janus-ra-and-eris:

permutationofninjas:

amarielah:

I should probably state for the record that I don’t actually hold people’s basic human psychology against them. We’re wired to make generalizations as a basic safety measure. We get bitten by a snake, and our brain generalizes that we should probably be cautious around snakes. Our brain didn’t evolve to operate on large scales, or to take statistics into account. We can’t help the involuntary physiological or psychological effects of a fear — whether that fear is “rational” or not. And to expect an individual to just suck it up and live with the intense discomfort of anxiety is pretty ridiculous.

There’s a big difference between holding people’s basic human psychology against them and identifying the results of that psychology as problematic.  Having those types of knee-jerk reactions doesn’t make someone a bad person, but it also doesn’t make the resulting bigotry any more acceptable.

This kind of involuntary generalization only becomes a problem when it causes harm to others. But I don’t think most of the men who complain that women (their generalization, not mine) are afraid of them are doing so because it causes them genuine harm, such as affecting their ability to find a job, or puts their family in danger of violent reprisals. It’s to do with how it affects them on an interpersonal level: that is, individual women might not want to be alone with them if they’re only acquaintances, or may not accept a lift from them. Most of the “bigotry” (some) women engage in as a result of mistrusting men as a group has to do with regulating her own behavior, such as what she chooses to wear or whether or not she’ll walk alone.

Perhaps this is bigotry in the strictest sense of the word, but it’s not comparable to bigotry that actually causes people unfair disadvantages, or puts people at risk of violence. So why does it make some men (and women) so angry? 

Bigotry itself is objectionable, regardless of the actions taken based on it.  Even if we do take those actions into account, though, there is still a very big difference between “less bad” and “not bad.”  You also seem to be vastly underestimating the wider ramifications of the “harmless” generalizations you’re justifying, particularly the degree to which they end up driving law and public policy.  While the connection may not be obvious at a glance, those generalizations do create unfair disadvantages for men and play a significant role in the additional risk of violence that men as a gender face.

As for people’s reactions, most people don’t like being treated with distrust and suspicion purely based on something they didn’t choose and cannot change.  As a society, we’ve collectively agreed that such treatment is particularly inexcusable when it’s related to demographic characteristics like sex, gender, race, age, religion or sexuality.  Is it really such a surprise, then, that people tend to take offense?

It’s literally getting angry at people for regulating their anxiety in a way that causes no precipitous harm to anyone. And that is so bizarre to me. I honestly can’t wrap my head around it.

Honest question: if we reformulated your entire post to refer to another group, say, black people, would you still be okay with the views being portrayed?  If so, you’re both logically consistent (yay!) and about to be smacked upside the head by the rest of the Tumblr SJW community (less yay).

Few people would be comfortable with someone who displayed the type of mistrust towards any racial minority that you excuse when displayed towards men.  Equally few would be comfortable with someone who displayed that type of mistrust towards women, even in cases where that mistrust is the result of severe personal victimization.

You find it difficult to wrap your head around this particular instance, but it seems like you’re doing a pretty good job with all the rest.

I’m close to a grand total of 2 non related men who I trust and who haven’t hurt me.

I’ve been raped by 5 different males. Lit on fire by a male. Spat on, pissed on and beaten up by 6 different males. And thats only the memorable bits.

I think its fair if I don’t trust men don’t you? I mean, I’m not a fan of that happening again.

The other day i got called a “fat dyke c**t” by a male on the bus because I looked at him.

I get that I’m probably unlucky or an arsehole magnet or cruel people like to go after already damaged goods. But I’m shy of men and I’m a lesbian (I’d probably be bi if i could relax enough) as a reaction to this, is it really so strange?

What has happened to you is horrible and inexcusable, and it’s hardly uncommon for trauma to cause distrust like yours.  At the same time, though, there are plenty of men who’ve had experiences similar to yours, with equally serious consequences.  Are those who gain a knee-jerk distrust of women afterwards justified?  Of course not!

The fact that your fear is understandable doesn’t make it healthy, just, acceptable or harmless; even with your history, it’s still an irrational bigotry which is harmful to you and those around you.  It’s something that needs to be recognized, treated, and addressed, not something that should be enabled and encouraged.  Surely, you recognize that there are people who have been victimized by Black and Asian people to similar degrees, and have developed attitudes similar to your own?  If I told you that I was abused by both Asians and women throughout my childhood, would it be “fair” for me to be prejudiced against them, and consequently against you?

