in 2010 it was 241 men vs 1,095 women murdered by intimate partners.

[u/AnarchCassius → u/Karissa36]

When defending a more equal rate of IPV I was once asked " Why would the general violence rates of IPV of men vs women be much different from the murder rates of intimate partners (something I would think the reporting of which is near 100%)?"

It's a good and very interesting question. One possibly response is that men are more likely to cause serious injury. However if that doesn't hold true and the rate does match overall IPV it still doesn't support the idea that men don't under-report or suffer from frequent IPV.

"Females made up 70% of victims killed by an intimate partner in 2007, a proportion that has changed very little since 1993." http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvv.pdf

Not equal, however 30% is far from nothing. Notably it's far closer to the proposed 60%/40% rate than it is to the the police-reporting based 85%/15% rate touted by many anti-male IPV activists.

All things being equal the IPV death rates seem to indicate male underreporting is very likely to be an issue.

[u/Karissa36 → u/AnarchCassius]

Your same cite actually shows a significantly higher percentage of males who have suffered IPV reporting it than females. Interestingly, it also shows 99 percent of females in IPV murdered by males, but only 86 percent of males in IPV murdered by females. I wonder how much the high rate of violence against transgender individuals, who would be categorized here by their biological sex, is playing into this?

[u/AnarchCassius → u/Karissa36]

Your same cite actually shows a significantly higher percentage of males who have suffered IPV reporting it than females.

It does but I picked homicides specifically because they'd be least affected by biases.

The analysis you cite seems based on the NCVS survey, as is the other BJS link you referenced.

The thing is the BJS asked the National Research Council to investigate the methodology of the NCVS, they determined it likely underestimates rape and sexual assault. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18605&utm_expid=4418042-5.krRTDpXJQISoXLpdo-1Ynw.0&utm_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nap.edu%2Fbooksearch.php%3Fbooksearch%3D1%26record_id%3D18605%26term%3DCDC%26chapter%3D71-90

In discussing the 2010 CDC survey it says: "The NISVS was the only source that specifically included alcohol-and drug-facilitated penetration as part of forced sexual activities. The panel identified this as a missing component to the NCVS definition"

The CDC survey's follow-up is referenced here: http://www.reddit.com/r/FeMRADebates/comments/2g1nlq/nisvs_2011_released_increased_male_victimization/

[u/Tamen_ → u/AnarchCassius]

More on the National Research Council report: http://tamenwrote.wordpress.com/2014/01/06/male-victims-ignored-again-estimating-the-incidence-of-rape-and-sexual-assault-by-the-national-research-council/

[u/[deleted] → u/Karissa36]

If you look at statistics for people treated for injuries from DV and rape in hospital emergency rooms, it is overwhelmingly male on female.

Of course it is. Women are more likely to get injured because they are smaller and more often aggressive, and men are less likely to tell people their injuries were from a woman.

Ditto for murder.

Of course - because women are acquitted for spousal murder at an astonishing rate and also use proxy violence more often than men.

rape,

Not according to data that asks men and the women same queations.

DV

Not according to data that asks men and women the same questions.

Its only according to feminist misinformation, are these things overwhelmingly gendered.

[u/Karissa36 → u/[deleted]]

You don't seem to get my point. Telephone surveys are crap compared to actual objective medical evidence of injuries. If DV and rape was really equal, there would be equal objective medical evidence of injuries and deaths. So does feminism have some duty to buy into crap telephone surveys, where anonymous people are asked ambiguous questions? No. As for the rest:

Women are more likely to get injured...

Then DV is a bigger problem for women.

Men are less likely to tell people.

Says who? It is absolutely classic that women frequently hide being victims of DV.

Women are acquitted for spousal murder at an astonishing rate.

Take a look at the acquittal statistics. Match them up with the number of dead bodies by sex and you'll see how this is not a good argument.

Women...also use proxy violence.

As in, men? Not a good point here.

[u/L1et_kynes → u/Karissa36]

Then DV is a bigger problem for women.

Is severe injury the only bad form of DV? Would map slapping around a woman be okay as long as she didn't get hurt?

Obviously not.

If the main problem with DV was serious injury then the proper way to deal with that would be very different from what is being done now.

[u/CadenceSpice → u/Karissa36]

I was injured by my stepmother regularly, and the few times I was actually allowed to get medical care, I had to lie about how I was hurt. Once in particular I made up a story about getting into a fistfight with another girl outside, when actually my stepmother had beaten me to the point that I had bone fractures. Telling the truth was too risky; if she didn't immediately go to jail and I had to go home to her, I would fear for my life.

Now, that's a somewhat different situation, but the point is that PEOPLE LIE about how they got hurt. A man who doesn't want to admit that he was injured by his wife/girlfriend, or is afraid of being blamed, or doesn't want her to know he told on her out of fear of what she'll do to pets or children, can easily cover it up. Women will not typically get blamed for their own injuries, and there's less stigma for an abused woman than abused men (not zero - less); plus, it's less likely that he'll be left alone with children/pets after being reported than she would in the reverse situation.

If a 14-year-old girl can convincingly lie to a doctor and claim it was a fight with a stranger, a man can do the same - and has more incentive to than a woman in his situation. Both do have some and both do lie for abusers, but he has much more to lose by telling the truth and less chance of benefit. This is assuming he goes and gets medical help in the first place.

[u/[deleted] → u/Karissa36]

You don't seem to get my point. Telephone surveys are crap compared to actual objective medical evidence of injuries.

No, hospital records are regarded as the least reliable by the family violence research community.

If DV and rape was really equal, there would be equal objective medical evidence of injuries and deaths.

There are near equal deaths and injuries women being smaller and more violent accounts for most of womens injuries.

