Women’s rights have gone ‘too far’, say majority of Gen Z and millennials, study shows

You're right, the discrimination is not in the abuse numbers. Those numbers show just how many men are abused, that we know of. It numbers in the millions. Abuse against women also number in the millions. The men that don't ask for help are irrelevant to the number of shelters also. So I don't know why you would use that as evidence that we don't need more men's shelters. That part was only said to show that the numbers of abused men are likely higher than is known. We can use the number of men that are abused that we do know about. Which again, numbers in the millions. 2 shelters in the entire US. One of them I know has 50 beds. Just for arguments sake we'll say the other one does also. So a total of 100 beds. Do you think that out of those millions of known abused men that there are only 100 that can't afford a motel/hotel?

Honestly, I'm not sure why this is so hard to grasp for you. Both groups are abused in the millions. One has 1500 shelters, the other has 2. There is clearly discrimination going on.

Shelters are meant to provide security for those that are abused. They are also meant to help those that are abused to start healing. To let those that are abused know that they are not alone. LINK: The Impact of Safe Housing on Survivors of Domestic Violence - NNEDV Providing shelters is about much more than money. Read the link.

 

Why don’t women perform as well on Jeopardy compared to men? The best performing “woman” was actually a guy. So explain the disparity there where no physical limitation exists, besides the ability to press a button. Don’t think men’s thumbs are scientifically any faster than women’s? Could be Mens brains can recall information faster, but I wouldn’t bet on that.

Actually a big reason is risk aversion, betting on your knowledge, which plays right into why men get paid “more”. It’s not that women get paid less. It’s that they’re less willing overall to take risk and demand more. And the average job women are attracted to just pay less on average.

Women’s “rights” are a sham. The only female right would be abortion, since men can’t have abortions…although some Leftists would disagree on that fact

It’s enoigh already. Nothing is holding women or anyone else back.

 

You are changing the language (and so the meaning) of what we have been debating. Is this not what your OP states:

Kal'Stang said: ↑
LINK: Women’s rights have gone ‘too far’, say majority of Gen Z and millennials, study shows (msn.com)

I've seen many here on the forums scoff at the idea that men are being discriminated against. It appears that far more think this than these people are willing to admit. Generally, they just dismiss it or attribute such talk as being a part of misogynists, incels etc etc.

Sadly there are those that believe this is just a push back against women rights. That this push back shows progress as the push back is only happening due to resistance against equal rights. This article even exemplifies that.

Now personally, I would LOVE to know what equality they are actually talking about? I suspect for them its more about equity than equality.

Now, does this prove that there IS discrimination happening against men? Some will say no. This is just a perception thing. I might agree with that.... if there weren't so many people saying the same thing.

<End quote>

Are you now saying, that you are not arguing that men ARE being discriminated against, and that this is somehow related to Womens' Rights, having gone "too far?" Because that is the prima facie meaning of your OP.

Assuming, then, this is your argument, you should realize that my counterargument, is that you have offered no proof of "discrimination" against men, right? Here is the beginning of my 1st reply:

DEFinning said: ↑
Point #1: Let us recognize that answering "yes" to the question, "have Women's Rights have gone too far," is not going as far, as saying that "men are being discriminated against." So your thread is based on a mis-equating, of two different statements, and is therefore a straw man argument.
<End quote>

Is this in any way unclear, to your mind? If not, I wonder why it is, you keep trying to put other words, in my mouth. In your prior reply, you attempted to make out, that my argument was that men do not get abused. I do believe the amount of serious, physical abuse, running in that direction, is substantially less, and that your own figures vouch for that fact, but obviously our debate cannot advance, while you continue misrepresenting my argument. My main argument is about the same thing as your OP: discrimination (not abuse, per se).

