We may have to agree to disagree: we’re arguing mostly perceptions now.
He certainly chose to apologize (he’s the only one who could have done it, after all). The question is why he felt compelled to change his mind so fast.
Personally, I would never have worn that shirt. I wouldn’t even own a shirt like that.
My main point is feminists made a mountain out of a anthill: it’s typical of feminism’s determination to constantly paint women as victims - whether it’s of a shirt, or something else.
Again, something we probably have to agree to disagree about. Personally I think the slutwalks are silly, accomplish nothing, and are probably counter-productive; because they draw so much publicity: I think there’s a whole bunch of regular people scratching their heads and saying, “Really? This is what feminism has come to?”
Well, that’s one way of looking at it. Another is: If you’re going to insist on wearing whatever the fuck you want, you should let others do the same.
Are you saying that Matt’s shirt was the equivalent of wearing a swastika?
Well, he cried, so I guess it wasn’t a little thing to him. But in the big scheme of things, you’re right. One guy wearing a shirt is a little thing.
How does “patriarchy” hurt men, according to you, or most feminists you know or read about?
And yet, they’re quick to do it.
You said it’s based on evidence. What evidence?
My conclusion, having read a number of studies - many of which are quoted and linked up-thread - that women are about as likely to resort to domestic violence as men. I don’t doubt that, on average, in the minority of cases that result in serious injury, that women’s injuries are more serious.
The best approach to ending domestic violence is not the Duluth model - which assumes that men are abusers and women are victims - but to look at the actual evidence, and to examine at what causes domestic violence in the first place.
Those aren’t the numbers I remember from the Wikipedia article, but that’s not surprising. Particularly when it comes to politicized topics, Wikipedia pages are full of contradictory information.
I haven’t seen Twilight or 50 Shades (and please kill before I do) but for reasons I won’t go into I happen to know something about historical romance novels.
The hero of the story, Brandon Birmingham, rapes Heather (the heroine) in graphic detail. She becomes pregnant, he marries her, and they eventually live happily ever after.
There were multiple other cites in other posts showing alarmingly high numbers of young men being okay with rape. And the 1/3rd number was not debunked, just dismissed.
You know, camille spoke about this in post 798, and admitted that the Duluth model is not the only model considered nor even the most effective. Now she knows more than I do about domestic violence and advocacy, and she called you out on this. I would read more of her posts and comments before repeating something that another feminist has already discussed.
No mountain was made. Criticism is not a mountain.
And perhaps many see them differently.
It’s not “wear anything”, it’s “if you wear offensive imagery, expect criticism”.
Expectations of aggression and anger, holding in emotions, being “tough”, worse treatment in prisons, must make more money, shouldn’t stay at home, I and more.
That “normal” men are always horny and therefore can’t be harmed by predatory women (for example, teachers having sex with teen boys). That women are soft and good and gentle and maternal, so kids should always go to them. That men cannot be trusted around kids. That women are “safe” and men are “dangerous.” That a man without a job is less than. That a man without a woman is less than. That a man who doesn’t fight is less than. Homophobia and its resulting fear of looking gay is part and parcel of this ugliness.
Usually when I assert a fact, I try to provide evidence: Let’s start with you presenting evidence of Indian and Chinese infanticide, and go from there.
Still waiting for you to respond to the evidence that was presented to you about prison rape and child custody. Why do you keep asking for more evidence you’ll probably ignore if it doesn’t suit your purpose? It doesn’t say much for your argument, or your claim of wanting an honest debate.
Here is a post by Emiliana about it:
And in case you need it spelled out for you, LinusK:
I think that after a divorce, shared parenting should be the default, unless there’s some good reason why it should be otherwise. In general, I think that having a father actively involved in a child’s life is a good thing for a child.
Which isn’t to say that every father is a good one, or that every mother is a good mother. Rather, I’m saying that 50/50 custody should be the starting point: not something a father might achieve after a long expensive custody battle - one that will inevitably hurt the same children the father is trying to help.
Right. NOW resorts to blatant lies to support its embarrassing failure to support actual equality. Or rather, its embarrassing promotion of inequality.
Did you know they also say that fathers want to see their kids, not because they want to be good fathers, but to get out of paying child support?
You’re kidding, right? It was your cite. Why are you citing a source you yourself don’t believe?
Why should we believe that? Maybe the part I quoted is true (I do have the actual study available), and the things you quoted are the lies.
Maybe they’re just putting that out there to make anti-feminists angry. Some people do that you know: they like to get people riled up, so when they give up on debating and resort to attacks in return, you can tell yourself that you hit a nerve; makes it seem like there’s some truth to what you’re saying about them.
I’m pretty sure I heard someone mention that in a video somewhere; I suspect you did as well. but I’m guessing you’ll ignore what I’m saying because I’m a feminist.