Are you insulted that I don’t trust you because males have hurt me? Its not a personal attack, maybe if i get to know you they’ll be three men that I trust. Its not a life sentence of distrust, you just have to work harder to show you’re not like the males who have hurt me.

Yes, I’m insulted — although, as I’m not a man, the insult isn’t personal.  Hopefully we’ll be able to get to know each other and learn from each other; hopefully, you can come to trust me as well, although I’m not going to actively work to show that I’m not like the people that hurt you.  Your bias against men is your own problem to fix, but that doesn’t mean I’m not willing to help. 

cataradical:

permutationofninjas:

cataradical:

idk man went on the #MRA tag and there’s a number of posts saying “if this happened to guys, women would laugh/it’s okay” etc and basically shitting on feminism

no that’s not what feminism is about

But it’s what feminism is doing.

we don’t think the abuse, rape, etc of men is something funny nor is it a matter to be taken lightly; we don’t laugh or roll our eyes at women (or men) beating up guys or forcing them into sexual positions and think “lol you guys deserve it”

The gals over at Jezebel might have something to say about this.  Or the nice lady from the CDC who helpfully pointed out that rape doesn’t count when it’s a man victimized by a woman.

that’s not what being a feminist is; you equate the movement so often to “women wanting to be powerful over inferior weak men” when it’s not

Apparently some many of your friends missed the memo.

we just want equality; we want the same respect men get that women do not in this messed up society. this also fixes some backwards shit in the patriarchy for men that includes shitting on men if they’re feminine, if they cry, etc; it’s to tear down that issue as well. to benefit men. it’s all about being equal and treated fairly. it has nothing to do with “HAHA YOU MEN DESERVE THE MISERY YOU WENT THROUGH WE’RE HERE TO CONQUER THE WORLD”; don’t equate an honest, good movement by slandering it with nonsense posts like “if a woman smacked a man that’s not abuse durr feminists durr you think ur so better than us dudes”

When the rest of your movement gets around to it, we’d be happy to help.  Until then, part of our job as people actually working towards the equality you claim to want is doing our best to minimize the damage they cause in the mean time.

real feminists don’t find all those disturbing topics funny, or right. real feminists think it’s equally wrong and disgusting. if any woman mocked a man who was raped or abused by a loved one/stranger/whomever, no matter the gender/sex of the abuser, then they are not a feminist—they’re a disgusting human being.

Here’s the problem: those feminists are real feminists.  They’re part of your movement, they’re responsible for a great deal of your policy and activism, and your enabling of their actions has serious real-world consequences.  Feminism is responsible for the Tender Years Doctrine, primary aggressor policies, the Duluth Model, and the erasure of millions of male victims of rape and abuse.  Feminism isn’t all bad, sure - but by sweeping these bad feminists under the rug, you’re making the problem worse rather than taking even the first step towards solving it.

I still stand by my opinion. I’m sorry the bad eggs of the bunch are the ones that stand out. Every group has them, unfortunately. It is a shame. But, as I said, those who turn feminism into something anti-men aren’t feminists. I said what my opinion of what feminism is and, again, those people may call themselves feminists, but I’m sorry—they are just hate-mongering misandrists. I believe the movement is about women being brought equality, and the issues we face in society and how to address and solve them. I don’t think feminism is what these people you mention think it is—as I’ve said a number of times throughout this post. Maybe this is just my view of the feminist movement, but I certainly know I’m not alone in it.

It’s not about how much they stand out, it’s about the degree to which they influence the overall impact of the movement.  Sure, most feminists are okay people, but “most feminists” aren’t the ones driving movement policy, advocacy efforts, and changes in law.

You’re standing there, looking at NOW, RAINN, the Suffragettes and whole slew of other feminist organizations, and saying “nope, not feminist, because I said so.”  EVERY movement - radfems, the MRM, PETA, Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Communists, the Islamic State, the fucking Ku Klux Klan - literally all of them could argue that they’re perfect and totally okay just by erasing all their problematic elements the exact same way you’re doing right now.  Here’s the thing: they don’t.  Why?  Because that would be wrong.

You don’t get to retroactively dictate what others do or don’t identify as, especially not for your own convenience.  Identities just don’t work that way.  And do you know what?  If they did, there would be no feminists, because nobody is perfect.

communist-nihilist:

heforshe how about he and she for all. Sexism is not a one sided issue, to view it as a one sided issue is sheer sexism. No feminism or MRA nonsense. how about gender equality and general egalitarianism. 

