If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Jezebel)   One thing feminists agree on, when a woman takes a "selfie" it is empowerful, when a man takes one, it is vanity, repulsive and a sure sign of infidelity and neediness   (jezebel.com) divider line 387
    More: Obvious, self-portraits, feminists  
•       •       •

24400 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Mar 2013 at 6:49 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



387 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-11 02:57:48 AM

EvilRacistNaziFascist: I just don't suffer foolishness gladly


Doctor heal thyself.
 
2013-03-11 03:05:08 AM

spamdog: Oh_Enough_Already: are, when women do them, empowering, fantastic, unique things which should not only be celebrated, but are worthy of their own cable show.

You said rape twice.


Bravo.
 
2013-03-11 04:16:22 AM

Shmopee: [www.rounds.com image 400x283]

Empowerment?


Stupidity?
 
2013-03-11 04:22:23 AM
"I AM EMPOWERED!"

"Okey dokey."

"NO, I MEAN IT I AM EMPOWERED!!1!!!1!"

"Yeah, great.  Sounds nice."

"I MEAN IT YOU PATRIARCHAL SWINE!!!1  I AM EMPOWERED!"

"Yes, you mentioned.  Thanks."

Rinse.

Repeat.

Make up bumper sticker.

The stated objectives of feminism were long overdue and useful ideas.  And if anybody sees feminism, give it a blanket and a hot meal and a bath and try and get it back on it's feet.  It looks terrible.
 
2013-03-11 04:37:25 AM
I came in here hoping to see various images alluding to men masturbating. Which confuses me. Why would I want that?I need to go think.
 
2013-03-11 04:39:37 AM
FTFA: Jezebel columnist Hugo Schwyzer teaches history and gender studies at Pasadena City College

I wonder if it is possible to sink lower, academically, without carrying a bucket of fish to throw to your students when they learn something?
 
2013-03-11 04:42:55 AM

Oh_Enough_Already: The amount of compartmentalization and cognitive dissonance coursing through their offices on a daily basis is likely enough to keep a legion of psychiatrists wealthier beyond their wildest dreams for a lifetime.


Ever read Cosmo or Marie Claire? Typical contents are three pages on why women are strong and don't need men plus two hundred pages on how to find and keep a man.
 
2013-03-11 04:52:25 AM
"Equality" is a word most often seeking to become the new oppressors.  Jezebel is a perfect example of this.
 
2013-03-11 05:41:15 AM

arashinogarou: PsiChick: and b) English is a male-gender language; you say 'he' when you don't know the gender of the person, so good luck changing that one.

I find that interesting. I was taught growing up to use "she" when gender is unknown or the subject refers to a person in general. And I'm not some millennium kid, I was born in the 70s. Are you sure you're not just making that up to validate your earlier comment?

I just found this, by the way: "The use of "he" to refer to a person of unknown gender was prescribed by manuals of style and school textbooks from the early 18th century until around the 1960s"1

So you are definitely trying to deceive, or else you have no clue how the English language has progressed in the past half century.


1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutral_pronoun#Modern_Englis h


"He" is grammatically correct when you need a gender-neutral pronoun, although it's just as correct to use "he/she" or "he or she" or the current legalese "In the following document, the male pronoun is understood to refer to all persons of both genders, as well as transgender and gender-neutral individuals." Or you could just continue to use "he" and we could continue to understand that it doesn't mean you're maliciously excluding one-half the population simply because English lacks a gender-neutral personal pronoun.

My one-woman crusade to have "they" become a singular noun continues apace.
 
2013-03-11 05:46:43 AM

Gyrfalcon: My one-woman crusade to have "they" become a singular noun continues apace.


Well, Joan, considering it's a pronoun you may have some more crusading yet to do.

But I always use it as a gender neutral pronoun, so with lowered expectations you may win sooner than you think.
 
2013-03-11 05:50:22 AM

Gyrfalcon: My one-woman crusade to have "they" become a singular noun continues apace.


That's fine "If anyone finds a fire, they is to sound the alarm" sounds a bit horrible to me. Could we do like the German "Sie" and use the same form for singular and plural?
 
2013-03-11 05:54:49 AM

Gyrfalcon: arashinogarou: PsiChick: and b) English is a male-gender language; you say 'he' when you don't know the gender of the person, so good luck changing that one.

I find that interesting. I was taught growing up to use "she" when gender is unknown or the subject refers to a person in general. And I'm not some millennium kid, I was born in the 70s. Are you sure you're not just making that up to validate your earlier comment?

I just found this, by the way: "The use of "he" to refer to a person of unknown gender was prescribed by manuals of style and school textbooks from the early 18th century until around the 1960s"1

So you are definitely trying to deceive, or else you have no clue how the English language has progressed in the past half century.


