Why we need pro-feminists

Must be troll season again, they’ve been out in force over the last couple of days.

First off someone called “Dyke Pounder” felt motivated to write the following as a comment on a request for sex-pos and sex-neg feminists to see each other as two sides of the same coin.

Biatch pleeeze, you gots some sers issuez.

I shoulds spanks you some and give u a good rogerin.

Blowin me would blow yo mind aaaaa yeah.

Now that isn’t really a very nice comment.  Doesn’t really engage with the issues or contribute to the discussion.  In fact, its really quite offensive and some might even say threatening.  None the less, I responded (rather civily  I thought given the tone of his contribution).

Some blogs deliberately edit out comments like these.   I have done on a previous blog, I mean they’re really not pleasant to read far less respond to.  The trouble with not publishing tho is that they stay hidden, unseen by the wider world, just a little private encounter between an obnoxious threatening cunt and a female blogger.  The trouble with not responding is that they sit there unchallenged, just a bald statement of one man’s opinion on the issue seemingly as valid as any other.

This is why we need pro-fems.  Its the job of the pro-fems to tackle obnoxious cunts.  Because we fems are sick of them. They gravitate towards us like moths to a light, seeing their privilege being challenged.  Its exhausting dealing with them both online and in real life.  Every time it is hidden because just putting up with it would cause less fuss or be less embarrassing; every time it sits unchallenged because there isn’t enough strength left to deal with them again.  Privilege can give that strength to get rid of obnoxious  cunts, allowing women the freedom to have their voices heard.  Privilage can be used to challenge others with privilage to allow women the freedom to speak without fear.

Then there was “Whataboutthe proof” – a far more sophisticated troll, who commented on a post about why men could not be feminists.

His argument was nicely structured in three parts, across seven comments

Argument 1
The definition of feminism presented in this post is false.  I do not know a definition of feminism but  I know this one is wrong.  I do not need a definition to know that this one is wrong. Your definition is not the norm and not universal and therefore wrong. There is no universal definition of feminism, therefore I don’t need to know one to know that yours is wrong.  Neither of us knows the other one’s gender.  I dont understand why you think this is because I am a man.  You do not know that I am male, therefore you cannot think that  am stating that you are wrong because I am a man and therefore I am right.

Argument 2
You have presented no evidence that we live under patriarchy. You must substantiate your claim of patriarchy. I dont need to find out whether patriarchy exists. It is for you to prove that patriarchy exists. I know all about patriarchy and dont believe it exists. You have still not convinced me. I demand that you convince me.

 Argument 3
It being problematic for men to critique patriarchy does not stop them being feminsts.  Critiquing and challenging patriarchy is not integral to feminism, and experience of gender oppression unnecessary. Just because a movement says or does something and you do not does not mean you are not part of it. It is not necessary to have experience of oppression to theorise it or challenge it as part of the movement. Let me compare women to animals and severely disabled people to demonstrate how they are unable to lead their own liberation. You dont need experience to understand something. Years of research can compensate for lack of experience therefore experience is unnecessary.

 First off there is a bald statement that “I am right and you are wrong” hiding behind visible but undeclared gender, followed by increasingly shrill demands to present evidence of privilage, rounded off with complete discrediting of experience.

This is why we need pro-fems.  Its the job of the pro-fems to tackle obfuscating twats*.  Because we fems are sick of them. They gravitate towards us like moths to a light, seeing their privilege being challenged.  Its exhausting dealing with them both online and in real life.  Every bit of time and attention that is given to dealing with their shite means that there is less time to actually do anything productive, but at the same time not dealing with them lets them get away with strawmen arguments that other men use as a protective shield.  Privilege can give that strength to get rid of obfuscating twats, allowing women to determine their own priorities rather than having them dictated to by men.  Privilege can be used to challenge others with privilege to allow women the time to organise for their liberation.

By refusing to acknowledge men as feminists that is not to say that I want to exclude them from the feminist movement, on the contrary we need as many men in the feminist movement as possible, but their role is different.

 *Yes, yes, I use twat as well as cunt, I feel another blogpost coming on.

 

 

Leave a comment below, or join the discussion on the or join the discussion on the Second Council House of Virgo facebook page. .
18 comments
miszca
miszca

I'm just wondering if superman here is american, or just using a mac. As for being "curious as to whether patriarchy exists" That is like asking if rain is wet or if clouds exist.

admin
admin

Have you read the link where I explain why I use cunt?