Gender inequality is an incredibly broad topic, and it’s difficult to tackle all aspects of it at once.  While there are definitely some people who narrow their focus too much and lose sight of intersectionality, do you really think that choosing to identify as an MRA or feminist is inherently sexist?

Are you an SJW/feminist? — Anonymous

"SJW" is almost exclusively used as a pejorative term, so we doubt many (if any) people would label themselves that way.

At any given time, PoN is made up of anywhere between two and a large handful of active admins, each of whom has their own particular set of beliefs and labels.  Most PoN admins have been egalitarians, but we’ve also had (rare) feminist admins and (even rarer) MRA admins, as well as a few admins who’ve eschewed labels entirely.  As a matter of policy, PoN takes the egalitarian stance because it’s the most compatible, least controversial, and held by some of the longest-running PoN admins.

redrum-my-dear:

permutationofninjas:

stevita:

also, in reference to that post I just reblogged about shitty mras: men who are victims of domestic violence are denied support and not taken seriously because of patriarchal expectations, but where are the so-called “men’s rights” activists when it comes to supporting them? huh? 

Well, they’ve been busy setting up shelters for abuse victims and fighting gender-biased domestic abuse legislation.  Unless we’re terribly mistaken, that falls under “supporting” them – “supporting” them far better than you probably have or ever will.

Don’t you know? “Supporting” someone means sitting on one’s sofa and writing posts on Tumblr. This is true activism. Doing actual things in the real world doen’t fall under the definition of “support”.

To be fair, online activism can sometimes be more effective than “real-world” activism.  Activism often centers around raising awareness and changing minds, and the online world offers a great platform to do so.  Furthermore, some people are unable to be as active as they’d like to in real life due to disabilities or other responsibilities, and online activism gives them an opportunity to fight for the causes they believe in.

While it’s true that this doesn’t necessarily apply to Stevita, it’s nonetheless important to keep in mind the fact that online activism can be incredibly powerful tool when used correctly.

I'm not sure if this was intentional, but it seems odd that you call the various issues that black people tend to face "privileges" in your most recent post, especially after pointing out that privilege means a group is favored a paragraph before. Is there a reason for this? — Anonymous

(This ask refers to this post)

While we’re not entirely sure which passage you’re referring to, the most likely one seems to be this:

For example, racial privilege encompasses everything from the ease of finding products that match your skin tone to the chances of being stopped by police, and even the odds of being given the death penalty when tried for murder.

If this is what you’re talking about, you’re misreading.  Nowhere do we say we were talking about black people.  In this case, the “racial privilege” involved would be “easily finding products that match your skin tone, not normally being stopped by police, and avoiding the death penalty”, all of which are privileges for white people.

Edit: Anon has messaged us to thank us for the clarification, and that was in fact the passage they were thinking of.

Basic Definitions: “Privilege,” “Kyriarchy,” and “Oppression”

Part of our ongoing series on terminology and definitions.

Nowadays, it’s difficult to hold a full discussion about almost any social justice topic without tripping over terms like “privilege” and “kyriarchy,” but often it seems like they’re just used to mean whatever’s convenient at the time.  While these aren’t necessarily authoritative definitions, this is how we at PoN use them.  As a bonus, we’ll also briefly address the concept of “oppression,” including some of the squabbling over its use.

Privilege

"Privilege" refers to special advantages, rights or immunities given or available only to a particular group, usually on the basis of group membership alone.  In advocacy, this group is usually a demographic class such as gender, sex, race or sexuality, but in some cases it may be more specific or limited.  Within social justice advocacy today, there are a wide variety of definitions in use, but this is the one used here at PoN.

Privilege comes in many forms and degrees of effect, from minor conveniences and inconveniences to literal matters of life and death.  For example, racial privilege encompasses everything from the ease of finding products that match your skin tone to the chances of being stopped by police, and even the odds of being given the death penalty when tried for murder.  Some privileges result from individual beliefs and prejudices working in the aggregate, but others are enshrined in law and cultural practice.  For example, we can compare racial disparities in police stops (racist officer attitudes in the aggregate) to Selective Service registration (enshrined in law) and India’s caste system (now largely illegal, but still firmly enshrined in culture).  In some cases the line is somewhat blurred, such as cases where discriminatory practices are overtly condemned but tacitly condoned by the establishment.