If you understand that, I will ask why, in this reply of yours, you seem to suggest that my argument is that (1)"we don't need more men's shelters." Once more, this is a straw man argument. Or rather, you are expressing the idea in such inexact terminology, that it can be taken as a straw man; neither I, nor anyone else, can do anything more than guess your words' intent. Yet when you combine that, with the ridiculous statement, that (2) "the men that don't ask for help are irrelevant to the number of shelters," one has to wonder what you are talking about.

So I find myself needing to spend more time, now, just trying to keep you from jumping to some other page of argument. I'd said that you did not prove anti-male discrimination. You'd offered, as your example, the lack of shelters for battered men, relative to those for battered women, did you not? The common sense measure of discrimination, in this circumstance, would be if the perceived need for Womens' shelters, were being met to a significantly greater degree, than was the perceived need, for mens' shelters-- do you disagree with that basis? If not, how can the perceived need, for mens' shelters, not be directly tied, to the number of men, looking and asking for help? You think the number of Womens' shelters that exist, are based on mere predictions of how many we should need, drawn from research into the frequency at which, abuse occurs-- instead of the most determinative factor, within funding limits, being the actual number of women, seeking a safe shelter, from an abusive relationship?

There is, I am sure, no excess of battered Womens' shelters, relative to the number of women who actually use them. If anything, I would guess that more of these, would be put to good use. Yet, you are arguing that it is proof of discrimination against men, that we don't open up a bunch of shelters, for "battered" men, even without having any indication that these men need, or would benefit from accessing, these shelters? That seems a nonsensical perspective, IMO.

As almost an aside, I would think that your conceptualizing of who are "we," who should be doing these things for men-- few of which victims are giving signs they want us to undertake the task-- is not factually grounded. That is, I would imagine that charitable contributions are involved in the running of some shelters, at least. And one cannot claim that public awareness of a problem, is "irrelevant," to fund raising efforts, to address that problem. Do you have a counterargument, to that?

In fact, the same thing applies, to some degree, even to shelters run only with government funds, as elected officials, and those who are hired by government, are at risk of losing those positions, if it is not the public perception, that they are using funds wisely, and effectively. The way to do this, is not by addressing problems, most are even unaware exist. Without first having a good reason to know that men "will come," it is unrealistic, & unreasonable, to expect government to invest in such ventures, on a large scale, based solely on faith in that result, "if they build it."

 

I don't think we will ever know the true stats, as to be fair, most men do not report the violence from women, as it's not as socially acceptable

and then of course you have verbal/mental abuse as well, which both parties can do, not to mention adultery which is a form of abuse and leads to many crimes of passion

and of course if all courts started giving men the kids and making the women pay child support/alimony as the default, there would prob be more violence the other way round - especially if the man cheated and then got the kids an child support

 

No, as I have already said, in prior posts:
A) it is a matter of public recognition of this problem-- one cannot be discriminating against someone, without even realizing, on any level, that they are doing so;

B) the so called "need," you are erroneously determining, through only an assumption that battered men would use shelters, at a similar rate as battered women. First, the economic factors affecting this decision, I do not believe are nearly equivalent, between men & women in this circumstance (though I suspect neither of us can prove that point, in either direction). Secondly, though, the way men and women act, is not identical. Society has different expectations, of both sexes, and for the most part, people conform to those.


The first step toward a network of battered mens' shelters, then, would be a raising of public awareness of this dynamic, of which many might, initially, be skeptical. It is therefore reasonable to expect that-- just as is the case regarding womens' shelters (and was especially true, for the earliest ones)-- advocacy will be a necessary part of that process. I will commend you on your own advocacy efforts, but I would think, for such a redefining of gender stereotypes, we would need to actually have marches, of people calling for an addressing of this issue; and those marches would need contain a fair number of male victims, of abuse, lobbying for the shelters.

 

Every time someone tries to bring awareness they are called misogynists, incels etc etc and then ignored. They've been trying to bring awareness for decades now. Again, have you watched Red Pill? It has far more information than I can convey over a forum without writing a 100 page dissertation. Something I know no one will bother to read on a forum, any forum.