Newbie
Newbie

This is the first time I've read your blog, and I liked what you said except for the use of the word cunt. Using derogatory terms that reference female genitals seems very anti-feminist to me. Using words like cunt, douche, and bitch are similar to calling something you don't like gay or retarded. There are vulgar gender neutral terms! Maybe asshole, jackass, scumbag, dumbfucker...

Lyra Liberty
Lyra Liberty

I think trolls should be blocked, they are completely at it!! But I do think it is fair enough to expose them every know and again

Vicky Hyde
Vicky Hyde

The price of shares and investments and the income derived from them can go down as well as up, and investors may not get back the amount they invested.

El
El

While I agree that not hiding their posts lets us see what you have to put up with as a feminist blogger, it allows the conundrum of feeding the trolls. I cite Indymedia.uk as a case in point. When someone puts up an anti-fascist report, there are invariably fash who troll the comments, and antis respond to their 'arguments', which both detracts from the original article, and encourages more fash trollism. There are people who relish provoking you (anyone) into an argument on their terms, by being deliberately offensive, and never actually get round to a civilised discussion. It's a no-win situation for you, and my advice is to not feed the trolls, beyond your initial invitation to debate on the issues you raise.

Where is the Proof
Where is the Proof

To correct an error, I meant to say mischaracterization instead of characterization. Also, how is two trolls (one arguably not being a troll. I would argue that point a great deal) "trolls coming out in force"?

Where is the Proof
Where is the Proof

It is always nice to be called sophisticated. Troll not so much. First of, you are using what is called the straw man. That is, you are characterizing my arguments and arguing with the characterizations rather then arguing with what I am actually saying. I suspect you know this, as you mentioned it in your post, but it is always nice to reiterate. Actually, it might not be straw man, as you are not even arguing with your mischaracteriztions of my arguments. Of course, some (and in retrospect most) of the arguments you gave are indeed mine. For example: "The definition of feminism presented in this post is false." "I do not know a definition of feminism but I know this one is wrong." "I do not need a definition to know that this one is wrong." (if you can't wrap your head around this one, ask yourself if you can know that 794308985/2 does not =\6 without knowing the correct answer) "Your definition is not the norm and not universal and therefore wrong." "You do not know that I am male, therefore you cannot think that (I) am stating that you are wrong because I am a man" Although that would have been better said as "You do not know I am male, therefore, you can not state "You are only disagreeing with me because you are male", IMO. "You have presented no evidence that we live under patriarchy." "You must substantiate your claim of patriarchy." "You have still not convinced me." "Critiquing and challenging patriarchy is not integral to feminism, and experience of gender oppression unnecessary" For critique. "just because a movement says or does something and you do not does not mean you are not part of it." "It is not necessary to have experience of oppression to theorize it or challenge it as part of the movement." "You dont need experience to understand something" All of these are sound arguments. Or at least I think they are. Might be wrong though. Some arguments that I did not make: "There is no universal definition of feminism, therefore I don’t need to know one to know that yours is wrong" No, I don't need to know any definition to know yours is wrong. See my given math example. "I dont need to find out whether patriarchy exists." I never made this claim. See, I am very curious as to whether or not patriarchy exists, and I am interested in the evidence that the Admin has on the subject. "I demand that you convince me." I demanded nothing. Although it certainly would be nice if you did. "Let me compare women to animals and severely disabled people to demonstrate how they are unable to lead their own liberation." I drew used animals and the severely disabled to directly counter the Admins argument that the oppressed must lead their libertarian movement, not to point out that women are unable to lead their own liberation. Although this might be true in some cases. For example, in the middle east, where a women might be killed for fighting against oppression. "Years of research can compensate for lack of experience therefore experience is unnecessary." No, years of well done research does more then compensate for lack of experience. It far surpasses it. "First off there is a bald statement that “I am right and you are wrong” hiding behind visible but undeclared gender" There is nothing wrong with saying I am right and you are wrong. In fact, that is pretty much the cornerstone of many arguments. It is not, however, my argument. Because I never claimed to be right. I do not know what is right. I only know that you are wrong. "followed by increasingly shrill demands to present evidence of privilege" Do words on a screen have tone? Because I do not see how you can characterize my "demands" (they where not demands, they where requests) without being able to hear written words. Do you have a text to audio program with wacked out settings? But on a more serious note, I do not ever recall mentioning privilege. When did we talk about privilege? "rounded off with complete discrediting of experience." I believe I wrote something to the effect of "Experience is not necessary, but it is certainly helpful." This is not a complete discrediting so much as pointing out that there is more then one path to enlightenment. Hm. I seem to be investing alot of time and effort into your blog. I hope my investment yields results.