Privileges and privileged classes vary widely across geographic, social, and demographic boundaries.  While it may seem obvious that racial privilege functions differently in Japan than the U.S., in some cases we can see differences even in different parts of a city.  The same is true for social boundaries: forms of privilege often vary wildly within different communities even when they share the same geographical space.  Furthermore, an individual’s privilege isn’t simply the sum of their demographic privilege; various privileges and discriminations accentuate and diminish each other, sometimes in unexpected ways.  For example, studies on criminal sentencing have suggested that the effects of race and gender are not merely additive, but in fact synergistic; the effect of race on sentencing is heavily dependent on gender and vice-versa, with black men receiving particularly harsh punishment and white women particularly lenient treatment.

Privileges are often described as being invisible to the privileged class, because may be predisposed to see the state of affairs as simply “normal.”  This is true in many circumstances, but the claim that people from a group being labeled as privileged are entirely incapable of commenting and judging such privilege is frequently questionable, especially when such people are in regular contact with groups contrasted as “disprivileged.”  This issue is particularly contentious, as it is frequently noted as an example of hypocrisy: some groups will vociferously proclaim others to be privilege-blind while decisively rejecting any claims regarding their own privilege, even when accompanied by considerable evidence.  While some groups argue that privilege is a dichotomous (or ranked) system in which an individual group must be universally privileged or disprivileged as compared to others, such beliefs are the result of a simplistic and adversarial view of society.  This almost inevitably encourages reframing, which itself polarizes the perceived positions of groups by reinterpreting all disparities as either privileging or disprivileging based on the group’s assigned position.  In reality, membership in most groups involves both privilege and disprivilege, though the two are by no means balanced in terms of effects.

Furthermore, privilege does not necessarily have to apply universally to all members of the group in question.  It’s often sufficient that other groups are conclusively denied the benefit being considered, because privilege is mediated by not only other demographic factors, but also individual life circumstances.  In other words, privilege is a matter of trends, not rules, because all examples of privilege function within a far more complicated system of….


Kyriarchy

The entire system of privilege and discrimination that shapes a society is called the “kyriarchy”.  All people are discriminated against in some way, though this discrimination may be slight to the point of irrelevancy.  Similarly, all people are privileged in some way, though this privilege may be slight to the point of irrelevancy.  It must be noted that this system is a dynamic and constantly changing one; a group or individual that is privileged in some way can be oppressed in another way, and vice versa.  Overall, people’s status results from the interaction of many different privileges and disprivileges which arise from their various demographics and characteristics.

By extension, the “gender binary kyriarchy” or simply “gender binary” is the system comprised of all gender and sex-related discrimination.

This definition of “kyriarchy” has some interesting implications.  For one, there’s really no point in discussing whether or not the kyriarchy “exists”, because the way it’s defined is very general; it’s simply the name of the system in which inequality exists.  Neither is there any point talking about whether something is or is not part of the kyriarchy; if it contributes to inequality, it’s part of the kyriarchy by definition.

As some groups have discovered, it’s very possible to strengthen certain parts of the kyriarchy while claiming to fight it.  In other words, because of the way various forms of inequality interact, it’s very easy to exacerbate problems while seeming (or at least claiming) to fight them.  You’ll note that the idea of kyriarchy seems much like an unverifiable theory.  While some forms do fall into that category, in most cases it’s just a convenient name for a very general system rather than a predictive or significantly descriptive theory.

Many people use the term “patriarchy” the way we use “kyriarchy” or “gender binary”.  However, the common-use definition of “patriarchy” is extremely vague and carries a slew of connotations which are often entirely inaccurate.  This sort of term tends to have an unclear and possibly prejudicial meaning to readers, so we prefer to avoid it.


Oppression

"Oppression" is by far the most nebulously defined of these three terms, so much so that the exact same people will often use it in very different ways depending on the situation.  To some degree, this makes it pointless to define: regardless of how one defines it, it’ll still be necessary to clarify with each individual person you talk to.  This is complicated because of the way different people characterize the relationship between individual situations or actions and overall "big-picture" conditions.

Most people define the idea of oppression in one of two ways: either oppression is present whenever a group suffers systemic discrimination, or a group is “oppressed” when the level of systemic discrimination against them passes some arbitrary threshold.  This distinction often causes confusion, because it can lead to apparent hypocrisy when people or groups label apparently minor things as “oppression” when they involve one demographic, but reject that label for much more severe issues involving another.  Certainly, this does often have a basis in hypocrisy, but it may also be internally consistent: for people using that definition, all discrimination against a given group acquires the label based on the overall level of discrimination against the group, not any characteristic of the discrimination itself.