1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutral_pronoun#Modern_Englis h

"He" is grammatically correct when you need a gender-neutral pronoun, although it's just as correct to use "he/she" or "he or she" or the current legalese "In the following document, the male pronoun is understood to refer to all persons of both genders, as well as transgender and gender-neutral individuals." Or you could just continue to use "he" and we could continue to understand that it doesn't mean you're maliciously excluding one-half the population simply because English lacks a gender-neutral personal pronoun.

My one-woman crusade to have "they" become a singular noun continues apace.


One woman crusade? Kate Bornstein would like a word with you.
 
2013-03-11 05:57:21 AM

orbister: Could we do like the German


No! Those bastards bombed Pearl Harbor.
 
2013-03-11 06:31:40 AM

CWeinerWV: I still want to know what turtle-people means


People who pull their head into their metaphorical shell to ignore danger ?
Sorta like the proverbial ostrich that buries itself in the sand.

Neither approach is effective at defence it simply and futilely denies the danger.
 
2013-03-11 07:18:41 AM

doglover: orbister: Could we do like the German

No! Those bastards bombed Pearl Harbor.


Ich werde mich nie mit Macho Grande abfinden.
 
2013-03-11 08:06:23 AM
empowerful

The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.
 
2013-03-11 08:26:25 AM
It's good to start the day with an article like this.  It reminds me how smart I am.
 
2013-03-11 08:34:34 AM
 

PsiChick: y position is that MRAs are not actually about men's rights in mainstream, and that feminism is about equality in their own mainstream. If you disagree with that, you need to explain why.



MRA's are simply people (and I have known female MRA's just as I have known male feminists) that are concerned about the rights of men. Chauvinists are the ones that see one sex as superior to the other and feel the need to tear the other down (I right pissed off a radical feminist professor once by proving in class that she was a chauvinist).

MRA's tend to be people who have seen the real life consequences of things like family court, education, reproductive issues, work, health and death rates. If those issues aren't mainstream issues than I'm not sure what you consider mainstream?

You may have been misled by your feminist source into what a MRA even is, which I've learned is fairly common. The radical feminist movement in an effort to avoid having a like movement for men has tried to hijack the very definition of MRA. I cite as an example this definition from urban dictionary.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mra

"MRA means "Men's Rights Activist". No seriously. There are actually people who are so stupid they think that men are oppressed anywhere in the world." The example of the user submitted definition is intended to make a joke of anyone in the movement and degrade them. The same thing happened in the early days of feminism and every other group that had rights activists that fought for it.

You don't strike me as one of Fark's man-haters, more as a feminist with an unchallenged education. Sometimes you even show hints of supporting egalitarianism, I'm curious if you'll move beyond the propaganda or become an egalitarian in the end after all.
 
2013-03-11 08:45:41 AM
The problem with Jezebel is that while they are adept at identifying "mansplaining", they have no such indicators for "womansplaining" even though that happens just as often. This is because it's not a man-thing, or a woman-thing, it's a person-thing. (I know, I'm mansplaining)

I guess nobody ever told them that the internet is a platform that furthers equality when it comes to exposure to different viewpoints. An author is genderless until the author wishes to discuss his/her gender. The idea he or she espouses is weighed for its merits alone and without prejudice. And still, articles like this appear without the slightest hint of self-consciousness. The author sees that the average woman's viewpoint on this issue is unfair to men, and shrugs and tells the guys they better be aware of it if they want to get with these "modern, educated" women who clearly aren't as introspective as they might be.
 
2013-03-11 09:04:44 AM

if_i_really_have_to: Willies look silly. You're right, I think men assume because they get off on out of context shots of female genitalia, that women must feel the same. I think that for the majority of women this is not true. I've never known any woman who admits to being turned on by a cock shot. I'm certain there are some out there, but it's not a sexist lie that most women aren't that kind of visual.


Now you do.

The other parts like chest and ass and legs are nice enough, but I'd rather see some cock.

My question is whether I'm unique in wanting to see cock and being turned on by cock, or just in the fact that I'll say so. Are women actually not turned on by this, or is it that they get all demure and unwilling to admit that they actually really like dick? Are the women who are saying that pictures of cock are 'icky' the same ones who would say 'Eww, I'd never touch myself. That's gross!'?
 
2013-03-11 10:45:09 AM

heili skrimsli: if_i_really_have_to: Willies look silly. You're right, I think men assume because they get off on out of context shots of female genitalia, that women must feel the same. I think that for the majority of women this is not true. I've never known any woman who admits to being turned on by a cock shot. I'm certain there are some out there, but it's not a sexist lie that most women aren't that kind of visual.