 

I can only point out, that I have not once, called you a misogynist (and I am not even familiar, with the word "incel"). I only read what you had posted, and offered what seemed to me a logical critique of your argument's flaws. Do you agree with my logic, or are there points in my argument you can contest, as being unsound, in their thinking?

If you are such a fan of this film, Red Pill, I do not understand why you could not highlight some of what you consider its most effective points, and examples. You would need not include anywhere close to all of its information; just enough to entice. It is an almost 2 hour long video, you're expecting people to watch, without your offering some reasons for us to believe it will be worth our time. Certainly, I could start to watch it, but if nothing has impressed me by 5 minutes in, I will be done with it. Your detailing of some of its headline information, OTOH, should be able to condense the ideas into a more quickly expressed form, than they will be revealed in the video. A good review, would even give the reader a sense of the general progression of what will be seen, at the film's various parts.

If you truly wish to encourage viewing of this documentary, it would seem advantageous for you excerpt some of the more compelling material, found within it, for your pitch.

 

Nor were they forbidden to hire based on race/gender when it was against white folks or women, as they came to be forbidden to do the opposite. Racist and sexist policies are deemed acceptable and even laudable so long as it's the right races and sexes.

 

Here is one good example of what faces men today.

When women cry people scramble to help and protect them. When men cry they are dismissed, mocked, or demonized. Also note the attempt to excuse current injustice by pointing at past injustice involving different individuals.

 

And?

Should we care less or pay less attention to male victims because their assailant was also male? Are they somehow to blame because they happen to have genitals that are the same type? If so, then should we also care less about black victims of crime if their assailant was black?

 

Wow that’s a step off in left field.

How did you get to that from my post? The discussion is based around women’s rights going “too far” while attempting to ignore that men have been taking the number of murders and rapes “too far” for decades.

Where did you get any crimes should be paid attention to less?

 

You were pointing at men as perpetrators, as if that is somehow relevant to the protection of women. It isn't. If women were more often the abusers of other women, the problem would remain.
The only reason I can see to point at men is to shift against men as a whole on a group level, which means disregarding male victims.
Especially after so many posts in the thread about male victims, and them being disregarded by other posters.
And especially since you were responding to somebody talking about male victims of rape and murder.
If you meant something else then I misread you.

* - Some men

** - Rapes and murders mostly of other men. Saying that's about women's rights disregards those male victims.

 

It is a study in England, and while the younger people complain, the older ones thing the opposite. I guess the older are simply more mature and less likely to see themselves as victims.

In the other hand its good to see the younger generations, including teens, agree with the RW populist movement on issues like this

 

No, the problem is that people are complaining about women’s rights going too far while ignoring the vast majority of crime, especially rape and murder, are done by men.

Men need to figure out what is going on with themselves before they demand anything of women.

Which is absurd and I have no idea how you twisted it into such.

I haven’t seen male victims be disregarded, post a couple.

Using statistical data to highlight large variations in the characteristics of perpetrators does not in any way disregard any victims just because they have those same characteristics.

If someone said “it doesn’t matter because they are male” that would be disregarding them.

 

So what if the vast majority of crime and especially rape is done by people who are men?

That doesn't mean women's rights haven't gone too far.

That is victim blaming.The men who are victims and not assailants absolutely do not have to "figure out what is going on with themselves". They are not the problem. They are not responsible for the men who are assailants just because they are also men.

There is also no reason why they should have to sort out the aggressive men before they demand fair and equal treatment with women.

Women's rights have gone too far whenever women are treated better or given better access and/or opportunity than men simply for being women. I'm for an egalitarian society in which your gender doesn't grant you any special legal privileges or punishments. That used to be what those of us on the left were about.

The example of there being only 2 men's shelters and hundred's of women's shelters given above is a good example. So is the Ontario Pay Equity Act that demands women are to be paid "AT LEAST AS MUCH" as men. There are plenty of other cases of this as well.