Where is the Proof
Where is the Proof

It is always nice to be called sophisticated. Troll not so much. First of, you are using what is called the straw man. That is, you are characterizing my arguments and arguing with the characterizations rather then arguing with what I am actually saying. I suspect you know this, as you mentioned it in your post, but it is always nice to reiterate. Actually, it might not be straw man, as you are not even arguing with your mischaracteriztions of my arguments. Of course, some (and in retrospect most) of the arguments you gave are indeed mine. For example: "The definition of feminism presented in this post is false." "I do not know a definition of feminism but I know this one is wrong." "I do not need a definition to know that this one is wrong." (if you can't wrap your head around this one, ask yourself if you can know that 794308985/2 does not =6 without knowing the correct answer) "Your definition is not the norm and not universal and therefore wrong." "You do not know that I am male, therefore you cannot think that (I) am stating that you are wrong because I am a man" Although that would have been better said as "You do not know I am male, therefore, you can not state "You are only disagreeing with me because you are male", IMO. "You have presented no evidence that we live under patriarchy." "You must substantiate your claim of patriarchy." "You have still not convinced me." "Critiquing and challenging patriarchy is not integral to feminism, and experience of gender oppression unnecessary" For critique. "just because a movement says or does something and you do not does not mean you are not part of it." "It is not necessary to have experience of oppression to theorize it or challenge it as part of the movement." "You dont need experience to understand something" All of these are sound arguments. Or at least I think they are. Might be wrong though. Some arguments that I did not make: "There is no universal definition of feminism, therefore I don’t need to know one to know that yours is wrong" No, I don't need to know any definition to know yours is wrong. See my given math example. "I dont need to find out whether patriarchy exists." I never made this claim. See, I am very curious as to whether or not patriarchy exists, and I am interested in the evidence that the Admin has on the subject. "I demand that you convince me." I demanded nothing. Although it certainly would be nice if you did. "Let me compare women to animals and severely disabled people to demonstrate how they are unable to lead their own liberation." I drew used animals and the severely disabled to directly counter the Admins argument that the oppressed must lead their libertarian movement, not to point out that women are unable to lead their own liberation. Although this might be true in some cases. For example, in the middle east, where a women might be killed for fighting against oppression. "Years of research can compensate for lack of experience therefore experience is unnecessary." No, years of well done research does more then compensate for lack of experience. It far surpasses it. "First off there is a bald statement that “I am right and you are wrong” hiding behind visible but undeclared gender" There is nothing wrong with saying I am right and you are wrong. In fact, that is pretty much the cornerstone of many arguments. It is not, however, my argument. Because I never claimed to be right. I do not know what is right. I only know that you are wrong. "followed by increasingly shrill demands to present evidence of privilege" Do words on a screen have tone? Because I do not see how you can characterize my "demands" (they where not demands, they where requests) without being able to hear written words. Do you have a text to audio program with wacked out settings? But on a more serious note, I do not ever recall mentioning privilege. When did we talk about privilege? "rounded off with complete discrediting of experience." I believe I wrote something to the effect of "Experience is not necessary, but it is certainly helpful." This is not a complete discrediting so much as pointing out that there is more then one path to enlightenment. Hm. I seem to be investing alot of time and effort into your blog. I hope my investment yields results.