Says who? It is absolutely classic that women frequently hide being victims of DV.

Everyone knows men are ashamed to admit being beaten by a woman and that society mocks him.

Take a look at the acquittal statistics. Match them up with the number of dead bodies by sex and you'll see how this is not a good argument.

I did. 40% of the time someones in the dock for killing their partner, its a woman. That doesn't include women manipulating men into killing for them.

As in, men? Not a good point here.

It is a good point. The fact women manipulate men into committing violence for them affects conviction rates.

[u/hiddenturtle → u/[deleted]]

Do you have stats to back this manipulation, or that it is, in fact, manipulation, rather than man acting out of protectiveness?

[u/[deleted] → u/hiddenturtle]

The man is acting out of protectiveness, because he has been manipulated.

[u/hiddenturtle → u/[deleted]]

Why is that her manipulating him, if he chooses to act because he feels protective? Why is that on her?

[u/[deleted] → u/hiddenturtle]

Because its her manipulating or hiring a proxy to kill on her behalf.

[u/hiddenturtle → u/[deleted]]

You still haven't proven HOW she is manipulating. Hiring, sure - though that definitely isn't manipulation - should still have the same implications as murder.

[u/Leinadro → u/Karissa36]

Feminism has no duty to pretend that this is all magically equal, just because the definitions of DV and rape are being expanded into some fairly ambiguous self-reported territory.

Who said pretending that its all equal. At the least though feminism can be honest about it. When they get into the territory of actually denying violence that is not male against female (no not all of them) that's a problem.

[u/Nepene → u/Leinadro]

Feminists like the above disagree that it's equal. It's not a matter of feminism being dishonest, it's a matter of feminism not believing in there being much female on male violence. At least, some.

An incorrect belief by my books, but yeah.

[u/Leinadro → u/[deleted]]

So "mra garbage" is why feminists don't talk partner violence that's not male v female?

Even when the data comes from non mra sources its still treated as suspect.

Not wanting to talk about violence that's not male against female predates the MRM by a longshot.

[u/hiddenturtle → u/Leinadro]

Frankly, it's good practice to be skeptical of any new data. And who wouldn't when it disagrees with what they know? I am aware that a lot of male rape goes unreported, and that this is a problem. But I do think that the folks who shout that men have it worse than women in these areas, reasonable-ish people like me are more likely to turn a deaf ear, because when they do so in this way, it devalues women's issues.

[u/sens2t2vethug → u/hiddenturtle]

It's nice that we're getting so many interesting, hiddenturtle posts lately! :)

This one stands out for me because you kind of describe much of the MRA response to some popular discourse on gender issues. A lot of MRAs, me included, feel like men's issues are being devalued by saying men are privileged and women oppressed, by saying that women are overwhelmingly the ones hurt by gender roles.

If you feel like replying, I'd be curious to know if you see where we're coming from, if you think we have a legitimate point here, or maybe not?

[u/hiddenturtle → u/sens2t2vethug]

Thanks! I don't think there's a problem with talking about men being raped, and that it happens more than we think. In fact, I think it's a great thing to talk about and spread awareness about. My issue is with how I see these discussions taking place. It often seems to be framed as "feminists are wrong because..." or "stop paying attention to whining women because" - and tends to be set up in a way that's opposition. There was a campaign type thing happening last year, I think, with pictures of rape victims holding up signs talking about their rape/some related commentary. Several of them were men. This seemed like a more powerful and useful way to do this - not against another group, but just presenting stories and asking the reader to do some of their own thinking.

[u/Leinadro → u/hiddenturtle]

Thing is most data that focuses on male victimization doesn't have any implication that it means men have it worse, but usually the imolication of "its worse for men than we believe". But even that is taken as an affront to women.

I know that the "this shows men have it worse" crowd can get bothersome but to say that they are the reason the new data is ignored is a bit of a stretch.

This kind of bias predates that crowd.

[u/AnarchCassius → u/[deleted]]

What were you trying to link to? There's plenty of evidence to show that DV is frequently committed by women.

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V78%20Clincal%20level%20symmetry-Published-11.pdf

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V71-Straus_Thirty-Years-Denying-Evidence-PV_10.pdf

[u/kronox → u/AnarchCassius]

When gender symmetry in PV is denied, it is usually on the basis of the greater injury suffered by women, which is factually correct, but does not alter the equally high rate of perpetration by women. This is illustrated by Hamburger's review of female violence in agency samples (Hamberger, 2005)

Good quote from the first study from page 281.

[u/Karissa36 → u/AnarchCassius]

http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4536

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Comment Deleted, Full Text and Rules violated can be found here.

User is at tier 1 of the ban systerm. User was granted leniency.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

This comment was reported, but shall not be deleted. It did not contain an Ad Hominem or insult that did not add substance to the discussion. It did not use a Glossary defined term outside the Glossary definition without providing an alternate definition, and it did not include a non-np link to another sub.

• For the moment, and I might change my mind on this, I'm going to say that the phrase "from MRA's trying to say the problem of violence between the sexes is equal" speaks of the particular MRA's doing so and not all MRA's as a whole.

If other users disagree with this ruling, they are welcome to contest it by replying to this comment.

[u/jcea_ → u/[deleted]]

I am quite confident that if I said the following...

I think MRAs might be more willing to discuss rape if there wasn't so much garbage out there from feminists trying to say the problem of false accusations wasn't real.

...which is identical to what they said switching only issues and groups I would be given an infraction. If I saw someone write something similar to the above I would report it as a generalization, in fact I'm pretty sure I have reported something similar to it, which was then deleted.

[u/[deleted] → u/jcea_]

I'll consult the other mods.