 

Never claimed you have. And I have critiqued your argument. But either I have not done a very good job of getting my point across, or you are just not getting it due to lack of knowledge on the subject. And like I said, I can only present a small part of the argument.

I've already presented one part of the film. You have dismissed it as being a "lack of awareness", among other things. If you watched the film you would get more understanding. In order to show you that its not just a "lack of awareness" I would need to present another part of the film. Note: The film, while good for a general overall, is not the end all be all. It takes a lot more study than that to get a full awareness of what's going on. But it is a good start. And like I said previously, I'm not going to give you a full education on the subject.

 

Yes it does

Men don’t have the right or authority to say anything until they get their own house in order.

Strawman

The issue is it isn’t “fair and equal” in anything.

Men make up 73% of congress and 86% of Fortune 500 CEO’s. It’s laughable to say men are getting the short end of the stick

That is strange, it’s almost like women are more likely than men to be running from a violent situation and often are caring for children.

An excellent point.

 

How is what I wrote a strawman, when you again repeat the above?

You are telling me that male victims don't have the right or authority to say anything about double standards favouring women until they "get their own house in order"? Really? Whose house is that? The "Men" house?

"until they get their house in order" implies that they have the same house and that its a different than women have. They don't. It isn't. Male victims are NOT the same as male assailants just because both are male.

That 73% of congress and 86% of Fortune 500 CEOs are male does not mean that men who are neither don't get the short end of the stick as compared to women who are neither. That is pure fallacy.
You are repeatedly grouping "men" together as if they are one entity. They are not. "Men" is a group of individuals, some of whom are far more privileged than others, and some of whom are far more or less privileged than many individual women.

The stats were quoted upthread. There ARE a few more women than men running from violent situations, but there is MUCH more help available to those women than there is for men. Male victims of abuse who are running from violent situations get significantly less help, and considerably less empathy. Some folks even try to tell them that they can't complain about this double standard, because some other men are violent, and so these victims need to "get their own house in order".

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
WOW, The Royal Male believes he has had His Rights messed with and listen to him CRY.....

Notice how he ignores the history of the world and the blatant unfairness and lack of rights women endured for centuries....

But he is ""WAAA WAAA WAA , those naughty women are so much stronger than we want them to be ! "

LOLOLOL

And I don't give a flying .****... about any replies

FoxHastings said: ↑
WOW, The Royal Male believes he has had His Rights messed with and listen to him CRY.....

Notice how he ignores the history of the world and the blatant unfairness and lack of rights women endured for centuries....

But he is ""WAAA WAAA WAA , those naughty women are so much stronger than we want them to be ! "

LOLOLOL

And I don't give a flying .****... about any replies

 

Past discrimination against somebody else doesn't justify present discrimination in favour of you, just because you have the same genitals that they had.

 

A crime is a crime — I am speaking of the issue that many men feel women have gone too far in demanding rights. This has nothing to do with a male victim being less than a female victim. Both deserve to be treated equally in the eyes of the law and to be made whole by the law.

That is the strawman

Can you also guess what sex makes up the most judges? Lawyers? Police?

Strange that you see men as individuals and not as a group but have no issues seeing women as a group. Fascinating

I have never told them that and you are quoting me so I will ask for you to quote me where I have ever said make victims deserve less justice?

What is interesting is that many of the people that are telling men to man up — is other men.

 

Yes. But then you spurt out nonsense like that men should "get their own house in order" before complaining, because SOME men do horrible things. That's victim blaming and sweeping all men together with the worst of them, which we really shouldn't be doing. There is no house that male victims need to get in order before they criticize gender double standards against them.

That's as daft as saying women shouldn't complain about misogyny or shouldn't have demanded the right to vote because SOME women do horrible things. Women are individuals. And even as some DO horrible things, that isn't an excuse to not listen to them when they are victimized. Same goes for men.