Where is the Proof
Where is the Proof

The difference is I can (and in the case of "is water wet, have) test to see if rain is wet or if clouds exist. Water is wet by nature of it being water, as per the definition of "wet". As for clouds, I can make a whether balloon and use various instruments (baramater, thermometer, an air quility tester) to test and see if there are suspend ice particles floating around in the atmosphere. Patriarchy is a lot more complicated. for one thing, its definition is nie on impossible to pin down. wet is when something is saturated or covered in liquid, clouds (assuming we are not talking about clouds as in a could of smoke or a cloud of insects) are suspended ice particles, but patriarchy? its definition changes each time I hear it. If proving patriarchy is as simple as looking up the definition of wet or making a weather balloon (its alot easier then it sounds), why has the Admin (and, for that matter, you) been so reluctant to prove it?

admin
admin

As I said, piss off and find some other cunt to bug

TsK
TsK

Holy Crap this is like trying to debate with a broken Omnibot 2000. 1-{“The definition of feminism presented in this post is false.” “I do not know a definition of feminism but I know this one is wrong.” “I do not need a definition to know that this one is wrong.” (if you can’t wrap your head around this one, ask yourself if you can know that 794308985/2 does not =\6 without knowing the correct answer) “Your definition is not the norm and not universal and therefore wrong.” } 1 Dude! You sound like a trot ("Disciplined Mass Movement... Disciplined Mass Movement!"), I don't think there is a right and wrong definition of feminism, it's a movement, not a theory! It's disparate as it's made up of individuals. 2{“You do not know that I am male, therefore you cannot think that (I) am stating that you are wrong because I am a man” Although that would have been better said as “You do not know I am male, therefore, you can not state “You are only disagreeing with me because you are male”, IMO.} - 2 You Mansplain like no woman I've ever met, Come on bro, anyone literate can tell you're male. 3 - {“You have presented no evidence that we live under patriarchy.” “You must substantiate your claim of patriarchy.” “You have still not convinced me.”} -3 If you don't think we live under patriarchy you're either a misogynist or so unobservant you probably made it to age 18 before you realised that perception of colour is subjective. The Patriarchy: Some Quick Facts 1 in 4 women will be a victim of domestic violence in their lifetime – many of these on a number of occasions One incident of domestic violence is reported to the police every minute. On average, 2 women a week are killed by a current or former male partner. source: Women's Aid the median hourly pay of full-time women in 2011 was 10.5 per cent below that of men Source:FT Globally: At least one in three women is beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused by an intimate partner in the course of her lifetime.16 Women aged 15-44 are more at risk from rape and domestic violence than from cancer, motor accidents, war and malaria, according to World Bank data.17 Approximately 80,000 women suffer rape and attempted rape every year 18 More than 60 million women are "missing" from the world today as a result of sex-selective abortions and female infanticide (Amartya Sen, Nobel Laureate) Several global surveys suggest that half of all women who die from homicide are killed by their current or former husbands or partners. Source:White Ribbon Campaign 4 -{ “Critiquing and challenging patriarchy is not integral to feminism, and experience of gender oppression unnecessary” For critique. “just because a movement says or does something and you do not does not mean you are not part of it.” “It is not necessary to have experience of oppression to theorize it or challenge it as part of the movement.” “You don't need experience to understand something” All of these are sound arguments. Or at least I think they are. Might be wrong though.} - 4 You are wrong. So wrong. But I'll pick up on your first point, you didn't even realise the patriarchy exists: Women Feel the patriarchy every day, every time they're harassed on the street, every time they're are shouted down by aggressive men, every time they watch the tv and see their gender represented as sexualised, ineffectual objects (And many other time I have no experience of) So if you didn't even realise the Patriarchy exists how the HELL are you supposed to go about criticising it (never mind smashing it!?) 5- {Some arguments that I did not make: “There is no universal definition of feminism, therefore I don’t need to know one to know that yours is wrong” No, I don’t need to know any definition to know yours is wrong. See my given math example. “I dont need to find out whether patriarchy exists.” I never made this claim. See, I am very curious as to whether or not patriarchy exists, and I am interested in the evidence that the Admin has on the subject. “I demand that you convince me.” I demanded nothing. Although it certainly would be nice if you did. “Let me compare women to animals and severely disabled people to demonstrate how they are unable to lead their own liberation.” I drew used animals and the severely disabled to directly counter the Admins argument that the oppressed must lead their libertarian movement, not to point out that women are unable to lead their own liberation. Although this might be true in some cases. For example, in the middle east, where a women might be killed for fighting against oppression. “Years of research can compensate for lack of experience therefore experience is unnecessary.” No, years of well done research does more then compensate for lack of experience. It far surpasses it. “First off there is a bald statement that “I am right and you are wrong” hiding behind visible but undeclared gender” There is nothing wrong with saying I am right and you are wrong. In fact, that is pretty much the cornerstone of many arguments. It is not, however, my argument. Because I never claimed to be right. I do not know what is right. I only know that you are wrong. “followed by increasingly shrill demands to present evidence of privilege” Do words on a screen have tone? Because I do not see how you can characterize my “demands” (they where not demands, they where requests) without being able to hear written words. Do you have a text to audio program with wacked out settings?} - 5 I'm just going to classify this lot as "DERP!" The last point I will say one word. SUBTEXT? 6-{But on a more serious note, I do not ever recall mentioning privilege. When did we talk about privilege? “rounded off with complete discrediting of experience.” I believe I wrote something to the effect of “Experience is not necessary, but it is certainly helpful.” This is not a complete discrediting so much as pointing out that there is more then one path to enlightenment. Hm. I seem to be investing alot of time and effort into your blog. I hope my investment yields results.} - 6 Christssakes Man! Privilege is part of the patriarchy, it's what we (men) are given from it. Do they world a favour and recognise your privilege and start working to redress the balance you're giving us (men) a bad name. The Mail Privilege Checklist

