And as for “feminists don’t discuss men risking their lives” well, duh. That would be a strange thing for a feminist to get involved with. Should professional footballers start posting on their twitter feeds about boxers or gymnasts?
It's this kind of disingenuousness that's put me off feminism. I'd wager it's also why the vast majority of women don't identify as feminists nowadays despite supporting 'equality'.
I'd imagine that if professional footballers started claiming to be the toughest sportsmen in history or stating that football was the best sport to develop self defence skills then somebody might pipe up and mention boxing.
Similarly, if feminists are going to present men as the scourge of female existence and claim that we'd be safer with no men around it's a fair observation to point out that despite 100 femicides being prevented annually somebody still has to save thousands of female lives by rescuing them from burning buildings and cutting them out of cars.
I'm not even sure the 'marital rape was acceptable' isn't a load of bollocks too tbh. I decided to Google it as the last two sensational claims I read by feminists were masterpieces of twisting the facts. First was the claim that 'the majority of men would rape if they could get away with it'.
What was omitted was that it was actually only the majority of about 50 American college students who were surveyed. No diversity in age/ethnicity/nationality/religion/etc. They might as well have surveyed 50 Taliban members and proclaimed that 'the majority of men think women shouldn't be allowed outside'. 🤣 Best bit was the fact that these male students were apparently offered course credits for partaking, so they likely just did it for the points and gave silly answers.
Same with the '1 in 5 female students being raped' survey. I read it and there was a foreword by the authors specifically saying it 'probably shouldn't be taken as proof of anything' lol. Turns out they'd asked the students if they'd ever had sex that they regretted and then classified it as 'unwanted sex', which then got lumped in with the sexual assaults etc. They literally said most of the 'victims' probably weren't aware they'd been classified as such and might not agree.
I've seen so many people on here referencing the above but conveniently leaving out the bits I mentioned. And yet I've seen some of the same posters picking holes in the 'Partner Abuse State of Knowledge' metastudy which was undertaken by over 100 university scholars from 20 universities in UK/US/Canada alongside domestic abuse charities/orgs. They read over 10,000 previous studies and analysed in detail the data from 1200 peer reviewed studies.
When they concluded that women actually perpetrate more DV than men, despite causing less fatalities, suddenly the data wasn't strong enough for these posters. Although a study of 50 American teenagers apparently was if it reached the conclusion they liked. Same with the study where the authors literally warned it shouldn't be taken as gospel.
So, ever the cynic, I did some googling to see if spousal rape really was seen as perfectly OK. Seems it's only been used as a legal defence four times and in three of those cases the man was convicted of assault. Here's an excerpt from a trial in 1954, almost four decades before it was made illegal:
Decision/Outcome
That the appellant could not be guilty of rape, as the implied consent of a wife to have intercourse with her husband could only be revoked by court order or a binding separation agreement. In the circumstances, this consent had not been revoked. Nevertheless, a husband was not entitled to use force or violence for the purposes of exercising his right to intercourse; to do so would amount to an assault.
https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/r-v-miller-1954.php
So, it seems you could rape your wife so long as you didn't do it by force. A simple "sod off, Jeremy" would seemingly have confounded the majority of would be spousal rapists as it's presumably pretty hard to force somebody to do something without using force. It seems more a matter of semantics to me from the little I've read - it took me less than five minutes to find the above.
Similarly, women in the UK can't by definition commit rape as it requires a penis. That doesn't mean it would be accurate to state that "it's deemed perfectly acceptable for female teachers to coerce children into sex because not one female teacher has ever been charged with statutory rape as a man would be". In reality they'd be charged with assault just like the spousal sexual assaulter who couldn't by definition be called a rapist at the time (much like how women still can't in this country but can in others).
And no I'm not a cool girl/handmaiden/pick me/sufferer of internalised misogyny etc. I just dislike what are essentially female MRAs. I'd probably rather see all feminists shipped off to Mars than all men tbh. At least we might have a chance of working alongside the good men who make up the majority, rather than suffer this endless whinging by blue haired misanthropes that don't actually do anything to help in the real world. Obv NAFALT but sadly far too many are.