Now you do.

The other parts like chest and ass and legs are nice enough, but I'd rather see some cock.

My question is whether I'm unique in wanting to see cock and being turned on by cock, or just in the fact that I'll say so. Are women actually not turned on by this, or is it that they get all demure and unwilling to admit that they actually really like dick? Are the women who are saying that pictures of cock are 'icky' the same ones who would say 'Eww, I'd never touch myself. That's gross!'?


never understood straight people who are grossed out by the opposing gender's sex organs.  why are women creeped out by hard cocks?  granted they are more than mildly amusing, but at some level it seems there needs to be some sort of attraction.  on the other side, i remember seeing a comedian, i think it was martin lawrence, talk for 20 minutes about how disgusting vaginas are.  struck me as strange considering the other 40 minutes of his show was about trying to get inside as many vaginas as possible.

if i had a favorites list you would be a shade of reddish purple for "likes cock".
please don't point that at my face.
 
2013-03-11 10:47:12 AM

heili skrimsli: My question is whether I'm unique in wanting to see cock and being turned on by cock, or just in the fact that I'll say so. Are women actually not turned on by this, or is it that they get all demure and unwilling to admit that they actually really like dick? Are the women who are saying that pictures of cock are 'icky' the same ones who would say 'Eww, I'd never touch myself. That's gross!'?


Such is the inscrutable mystery that is Woman. Is she faking it? She says "why would I fake it, it only encourages you to keep doing the wrong thing."

But she fears if she tells you what you really need to facilitate her climax, you'll find it dull and tedious, so she fakes it and denies faking, exclaiming that you're King fark Puma and the best she's ever had.

Or are you? Or does she really enjoy it as much as she says. Hmmmm. Is she repressed? Is she repressed but claiming liberation and enlightenment to gain acceptance? Or is she really liberated and enlightened?

Or is she rightly disgusted by the sloppy, messy, mutant-delicatessen freakshow that is human genitalia and sexuality and the rest of us are revolting perverts for claiming it is natural and wonderful and What Not.
 
2013-03-11 11:30:12 AM

johnny queso: heili skrimsli: if_i_really_have_to: Willies look silly. You're right, I think men assume because they get off on out of context shots of female genitalia, that women must feel the same. I think that for the majority of women this is not true. I've never known any woman who admits to being turned on by a cock shot. I'm certain there are some out there, but it's not a sexist lie that most women aren't that kind of visual.

Now you do.

The other parts like chest and ass and legs are nice enough, but I'd rather see some cock.

My question is whether I'm unique in wanting to see cock and being turned on by cock, or just in the fact that I'll say so. Are women actually not turned on by this, or is it that they get all demure and unwilling to admit that they actually really like dick? Are the women who are saying that pictures of cock are 'icky' the same ones who would say 'Eww, I'd never touch myself. That's gross!'?

never understood straight people who are grossed out by the opposing gender's sex organs.  why are women creeped out by hard cocks?  granted they are more than mildly amusing, but at some level it seems there needs to be some sort of attraction.  on the other side, i remember seeing a comedian, i think it was martin lawrence, talk for 20 minutes about how disgusting vaginas are.  struck me as strange considering the other 40 minutes of his show was about trying to get inside as many vaginas as possible.

if i had a favorites list you would be a shade of reddish purple for "likes cock".
please don't point that at my face.


It doesn't make sense to me why people are so horrified by actually looking at the body parts that they're having sex with. Get all up close to it, look at it, touch it, lick it, and enjoy it. Why people are so repressed about body parts is farking baffling to me. No wonder there's so much stankycrotch out there though, with all these people who are so freaking horrified by genitals that they most certainly would never actually touch them in the shower to keep them clean.

I could pick my vadge out of a lineup. I know what it looks like, feels like, smells like and tastes like (no, I'm not that flexible...) and I really think everybody should have that level of familiarity with their genitals.

AngryJailhouseFistfark: Such is the inscrutable mystery that is Woman. Is she faking it? She says "why would I fake it, it only encourages you to keep doing the wrong thing."


Don't understand this either. Sex is supposed to be fun for all (the consenting adults) involved in the activity. Faking it makes absolutely no sense to me. If someone won't take direction as to what really makes your toes curl, don't fark them. The best way I have found to ensure that sex is really good is to actually communicate what makes it really good. Tell your partner. Show your partner. It goes both ways. Listen to what they want. Let them guide you.

People who don't do this must be the people who think that sex is the biannual chore that they have to do because they're married and they owe their spouse something. Those poor souls. It doesn't have to be that way.
 