admin
admin

"Hm. I seem to be investing alot of time and effort into your blog. I hope my investment yields results." Probably not. Piss off and find some other cunt to bug.

TsK
TsK

Holy Crap this is like trying to debate with a broken Omnibot 2000. 1-{“The definition of feminism presented in this post is false.” “I do not know a definition of feminism but I know this one is wrong.” “I do not need a definition to know that this one is wrong.” (if you can’t wrap your head around this one, ask yourself if you can know that 794308985/2 does not =6 without knowing the correct answer) “Your definition is not the norm and not universal and therefore wrong.” } 1 Dude! You sound like a trot ("Disciplined Mass Movement... Disciplined Mass Movement!"), I don't think there is a right and wrong definition of feminism, it's a movement, not a theory! It's disparate as it's made up of individuals. 2{“You do not know that I am male, therefore you cannot think that (I) am stating that you are wrong because I am a man” Although that would have been better said as “You do not know I am male, therefore, you can not state “You are only disagreeing with me because you are male”, IMO.} - 2 You Mansplain like no woman I've ever met, Come on bro, anyone literate can tell you're male. 3 - {“You have presented no evidence that we live under patriarchy.” “You must substantiate your claim of patriarchy.” “You have still not convinced me.”} -3 If you don't think we live under patriarchy you're either a misogynist or so unobservant you probably made it to age 18 before you realised that perception of colour is subjective. The Patriarchy: Some Quick Facts 1 in 4 women will be a victim of domestic violence in their lifetime – many of these on a number of occasions One incident of domestic violence is reported to the police every minute. On average, 2 women a week are killed by a current or former male partner. source: Women's Aid the median hourly pay of full-time women in 2011 was 10.5 per cent below that of men Source:FT Globally: At least one in three women is beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused by an intimate partner in the course of her lifetime.16 Women aged 15-44 are more at risk from rape and domestic violence than from cancer, motor accidents, war and malaria, according to World Bank data.17 Approximately 80,000 women suffer rape and attempted rape every year 18 More than 60 million women are "missing" from the world today as a result of sex-selective abortions and female infanticide (Amartya Sen, Nobel Laureate) Several global surveys suggest that half of all women who die from homicide are killed by their current or former husbands or partners. Source:White Ribbon Campaign 4 -{ “Critiquing and challenging patriarchy is not integral to feminism, and experience of gender oppression unnecessary” For critique. “just because a movement says or does something and you do not does not mean you are not part of it.” “It is not necessary to have experience of oppression to theorize it or challenge it as part of the movement.” “You don't need experience to understand something” All of these are sound arguments. Or at least I think they are. Might be wrong though.} - 4 You are wrong. So wrong. But I'll pick up on your first point, you didn't even realise the patriarchy exists: Women Feel the patriarchy every day, every time they're harassed on the street, every time they're are shouted down by aggressive men, every time they watch the tv and see their gender represented as sexualised, ineffectual objects (And many other time I have no experience of) So if you didn't even realise the Patriarchy exists how the HELL are you supposed to go about criticising it (never mind smashing it!?) 5- {Some arguments that I did not make: “There is no universal definition of feminism, therefore I don’t need to know one to know that yours is wrong” No, I don’t need to know any definition to know yours is wrong. See my given math example. “I dont need to find out whether patriarchy exists.” I never made this claim. See, I am very curious as to whether or not patriarchy exists, and I am interested in the evidence that the Admin has on the subject. “I demand that you convince me.” I demanded nothing. Although it certainly would be nice if you did. “Let me compare women to animals and severely disabled people to demonstrate how they are unable to lead their own liberation.” I drew used animals and the severely disabled to directly counter the Admins argument that the oppressed must lead their libertarian movement, not to point out that women are unable to lead their own liberation. Although this might be true in some cases. For example, in the middle east, where a women might be killed for fighting against oppression. “Years of research can compensate for lack of experience therefore experience is unnecessary.” No, years of well done research does more then compensate for lack of experience. It far surpasses it. “First off there is a bald statement that “I am right and you are wrong” hiding behind visible but undeclared gender” There is nothing wrong with saying I am right and you are wrong. In fact, that is pretty much the cornerstone of many arguments. It is not, however, my argument. Because I never claimed to be right. I do not know what is right. I only know that you are wrong. “followed by increasingly shrill demands to present evidence of privilege” Do words on a screen have tone? Because I do not see how you can characterize my “demands” (they where not demands, they where requests) without being able to hear written words. Do you have a text to audio program with wacked out settings?} - 5 I'm just going to classify this lot as "DERP!" The last point I will say one word. SUBTEXT? 6-{But on a more serious note, I do not ever recall mentioning privilege. When did we talk about privilege? “rounded off with complete discrediting of experience.” I believe I wrote something to the effect of “Experience is not necessary, but it is certainly helpful.” This is not a complete discrediting so much as pointing out that there is more then one path to enlightenment. Hm. I seem to be investing alot of time and effort into your blog. I hope my investment yields results.} - 6 Christssakes Man! Privilege is part of the patriarchy, it's what we (men) are given from it. Do they world a favour and recognise your privilege and start working to redress the balance you're giving us (men) a bad name. The Mail Privilege Checklist