Generally speaking, we favor the former definition rather than the latter, specifically because of the logical inconsistencies the latter often presents.  In practice, the latter has all-too-often been misused to justify ignoring or even exacerbating serious issues, and has played a huge role in promoting the destructive “Oppression Olympics” paradigm.  Nonetheless, we don’t particularly encourage the use of either definition; “oppression” is by nature a loaded term, and its use frequently leads to debates that prioritize terminology over issues.  We don’t eschew it entirely, but largely avoid it where possible.

jas720:

rationalnonsensecomics:

jas720:

rationalnonsensecomics:

Seriously. I’m not an MRA. I do not care about the MRA movement, I am an egalitarian, however I seem to notice this absolute hatred towards the MRA movement in general, and not just the retards and fedora wearers in the group (although feminism has quite a few legbeard landwhales in it so don’t…

Hmm why would an anti-misogyny movement bot like a pack of misogynists?

What the fuck are you talking about?

Misogyny- the hatred of women

Misogynist- someone who hates women

MRA- even the most benign tend to blame women in general or feminists specifically for all the problems men face in society, ignoring that most power in society is held by men and therefore continues with the tacit approval of men. 

That’s a pretty bold statement to make, especially when there are so many convenient counterexamples available to prove you wrong.  GirlWritesWhat may well be one of the best-known MRA, and is certainly one of the most well-respected individuals within the movement.  She’s a woman.  Erin Pizzey, another woman, created one of the first women’s shelters in the UK.  After having her life threatened by militant feminists, she began to work with the MRM.  Even on tumblr there’s plenty of MRAs that are women and/or are feminists - Just-Smith and FuckingRadfems come to mind.

As for your notion that men’s issues continue with the tacit approval of men, you seem to be committing a number of fallacies: conceptualizing genders/sexes as monolithic entities, categorical victim-blaming, and the Apex fallacy.  You also seem to be forgetting that, unlike women, men generally do not display in-group bias; in other words, men won’t instinctively favor men over women.

Tbf, Shailene Woodley wasn't talking for women. She was talking for herself. Plus, lbr feminism has a negative history and of creating anti-male laws, such as the duluth model. And of stealing the term rape culture from male prisons. — Anonymous

When Shailene is giving her opinions on feminism to a publication, she’s talking for all women.  She can say “for me” all she wants and it’s still going to be perceived as her general opinion on the topic.

You seem to have misunderstood this.  The phrase “talking for [all] women” doesn’t refer to the breadth of her remarks, but the notion that her position is representative of women in general.

And how on EARTH does feminism have a negative history?  And how is the Duluth Model considered anti-male?  And since when has “rape-culture” only been for male prisons and who implied that it couldn’t pertain to both.

Are you genuinely that ignorant?  The Duluth Model is explicitly gender-biased, positioning domestic violence as an inherently masculine phenomenon in which instrumental abuse is used to enforce supposed patriarchal attitudes regarding power and control.  This not only completely ignores female perpetrators and male victims, but also flies in the face of almost everything we know about the underlying causes, risk factors and solutions to domestic violence.  On top of that, there’s also significant evidence that it doesn’t even work.  (As in, the more rigorous analysis it gets subjected to, the more its affects appear to approach zero.)  If you’re curious, start by reading this.

"Rape culture" as a term was originally coined specifically to refer to conditions present in male prisons, in a documentary of the same name.  Considering the disparity between the conditions feminists label as "rape culture" and the original use of the term, it’s hard to view their use as anything other than purposeful co-opting.  This is especially true when we consider that feminists have since done virtually everything possible to oppose the application of the term to men, the original focus of the term.

Shailene Woodley’s views on feminism are trash.  If anyone actually believes that feminism is anti-male then they’re missing the point of feminism which to empower and elevate women.

Some of us, unlike you, judge feminism based on what it does rather than what it says.

bhadpodcast:

When Shailene is giiving her opinions on feminism to a publication, she’s talking for all women.  She can say “for me” all she wants and it’s still going to be perceived as her general opinion on the topic. 

And how on EARTH does feminism have a negative history?  And how is the Duluth Model considered anti-male?  And since when has “rape-culture” only been for male prisons and who implied that it couldn’t pertain to both.

