I don't agree with the MN feminists. AIBU?

[jennyvstheworld]

I consider myself an active proponent of equality of opportunity and a stern critic of discrimination... and yet I find that I can't identify with many of the viewpoints I encounter on the MN feminism page (and often say so). AIBU?

OG I'm not sure I understand your outrage at SGM's comment. To quote it in full context it was addressed to MaryZ about the Romeo/Juliet thread (on this thread above at 14:36):

"we needed to look at teenage sexuality in a more nuanced manner to prevent children being the victims of predators and that all teenagers understand consent as a continuos process. I also think the obsession with vaginal sex is problematic and that we should be encouraging teenagers to have sex without vaginal ( or anal) penetration."

I took SGM to mean that the focus on penetrative sex means that teenagers feel under pressure to have penetrative sex in order to feel that they have had sex at all - all the ooh you're a virgin stuff - (which carries all the issues like unwanted pregnancies which was underlying the RJ law) and if teenagers felt that heavy petting (without penetration) was "sex" they wouldn't feel under this pressure to have penetrative sex and would feel freer to explore their sexuality (consensually obviously) at their own pace.

I can see you've quoted it twice now. What did you think SGM meant?

OK OG you are citing an article by a random man on the internet with no qualifications or expertise in this area, who clearly has other issues with women (if you look at his previous articles) and doesn't cite himself where he gets those figures from.

Confirmation bias anyone???

Chickens Wrong way round. We chew penises for breakfast and plot the downfall of newbies!

BBQFrenzy It's the ICKY ICKY ICKY VAGINAS URGH URGH YUCK.

Sorry, couldn't resist

RealMBJ - I would think though that if a thread was started about women's experiences of rape that should be the main focus of the thread and not men's experiences. And vice versa.

fill yer boots on child homicide statistics Slightly less distasteful than a site that calls a disabled child a vegetable.

It would be impossible to cite a violent crime by women against men for each violent crime we cite by men against women. Because men commit more violent crime than women. (admittedly against each other, in the main). Are you angry about that, organicgardner? I am. I'd like them to stop being violent. I'd especially like them to stop being violent to women they proclaim to love.

This thread is very confusing. If only there was a part of MN where we could address each of these subjects on separate threads.

:o Aye. We can only dream, eh.

AyeRobot I haven't yet clicked on your link but unless it is the opinion of software consultant who works out of his home in St. Laurent, Quebec, I'm just not sure how much credence I can give it.

OrganicGardner Presumably Jen will be along to tell you whether opinions of software consultants working from home are allowed as supporting 'evidence' of your opinion (which incidentally are not allowed as Tilly discovered earlier)

Jeez. Talk about scraping the barrel. You have the entire internet with a wealth of information, government and NGO statistics, official publications, newspapers etc. but no, David MacRae, speaking forth from his home office is the best that can be offered.

Thanks AyeRobot. Makes grim reading but looks to be a good piece of research with sound data and useful conclusions.

VG I know! Aren't they just so ...er..vaginary... I'm just completely lost with that out of context quote OG has quoted a few times! What am I missing?

HDS in my version of feminism, rape is something that people experience, and more of those people are women than are men. so to me you cannot exclusively talk about women's experiences or men's.

Shit. How do you get to your list of topics thingy? So you can hide/unhide boards?

Aye, from what i read of the link, it is roughly equal proportions for mothers and fathers.

I know the stats cannot be taken on face value, as the precise circumstances are not known, but statically speaking mothers and fathers are both perpetraters.

Although i realise that feminism focus on issues for women, this must be relevant as it is obviously just as much as problem for women, as it is for men?

fill yer boots on child homicide statistics

I'm trying to find the data on kids killed by step fathers or mothers with step-partners, I recall reading a report saying that was massively disporoportionate for young kids.

Nah. They drive me potty. I just ignore and roll my eyes at them most of the time for being ridiculous.

Whatmeworry, it tells you in the link Aye provided.

"In the 6-year period 1995/96 to 2000/01

In addition, a total of 56 children
were killed by their step-parents, 54 by stepfathers and two by stepmothers"

Of all children under age 5 murdered from 1976-2005 --

31% were killed by fathers
29% were killed by mothers
23% were killed by male acquaintances
7% were killed by other relatives
3% were killed by strangers
Of those children killed by someone other than their parent, 81% were killed by males.

It also says "Male parents who kill their children are generally treated more harshly and unsympathetically by the legal process than female parents: fathers are more likely than mothers to be charged with murder than manslaughter,and more fathers than mothers convicted of manslaughter are imprisoned; convicted mothers are more likely than fathers to be hospitalised or treated rather than imprisoned"

If this research is accurate, i would be interested to know if you think this is fair, even if it does not back up arguement?

Claw3 I think that quote points to a bias in both directions (but in this instance has better outcome for women than men) - e.g. that mothers, due to the perceived strength of maternal instinct, are more likely to be seen as mentally ill or 'unnatural' in killing their children, whereas fathers are not.

That unfairness has different outcomes in other areas of life - e.g. mothers being viewed as default primary carers because it is viewed as 'natural' that they would be.

^In addition, a total of 56 children
were killed by their step-parents, 54 by stepfathers and two by stepmothers^

Thanks, saw it...there was also something I recall about mothers being statistically more likely to kill if step-partner rather than father was present.

Looking back over the last few pages, I think I'll know the MN Feminist board has changed its spots when anyone who challenges/disagrees with the hard line on "what is a rape" - or even ventures that proving X event was a rape would be very hard - is not howled down as a "rape apologist".

any post not liked is put down with
1.anti-feminist
2.derailer
3.troll
4.what about the menz
5.oh ignore her instruction is issued

1. male apologist

there is limited scope on the feminist board at times (admittedly it does depend who is posting) but it can be a v prescriptive and follow the ideological script

whereas on a discursive forum,id expect a bit of divergence,and bitty riposte

I completely agree scottishmummy. Except about 'bitty reposte'.

BBQ, i agree, there will always be bias in both directions and the pros and cons could undoubtly be argued, for example if men were to be the primary care giver, would those stats change etc, etc.

Was more interested, for the purpose of this thread, as it has been claimed that feminist have difficulty being objective when it comes to men being treated unequally, what feminists thought (also questioning my own views at the moment too)

For me that research would suggest that men are treated unequally in that particular respect. (regardless of whether women are treated uneually in other respects)