The class addresses the world as it was, is and will be.

As it will be? Do we know how it will be?

Do you do anything to help the young men to realize that, in general, women are still oppressed? I mean, are you allowed to respond or do you just let them make their statements? Do you respond?

Of course, I respond, I talk glass ceilings and inequity in pay and Malala.

Women dp not make equal pay for equal work, but I also understood their point on perpetuating stereotypes. Women can get out there and do it. They don't and I don't believe that women are someone else's property. Opportunities are there.

And what part of that do they disagree with

Well, I disagree with this bit:

Women’s subjugation coincided with rise of private property during industrialization


Its simply false.

And why I agree with most of what you are saying, would you also accept that at least some of the attempts to redress those problems have created others? Some women will ruthlessly exploit those failures for personal gain, just as some men will. I've seen it, and I'm sure others have as well.

The class addresses the world as it was, is and will could be.

Oh, I totally agree with that, cattleman. Many many times the greatest obstacle for a woman moving forward is another woman. Many times the greatest obstacle for getting rid of the stereotypes and archaic vews that hurt women is other women. I do not think women are perfect and can fix everything. Women are human and will fuck up just as well as the men do. In working for socal change my biggest battles have been against women. I have seen the ruthless exploitation that you described far too often and it's disgusting. Unfortunately, women are not better than men, just equal.

Thank you for asking that question. I don't want anyone to think I am blind to the part women play, have played and will play in this mess.

exactly. In my view this is the reason for such classes. This is the way it was. This is the way it is. This is the way it will probably be if things don't change. This is the way it could be if things do change.

grumpyauntjeanne wrote:

green apple tree wrote:

You know, one of the ongoing problems with this site (as much as i love it and the people in it) is that we all have similar views on certain issues, which causes two things. ONe, it's hard to have a good discussion when all anyone has to say is "yes, i agree, thumbs up", and two , anyone coming in with a different view tends to get piled on and quit.

I don't agree with Jim on feminist issues. But I will defend his right to (politely and appropriately) express them, as well as everyone else. This discussion is coming dangerously close to a kind of social censorship. I want Jim to feel welcome to express his views and the reasons behind them, so that I can understand them better. For one reason, he's not alone in those views, and I want to understand why bright educated men sometimes fall into this camp.

My opinion,anyway.

I would agree with you. The problem is the discussion has happened before and jim played Rush Limbaugh calling any women who thought perhaps men should be taught not to rape feminazis and such. He did the same kind of thing this time. Was he trying to censor sooz when he insulted her? My first post was rather benign. The second one gave him as much respect for his views as he was giving to those of us who disagree wth him. Are we supposed to draw straws on who gets to post to him on feminist issues so it doesn't appear to be piling on? I would love for hm to actually explain his views instead of parroting right wing bs on feminism. Does he even acknowledge that rape is a problem and domestic abuse against women is a problem? Most of the women he has insulted in this group have acknowledged that abuse against men is also wrong.

BTW, I sometimes have views on here that go against the crowd. t does make for more interesting discussion, but only if both sides actually respond to points made by the other side.

That's my opinion.

Thanks for your comments Greenie. I actually enjoy a good argument so I don't feel particularly intimidated. After 40 years in my job, it's pretty hard for anyone to intimidate me.

Jeanne's and a few other's comments in here are typical of the kind of thing people receive whenever they question the women as victims industry. No where in here have I said I approve of the revenge porn sites. Nowhere have I said I want to possess women. Nowhere have I said I don't like strong women or approve of beating or raping women. And yet that's is what I have been accused of throughout this thread. It's even been intimated here that I must have been guilty of beating women at some point while in the other thread Queenie even suggested I must be a rapist.

Well, despite the best obfuscation efforts of those of you in the industry, none of that is true. I'm not a rapist. I've never lifted my hand to a woman - although I have been attacked several times by women, twice with knives - and I do like strong, intelligent women and enjoy seeing them succeed.

What I am opposed to is this industry that laughably purports to speak for women but owes its very existence on ensuring women remain victims and they do it:

1. By continuously pounding the idea into the heads of women that they aren't good enough and by insisting that "men" have to change without ever really saying exactly what "men" are supposed to do to bring about that change. Individual men - those who beat their wives, rapists, bosses who refuse to promote women - know what they have to do but the rest, who don't do those things, are left confused, feeling vaguely guilty of something though not sure of what, and unsure of what is expected of them.

In some cases, like myself and many other men, we are starting to just get pissed off at these baseless accusations. Of course the industry doubles down on this simply by raising the level of accusation.