It has a lot to do with male victims being less than female victims, if the system favours female victims over male victims, such as there being disproportionately more women's shelters than men's.

If you actually want men and women to be treated the same, given the same opportunities etc, then we would be in agreement. But do you want that? If you do, then you should join me in objecting to cases of women being favoured as I join you in objecting to cases of men being favoured.

In my province female lawyers outnumber male. Judges are around 50%, soon to be majority female since most are former laywers. Police are still majority male. Why is any of this relevant?

Where are you getting that I see women as a group and not as individuals? I don't. You appear to be projecting your own failing onto me rather than correcting it.

That's true, though irrelevant.

 

LOL-- Name one of my arguments, you have defeated on the merits? You have offered none of your own, purported knowledge, that has contradicted any of my points. Perhaps you just are not very good at logical reasoning?

What I have pointed out, in my recent reply, is that what you have been doing, instead of "critiqu(ing)" my argument, has been to misrepresent my argument, first as saying that it was that men do not get abused, then claiming that my argument was that there was "no need" for battered man shelters. Neither of these things is true.

Conversely, I have disproven your own arguments, showing that they are not based on facts, but on assumptions you make, from factual data. For example, you cited data on partner abuse. If we limit ourselves to just the serious abuse, your figures were that this occurs in 1 of every 9 men, which is a surprisingly high proportion, but in 1 of every 4 women-- which is a shocking disgrace! According to the way you are trying to make your argument, you are jumping to the illogical conclusion, that if we don't have four battered men's shelters, for every nine battered women's shelters, this is proof of discrimination. Rather than this argument being predicated on your having more knowledge than me, as you propose, it only stands, by virtue of your ignoring all the other factors involved, which my arguments have been pointing out, to you.

I guess this could be pointed to, though, as evidence for your excuse, in your first quote, that you may have, "not done a very good job," in expressing your points. Could you please clarify, what the hell you are alluding to? Do you mean that you have linked just a short excerpt of the film, or that you have presented part of the film's argument, in print? If it is the latter: was your argument, about the prevalence of abuse, which I have shown is not automatically equatable, to how many shelters we "should," have? This argument presupposes two very important things, that are not factually supported.

Reiterating, the first is that male victims of partner abuse are in the same financial straights, as their female counterparts. This is important, because a "shelter" is probably not the preferable option, for anyone who has other places to stay, especially if they can pay their own way, to have private accomodations. I have invited you to debate this point with me, if you do not accept it; you have not taken up my offer.

Secondly, your (and potentially your touted Red Pill's) argument would rely upon victims, of both sexes, behaving identically. This notion is so false, on its face, that you have even admitted, yourself, that men in this position are very reluctant to admit being abused. Should I attribute it, following your example, to your "lack of knowledge on the subject," that you can't seem to understand that, in order for an abused man to avail himself of a shelter for battered men, he would have to admit, that he was being physically abused?

For these reasons, the argument you are putting forward, uses very cloudy logic. If this is indicative of the film, then its mating visual imagery, along with arguments that don't hold water, is not going to make them seem any more compelling, to me.

LOL, again-- apparently, for all your great knowledge, you do not understand how a DEBATE works. To prove one's point, one cannot merely state their own assessment, followed by the caveat, that it is not their own responsibility to explain their information and thought process, through which they arrived at their conclusion.

 

It would be victim shaming if I was speaking about them being the victims in crimes.

But I wasn’t.

That’s the strawman that you have now drug on for over a page.

If women controlled the majority of power in the nation and were the overwhelming majority of perpetrators of sexual based crimes I would also tell them to get their house in order before demanding others do.

This has grown boring — you are simply repeating points you have already made.

We disagree — I have no issues with women pushing for an edge in every single avenue they can seeing the likelihood they will be victimized.

 

And you'd be just as wrong to do so. Even if the majority of power was held by people who are women, that would NOT justify telling women who don't have such power not to complain about laws or other standards unfairly against them based on their gender. That's pure sexism and very ugly.