Where is the Proof
Where is the Proof

@tsk Yay! some data I can work with. But first: "I don’t think there is a right and wrong definition of feminism, it’s a movement, not a theory! It’s disparate as it’s made up of individuals. " Exactly my point. If there can be no consensus on the proper definition, then any definition (including the one the Admin posted) is inherently flawed. Second: "You Mansplain like no woman I’ve ever met, Come on bro, anyone literate can tell you’re male." How a person argues is not indicative of their gender. More evidence then that is need before such a specific claim can be made. Third: "If you don’t think we live under patriarchy you’re either a misogynist or so unobservant you probably made it to age 18 before you realised that perception of colour is subjective." I am neither. I do not hate women, so I do not fit the definition of misogynist. I am also not unobservant, I realized color was subjective when we were doing projects as part of the mandatory art classes back in 5th grade or so. What I am, before all else, is a skeptic. A die hard skeptic. Every piece of evidence that is put in front of me I automatically assume to be false. A great deal of real, testable evidence is needed for me to beilive in anything, be it cell theory or patriarchy. Now, I see you have cited some sources, this is good. The admin cited none, and claimed she did not need to. I find this shameful, but whatever. Lets see, you claim that one in four women get domestically abused by their partner, with many of those incidences being recurring instances, that one incident of domestic violence is reported to the police every minute, and that on average, 2 women a week are killed by a current or former male partner. and the source you cited for all three claims is... (insert research montage) Ah, see, we have some problems now. First, the qualifier that my focus on patriarchy has by necessity been limited to North America, so I am not very knowledgeable about its existence outside of Canada the US and Mexico. Of course, part of the admins definition is that patriarchy is worldwide, so if it does not exist somplace, it does on exist anywhere (as per her definition) Second, your source is incredibly, and I do mean incredibly, biased. Not that there is nothing wrong with that, as long as your sources sources arnt bias themselfs. But, they are. What I mean is, its a charity that's existence is predicated on the idea that there is a lot of domestic abuse. It as everything to gain and little to lose (any errors and discrepancies in the study can, perhaps rightly, be chalked up to a lack of funding) from publishing skewed studies that display a large amount of domestic violence. The more domestic abuse there is, the more donations they get, the more the people running the charity get to stay in business. Third, wait, let me ask you, did you read the studies the cited? Like, actually read them? I am refuring to the outdated 2008-9 study that the feminist charity origination itself conducted, and the even more outdated government study done in 2001. Did you read all the way through? They were very dull reads, to be sure, but studies usually are. The reason I ask is because if you had, you would realize the flaws in the methodology they used. And realize that the studies themselves don't adequately substantiate any of those three claims. OK, first, the government study. There are several problems with this study, firstly, the study itself was compiled in 2004, and the questions themselves where asked in 2001, over ten years ago. It is not grossly out of date, but it is still to out of date to be considered acurate in 2012. So the quilifier "in 2001" will be added to each claim it made. Another problem is is the sample size. In 2001 the population of England and Wales was roughly 52,000,000. The studies sample size? 22,463. This means that a grand total of 0.00043% of the population was polled. That. Is. To. Small. I could go on, pointing out the various flaws in the methodology (and there are