2. By insisting women have no role in what happens to them. It's always up to men to do everything. Apart from being highly insulting to the capabilities of women it's an impossible goal which, of course, is the whole self-perpetuating point of the industry. This denial is also dangerous to women. Take this slut walk thing that happens, for example. It got it's start because some Toronto police sergeant made the common sense comment that women should be careful about how they dress because there are rapists out there. Well, the industry went bat shit, not to mention seeing an new opportunity to fill the old coffers. They attacked the cop like you wouldn't believe and then went about organizing these walks which, if the women take the message to heart and dress skimpily in certain circumstances, will put them in danger. Of course putting women in danger is the whole point of the industry. If there weren't danger, there would be no money. Does that mean I think women are to blame for getting raped. No, not at all. They should be able to dress anyway they want. However they "can't", not because "men" are rapists but because there are men who are rapists out there.

By a similar token, only a small minority of men physically abuse women but, to listen to the industry, you would think we all wander around with clubs and dragging our females back to the cave by their hair. What's more, they vehemently deny that women could have any role in what happens to them despite the fact that study after study shows that, statistically, women are far more violent than men in their relationships than men. Most of the time they aren't capable of inflicting the kind of damage men can but that doesn't mean they can't hurt them. Again, some men are just plain assholes and would beat their women regardless of anything else. But what about those women who attack their men and he retaliates (and no, before you get your long knives out, I did not retaliate when the women attacked me). Watch what happens when some hapless fool suggests women not hit their men or, as we see in Jeanne's industry apologia post 26, someone suggests that maybe some money and resources be devoted to men who may be subject to spousal abuse.

Women have made huge strides forward over the past hundred years and especially the past fifty years. The rest of the way to equality can be accomplished but it is going to take honesty and the effort of both sexes. Continuing to allow a batch of money hungry, lying crusaders to carry the torch is just going to perpetuate and probably exacerbate the problems.

Thanks for your explanation, jim ~ I'm not sure why you were so reluctant to share it before ~ the one thing I still don't get is why you insist those of us who are speaking to real events happening today are saying that we support the "women are perfect, men are beasts" meme ~ nothing could be further from the truth, and we have repeatedly commented [in this thread and others] on that ~

I strongly support gender equality ~ and, for me, that works both ways ~ sometimes it works well, sometimes it creates new issues ~ I can only speak to what's happening today in the US, but there is most definitely a [mostly] far-right GOP/TPer "war on women" ~ I blame it on the patriarchal mindset they hold dear ~ some of these men ARE "seeth[ing] with anger over women's autonomy" ~ for some reason, they equate it to an attack on their "manhood", instead of celebrating the strength of women ~ yes, some women view it the same way, and some "glory" in it ~ but there's no way to talk in absolutes about peoples' reactions ~

I again urge you to not add the word "all" anytime you see the word "men" in an opinion ~ in return, I'll try to be more precise in my words ~

Anyway, thanks again for explaining ~

Sooz

You do make some valid points jim.

I've stated the exact same thing in regards to racism as an industry. Those who have attained a certain level of fame and make tons of money (J. Jackson et al) lambasting racism are more interested in keeping it going. It is motivated self-interest. Thus, we see Jackson and others trying to fabricate a racist theme to occurrences that have nothing to do with racism.

The same thing could be applied to the "War on Christmas/Christianity" pundits. Their fame/notoriety and donations are solidly linked to their rantings about those things, so they create a "war" where there is no such thing.

Whenever there is a level of "celebrity" and/or donations involved in a cause, the more you will see someone trying to keep the shit stirred. The internet has fostered that exponentially.

I guess my biggest question is, what do you mean by the "feminist industry"? Who are they, and where is the money coming from?

I agree Rosanne, about the war on women. I believe that it's coming from a few different places--from religious doctrine that wasn't very female friendly to begin with (i.e. the bans on abortion and birth control), from some old fashioned patriochical thinkers, and from some basic cynical political thinking--the republicans figure they can gain more votes from pandering to those bases than trying to attract modern forward thinking women who are unlikely to vote for them under any circumstances.

jim, where has anyone here said women aren't good enough?

where has anyone here said women have no role in what happens to them?

as for the women should watch how they dress because there are rapists out there (who happen to be men) that is blaming the victim and putting the responsibilty of stopping rape on the women. That is despite the fact that women have been raped wearing nuns habits and other very conservative clothes. Blaming the clothes is saying she asked for it. It is saying rape is a sexual thing instead of a power thing. We disagree big time on that, jim.

Please let me know of "all the studies that show women are far more violent in relatonships than men". You say watch what happens if it's suggested women shouldn't hit their men. Well on here we agreed with that. A woman's abuse of a man is no better than a man's abuse of a woman. We also agreed that there should be money for men who need shelters. Our comment was it should be additional money not money taken away from women who need it. How is that wrong? And why are you lying about what has been said here?