Shailene Woodley’s views on feminism are trash.  If anyone actually believes that feminism is anti-male then they’re missing the point of feminism which to empower and elevate women.

It’s like saying that the civil rights movement is harmful to white people.  Or gay rights is hurting the straights.  Get over yourselves and cheer on the great good, not just what doesn’t offend you.

It’s like saying that the civil rights movement is harmful to white people.  Or gay rights is hurting the straights.  Get over yourselves and cheer on the great good, not just what doesn’t offend you.

Actually, it’s not.  There are some very key differences between the civil rights/LGBT movements and feminism which make arguments like yours somewhere between “ignorant” and “intentionally misleading” depending on how intelligent we assume you to be.

See, gender equality isn’t an issue that can be so clearly defined in terms of an “oppressor” and “oppressed”.  Women support the gender binary, just as men do.  Men are hurt by the gender binary, just as women are.  PoC and LGBT individuals receive few if any benefits to go along with their status, yet both men and women do.

Feminism, time and time again, has supported the gender binary it claims to fight.  The Duluth model is just one example of a much larger pattern in which the feminist movement has consistently erased male victims and female perpetrators of violence, rape, and abuse.  Whether it’s male disposability, bias against men in courts, or societal norms forcing men to support and protect women against their own best-interest, feminism has at best ignored (and at worst exacerbated) the scope of men’s issues.

thegreatgadfly:

permutationofninjas:

One interesting facet of the debate regarding men’s rights is incarceration rates.  In the U.S, 93% of people behind bars are men, with only 7% being women.  This could, of course, be seen as an example of the violent and base tendencies of men, but a more enlightened person would probably take the position that our society conditions men into a role which by nature is more likely to encourage violent or criminal behavior.  On one side men are socialized towards aggression and violence, and on the other into a provider role which can lead to crime when no other options are available because of a perceived need to care for family, whatever the risk.

Both of these positions, however, take one thing as given: men commit more crime, and the task at hand is finding out why.  The question being asked, thus, is “why do men commit more crime than women?”

Read More

Exhibit A: why I can’t take MRA’s significantly more seriously than feminists.

Again, the egalitarian assumption. If it’s all “socialization,” then we should expect a higher rate of female-perpetrated crimes (and there would be statistics on crime reports, even if not conviction rates) to have risen in direct proportion to the lack of enforced dependence of women on men. And of course, I am not one to dispute that this rate has risen over the last few decades, but not enough to justify the egalitarian assumption.

If conservatism represents low-intensity thought, then egalitarianism resides no more than one notch above it.

What do you mean by the “egalitarian assumption”?  While we think we have an idea of what you’re trying to say, some clarification would definitely be nice.  Are you saying that we’re assuming all statistical differences between genders are solely due to socialization?  If so, you’re wrong.  Testosterone levels are well documented as being higher in males, and testosterone has been implicated in increases to aggressive, risk-taking behavior.

While we agree that socialization probably isn’t solely responsible for the difference in crime perpetration, your argument is a mess.  There are four main weaknesses to your line of thought.

First, your assumption that a decrease in enforced dependence is necessarily accompanied by a decrease in optional dependence doesn’t stand up.  Because most crime more or less represents actions of last resort, the mere option of dependence can reduce criminal behavior by offering an “out” which is socially accepted, less risky, and far easier than crime.  While the enforcement of women’s dependence has substantially decreased over the last few decades, the option of dependence has stayed far more stable.

Second, you assume that the sole or core factor underpinning the disparity in crime rates is the requirement to financially provide for oneself, but this isn’t true either: financial motivations only account for one portion of the overall issue, and a change in that area may have only minimal effects on gender-disparate socialization.  Additionally, from a socioeconomic perspective self-support tends to be a much weaker factor than the support of others, because even in most worst-case scenarios it’s possible to support a single person on part-time or minimum-wage work.  (Not well, but at a basic standard of living.)  At first this would appear to select for single parents (mostly mothers), but the considerable resources earmarked specifically for supporting those groups suggest that the effects fall similarly on most types of families, especially those with one non-working spouse.  In the case of a non-working spouse, the working spouse is still almost invariably male.  In the case of two working parents, the social burden of provision still tends to fall most heavily on the male partner.  Because supporting others plays a larger role, changes in women’s level of self-support wouldn’t necessarily be expected to cause greater criminality.