a lot) But really, those this is getting too long. Suffice to say that these two flaws, out of date, and an extraordinarily small sample size, are enough to discredit this study. Go ahead, read it, you will see what I am talking about. Second, the study that the feminist charity group authored. I am not going to go into specifics, (ask and I can give them to you in a nother post) But in brief: First off, the definition given for "domestic violence" is incredibly broad. Second off, they way they gathered there information is flawed (no control, did not oversee poling, sample size is not indicative of the whole, only poled biased care center's, so on) Thirdly, they are a biased organization who stands to gain from fudging the numbers. As you can see, neither of the sources given for those three statistics are solid. And, I could find no mention of any of those three tidbits in either study. Though, I could have missed it. Unfortunately, I cannot access the source you cited, for you 10% pay gap statistic. It gives me the error message "Server not found". Are you sure the website is functining? Now, even if what you say is true, and there is a 10% pay gap, that pay gap is not necessarily indicative of discrimination in the workforce. Now, you claim that worldwide there are "You are wrong. So wrong. But I’ll pick up on your first point, you didn’t even realise the patriarchy exists: Women Feel the patriarchy every day, every time they’re harassed on the street, every time they’re are shouted down by aggressive men, every time they watch the tv and see their gender represented as sexualised, ineffectual objects (And many other time I have no experience of) So if you didn’t even realise the Patriarchy exists how the HELL are you supposed to go about criticising it (never mind smashing it!?)" First off, the "you are wrong. So wrong." Now, to be clear, all the staments given there where negative assertions. Following the laws of logic, you have to prove me wrong. Why? because negative assertions are true until proven false. Just like positive ones are false until proven true. Its about burden of proof, and its not on me. It never will be. At least, not online. I make a point not to make positive assertions on the internet. "So if you didn’t even realize the Patriarchy exists how the HELL are you supposed to go about criticizing it (never mind smashing it!?) " Easy. Criticize it by saying it does not exist. A pretty big criticism, don't you think? " I’m just going to classify this lot as “DERP!” The last point I will say one word. SUBTEXT?" I was explaining that those are claims that the Admin said I made, but I did not. And, I am afraid I do not understand what you are talking about when you say "subtext". " Christssakes Man! Privilege is part of the patriarchy, it’s what we (men) are given from it. Do they world a favour and recognise your privilege and start working to redress the balance you’re giving us (men) a bad name." If privilege is part of the patriarchy, then why did the admin not mention it when she was defining patriarchy? Another thing, you do not know my gender, my ethnicity, my age, or anything about me. How can you say I have privilege? oh, and that website is having an error with their databases. Do you check to make sure your sources are still online when you post them? And, as a final note, I do not care if I give anybody a bad name.

admin
admin

Cheers, TsK. I appreciate the don't feed the trolls approach, that people recommend above but the trouble is they start off innocuous enough, both online and in real life. Threats need exposed because they actively silence women by making.them afraid to speak, while the dogmatic patriarchs literally drown out women's voices, using pseudo-rationality to make the outrageous seem reasonable.

Where is the Proof
Where is the Proof

So, you are not going to substantiate any of your claims? Odd. I thought you wanted progress. It seems all you want is to do yell at people.

© 2014 Frontier Theme

Page Optimized by WP BTBuckets WordPress Plugin