Again, no one has said all men. You are the one including yourself with the rapists and abusers the articles talk about, not us.

You have been beaten by women. Thanks, for sharing that. It is wrong and I respect you for not hitting back. I was a witness for a guy whose wife attacked him with a knife hurting him badly and he knocked her out. It was self defense. He did not just leave because he feared she was going to hurt herself or the children. When he was dialing 911 she stabbed him. I will support a man's right to defend himself just as I support a woman's right to defend herself.

Not all women who speak against rape and abuse are in the "industry". Some of us have just seen too much rape and abuse of women. I am a feminist and I won't apologize for that. That does not mean I blame all men for anything. It does not men I think all women, or any woman is perfect. It means I support a woman's right to control her own body, equal pay for equal work, etc. It also means equal responsibility for our actions.

Jim, I know you aren't a rapist, abuser, etc. That's why it bothers me so much when you go into the rabid rant against feminists. I knew there was something else involved. Now I understand it better although I still hate it. Not all feminists ignore the fact that men are abused, too. You don't know my history, the things I have worked for or done. If you did you would know that I don't leave people out.

We do have to work together, men and women. We have to listen to each other and stop hearing what we want vs what someone actually said.

While-ever you use the word "industry" to describe the Feminist movement (which is internally very diverse) you are insulting everyone who supports equality for women. They are apparently only in it because of self-interest or because they are the dupes of those who are.

If you pepper your comments with what amounts to an insult then you are going to get people's back's up.

Don't get me wrong, I have seen some women ruthlessly exploit the influence of feminist views for their own personal gain, but the majority don't do that. Some feminists go over the top, but the majority don't and some hate men, but most don't. Some look at women though rose coloured glasses while seeing only the worst in men, but that isn't the majority by any means. When you characterise a whole movement in terms of the peccadillos of a few you are inadvertently attacking any genuine quest for gender equality.

There are MANY groups who have used the feminist movement, the struggle against racism and (supposed) Christian persecution for monetary gain and notoriety only. That makes them part of an industry no matter how you parse it. They are not unlike any of the other groups out there who use a cause for their own personal gain.

No one is saying that it's everyone, but to deny such industries exist doesn't help the cause. If anyone gets their back up, then they need to examine their own motivations and associations. If they feel sure that they are not part of the above groups, then feeling insulted is pretty silly don't you think? When people talk about ignorant Southern rednecks, I don't feel insulted even though I am Southern. I know that I am not a redneck nor am I ignorant.

The difference is that Jim attributes pretty much all the arguments against his view as part of the "Industry".

1. By continuously pounding the idea into the heads of women that they aren't good enough and by insisting that "men" have to change without ever really saying exactly what "men" are supposed to do to bring about that change. Individual men - those who beat their wives, rapists, bosses who refuse to promote women - know what they have to do but the rest, who don't do those things, are left confused, feeling vaguely guilty of something though not sure of what, and unsure of what is expected of them.


This is from jim's writing. I think somewhere in there it's miswritten. Men aren't good enough maybe. It doesn't make sense to me as written.

Second point: From Jeanne's post.

as for the women should watch how they dress because there are rapists out there (who happen to be men) that is blaming the victim and putting the responsibilty of stopping rape on the women. That is despite the fact that women have been raped wearing nuns habits and other very conservative clothes. Blaming the clothes is saying she asked for it. It is saying rape is a sexual thing instead of a power thing. We disagree big time on that, jim.

I think some of the responsibility of stopping rape and stopping abuse is on the woman. Women know the cycle of abuse, they know what's going to happen and they go back. It's part of battered woman syndrome but ...

If men got drunk and passed out and someone stole his wallet, of course the thief is to blame but everyone would tell the passed out drunk he was a stupid idiot. We tell the passed out woman who is raped she is a victim. Saying anything else is considered blaming the victim.

Interesting how I get chastised by Jeanne and Cattleman, et al for using broad terms to describe the women's movement and then get chastised when I complain about broad terms being used to describe the women's industry. Apparently it's okay to use "men" when describing misbehaving men but not "women" when describing misbehaving women and their groups.

(p.s. Jeanne: Virtually all studies show women are more violent than men in intimate relationships:

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

http://washingtondv.org/?page_id=2

http://lilt.ilstu.edu/mjreese/psy290/do ... 202000.pdf

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 22388.html

If men got drunk and passed out and someone stole his wallet, of course the thief is to blame but everyone would tell the passed out drunk he was a stupid idiot. We tell the passed out woman who is raped she is a victim. Saying anything else is considered blaming the victim.

wow, that's a very disturbing comparison. Try thinking this way. If a man passed out and got raped, he would be a victim. I never once have thought that anyone who was violated in any way while passed out was a stupid idiot.