Third, crime reports themselves reflect gender-biased socialization; after all, both those who report crimes and those who write crime reports are subject to socialization, no?  Their sexist biases have the potential to skew statistics dramatically, especially in cases such as assault where a key question is “which person is getting charged.”  This also comes into play when looking at cases which normally involve a mixed-gender perpetrator and victim, because differences in social attitudes often play a key role in reporting levels.

Finally, your core idea about female crime rates rising “in direct proportion to the lack of enforced dependence of women on men” is very arbitrary and unclear.  How would you numerically measure a reduction in enforced dependence of women on men, and what rise in female criminal perpetrator figures would you consider to be “in direct proportion”?

Not sure how much more clearer to make this for you but okay. That bingo card was a dumbed down version of real life issues men have. Dumbed down. And here's something for you to wrap your head around. Why not humanism instead of feminism? — Anonymous

Which bingo card are you thinking of?  We haven’t dealt with one of those in a very long time.

As for the second question, the answer is actually pretty simple: humanism is already a very well-developed movement which focuses primarily on issues of faith, rationality, human value and ethics.  As such, it would be inappropriate to co-opt or appropriate the term for another movement.  Instead, we usually suggest egalitarianism over feminism; the term is equally evocative, and avoids any potential confusion.  We’re not particularly sure why you’d see that as “something for us to wrap our heads around,” given that we advocate for egalitarianism and the egalitarian label fairly strongly.

Are you sure we’re the people you had in mind?

amarielah:

I should probably state for the record that I don’t actually hold people’s basic human psychology against them. We’re wired to make generalizations as a basic safety measure. We get bitten by a snake, and our brain generalizes that we should probably be cautious around snakes. Our brain didn’t evolve to operate on large scales, or to take statistics into account. We can’t help the involuntary physiological or psychological effects of a fear — whether that fear is “rational” or not. And to expect an individual to just suck it up and live with the intense discomfort of anxiety is pretty ridiculous.

There’s a big difference between holding people’s basic human psychology against them and identifying the results of that psychology as problematic.  Having those types of knee-jerk reactions doesn’t make someone a bad person, but it also doesn’t make the resulting bigotry any more acceptable.

This kind of involuntary generalization only becomes a problem when it causes harm to others. But I don’t think most of the men who complain that women (their generalization, not mine) are afraid of them are doing so because it causes them genuine harm, such as affecting their ability to find a job, or puts their family in danger of violent reprisals. It’s to do with how it affects them on an interpersonal level: that is, individual women might not want to be alone with them if they’re only acquaintances, or may not accept a lift from them. Most of the “bigotry” (some) women engage in as a result of mistrusting men as a group has to do with regulating her own behavior, such as what she chooses to wear or whether or not she’ll walk alone.

Perhaps this is bigotry in the strictest sense of the word, but it’s not comparable to bigotry that actually causes people unfair disadvantages, or puts people at risk of violence. So why does it make some men (and women) so angry? 

Bigotry itself is objectionable, regardless of the actions taken based on it.  Even if we do take those actions into account, though, there is still a very big difference between “less bad” and “not bad.”  You also seem to be vastly underestimating the wider ramifications of the “harmless” generalizations you’re justifying, particularly the degree to which they end up driving law and public policy.  While the connection may not be obvious at a glance, those generalizations do create unfair disadvantages for men and play a significant role in the additional risk of violence that men as a gender face.

As for people’s reactions, most people don’t like being treated with distrust and suspicion purely based on something they didn’t choose and cannot change.  As a society, we’ve collectively agreed that such treatment is particularly inexcusable when it’s related to demographic characteristics like sex, gender, race, age, religion or sexuality.  Is it really such a surprise, then, that people tend to take offense?

It’s literally getting angry at people for regulating their anxiety in a way that causes no precipitous harm to anyone. And that is so bizarre to me. I honestly can’t wrap my head around it.

Honest question: if we reformulated your entire post to refer to another group, say, black people, would you still be okay with the views being portrayed?  If so, you’re both logically consistent (yay!) and about to be smacked upside the head by the rest of the Tumblr SJW community (less yay).

Few people would be comfortable with someone who displayed the type of mistrust towards any racial minority that you excuse when displayed towards men.  Equally few would be comfortable with someone who displayed that type of mistrust towards women, even in cases where that mistrust is the result of severe personal victimization.

You find it difficult to wrap your head around this particular instance, but it seems like you’re doing a pretty good job with all the rest.