However, have one's wallet taken and having one's body violated in the most intimate way are VERY different. That's why one is called theft and the other is called assault.

"Men" isn't a disparaging term in this context, "Industry" is.

Its not the use of broad terms I object to, its the use of dismissive terms.

I just read through the OP again. There's nothing in there that makes me feel even slightly guilty.

Interesting articles Jim, although they are all really about one article.

I think the key issue though concerns the nature of that violence. Women are more likely to be injured it seems, and injured more seriously. But there's no real analysis of the degree of injury.

Its also an article about violence in "relationships". The op was in a wider context.

Ha, Jim, you said I was part of the "industry". You said others here were too. That was just because you disagreed with us. I did not include you in the "men". Maybe I should have because according to your studies insults are part of the "violence". So you were violent to me and I retaliated wth volence. If I'm not mistaken I mentioned emotional violence by women against men in a previous post on this thread.

The studies are interesting. Thanks for lsting some. I would have to go and see the full explanation and methods and such before I could accept them as valid. Plus, we were talking about shelters and such and usually insults don't make the need for shelters. It's also a bit confusing that at least two of the studies talk about women being more violent, but then says 40% of the victims are men. As with all studies involving surveys you have to see if there was any difference in honesty. And yes, I will admit that I do not and will not say a woman verbally attacking a man is the same as a man beating the shit out of a woman. A man verbally attacking a woman is not the same as a man beating the shit out of a woman. The studies seemed to show differences in whether it was reciprocal or not.

Kathy, I don't know anyone who blames the guy if he gets drunk and someone steals his wallet. The thief did it and is totally responsible for it. Just like the rapist is totally responsible for the rape. Anything else in either stuation IS blaming the victim.

roseanne, I haven't seen anyone deny there is such an industry. I don't feel insulted by that. I feel insulted by jim because jim insulted me. Ha. roseanne, he didn't use the generalization, he named some of us on here and said we were part of it because we disagreed wth him. Actually, even when we didn't disagree with him. The crime is agreeing with anything a feminist says.

Ha, Jim, you said I was part of the "industry". You said others here were too. That was just because you disagreed with us. I did not include you in the "men". Maybe I should have because according to your studies insults are part of the "violence". So you were violent to me and I retaliated wth volence. If I'm not mistaken I mentioned emotional violence by women against men in a previous post on this thread.

Combined those articles reference nearly 2000 different studies that indicate women are more violent than women in relationships and the one you picked out was the one that had a small reference to verbal abuse being a type of violence....and then you wonder why you get labelled as part of the industry. Incidentally, simply disagreeing with me does not get you lumped into the industry camp. There are women's groups who do a good job. The Status of Women in Canada was/is one. The polar opposite and definitely a part of the industry is Women Against Violence Against Women (WAVAW).

as for the women should watch how they dress because there are rapists out there (who happen to be men) that is blaming the victim and putting the responsibilty of stopping rape on the women. That is despite the fact that women have been raped wearing nuns habits and other very conservative clothes. Blaming the clothes is saying she asked for it. It is saying rape is a sexual thing instead of a power thing. We disagree big time on that, jim.

Hey! By all mean, put on your micro mini and skimpiest top and go parading. See what happens. I agree you have every right to do it. I agree it's not your fault if you get raped. Getting hit by a car when you don't look both ways at a cross walk before stepping into the street isn't your fault either, but I've met smarter stumps if you do it.

your first ref says aprox 1.5 million women and 835,000 men are physically assaulted annually. Hmmm. More women are victims but fewer guys commit the acts? One of the questions was how often have you threatened your partner with violence - that's verbal, not physical. It also includes throwng things whether the person was hit or not. Also, read the limitations.

your second reference says 38% of domestic assault physical injuries are suffered by men

in reference 3 it points out huge problems with the data

ref 4 isn't worth anything because it doesn't appear to ack up what it says

so, the information is questionable. The definition of violence changes. one of your references even points out that men may be more apt to lie when asked if they caused physical injury. They only talk about domestic violence. asking people questions about what they have done is not really reliable especially if it involves criminal behavior.

Sorry, I don't consider a woman throwing an ashtray at a guy and missing as grievous as a man beating the shit out of a woman.

Jim, we obviously won't ever reach a point where we can even be civil to each other. You consider me to be a feminist. Yep, I am one. Part of an industry? I have lost a lot for taking some of the stands I do, I have not gained money and I am very tired and would love for it to no longer be necessary. And you, I consider you to be a big part of the problem. How sad. I know you don't care about how I feel about you any more than I care what you think about me. I do appreciate you taking the time to give more explanation of your views though.