2013-03-11 12:15:03 PM
Very soon, Photobucket will be implementing a grand re-design, effectively eliminating their "view recent uploads" feature. Up until then, you are able to see what users have recently uploaded, often with a link back to their public albums. I can not tell you how many times I have perused the albums of girls/women only to find page after page after page of self-shot pictures, sometimes in identical clothes and poses, other times varying wildly from location to clothing choice to duckface/kissyface. No matter their age, race, upbringing, whatever, the vain will exploit any platform they can to show the world just how beautiful they think they are.
 
2013-03-11 01:11:29 PM

heili skrimsli: People who don't do this must be the people who think that sex is the biannual chore that they have to do because they're married and they owe their spouse something. Those poor souls. It doesn't have to be that way.


It does when your marriage is a financial arrangement instead of about love.

/Marriage today is far more about the tax benefits then love.
 
2013-03-11 01:19:54 PM

doglover: PsiChick: Using a slang term

You got moxy, kid, but you're the pot callin' the kettle black to react against sexism by talking about the Nice Guy BrigadeTM.

Reverse hate is not equality. it's just oppression the other way. Not that there's not a time and place for offensive maneuvers, but like I posted earlier and you dismissed out of hand, humans are very easily manipulated. One of the best ways to unite a disparate group is to provide them a common enemy, real or imagined. It seems you've chosen men. You can accept it, or not. It still spins just the same.


Your position is that it's 'reverse hate' and 'oppression' to call people by...a name they literally self-identify as?

Never go outside your house. There's  mean people out there. They might actually show you an example of  real discrimination.

the ha ha guy: PsiChick: the ha ha guy: PsiChick: You disagree that the dictionary definition of a word is the most likely used definition? Care to explain why?


No, I disagree that the dictionary definition of a word actively prevents self-proclaimed feminist groups from using lies to promote their agenda.

No, anyone can spout off whatever they like, it's the internet. My position is that MRAs are not actually about men's rights in mainstream, and that feminism is about equality in their own mainstream. If you disagree with that, you need to explain why.


I'm not talking about nutjobs on the internet, I'm talking about the real-world organizations that send out mailers with blatantly false information.

And on the topic of MRA, my opinion is that if a woman assaults a man, and the man calls the police to report the assault, the man should not be automatically arrested and charged with assault.


What real-world organizations are you talking about, then? And yes, you're right, that is wrong. MRA groups do not address that in anything resembling a sane manner--the reason men get arrested has nothing to do with feminism, and feminists actually find that insulting and sexist. That's my big problem with MRA groups--there  are very real men's rights issues out there, but MRA groups, instead of addressing them, just fall back onto misogyny. That's not addressing the problem, that's being an idiot, and you should not demand the same treatment as a real civil rights group if you're just a conspiracy group.

onyxrubyMRA's are simply people (and I have known female MRA's just as I have known male feminists) that are concerned about the rights of men. Chauvinists are the ones that see one sex as superior to the other and feel the need to tear the other down (I right pissed off a radical feminist professor once by proving in class that she was a chauvinist).

MRA's tend to be people who have seen the real life consequences of things like family court, education, reproductive issues, work, health and death rates. If those issues aren't mainstream issues than I'm not sure what you consider mainstream?

You may have been misled by your feminist source into what a MRA even is, which I've learned is fairly common. The radical feminist movement in an effort to avoid having a like movement for men has tried to hijack the very definition of MRA. I cite as an example this definition from urban dictionary.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mra" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(61, 61, 255); text-decoration: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgb(255, 94, 153); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 17px;">http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mra

"MRA means "Men's Rights Activist". No seriously. There are actually people who are so stupid they think that men are oppressed anywhere in the world." The example of the user submitted definition is intended to make a joke of anyone in the movement and degrade them. The same thing happened in the early days of feminism and every other group that had rights activists that fought for it.

You don't strike me as one of Fark's man-haters, more as a feminist with an unchallenged education. Sometimes you even show hints of supporting egalitarianism, I'm curious if you'll move beyond the propaganda or become an egalitarian in the end after all.


My 'feminist source' was reading MRA articles and dealing with MRA groups. So unless you're trying to claim the MRA is feminist now...

And as far as my  actual source, Mirriam-Webster is not affiliated with any group other than Encyclopaedia Brittanica.

/Gotta say, the nice thing about a 'feminist education' is that I can distinguish 'real sources' from 'UrbanDictionary'.
 
2013-03-11 01:40:22 PM
"I am ashamed as a feminist to admit that while I champion vanity in women, I find it kind of off-putting in men," Emily told me in an email. "I'd rather a man be thinking about how pretty I am than worrying about how pretty he is."

that's "feminism" folks!
 
2013-03-11 01:43:07 PM

heili skrimsli: johnny queso: heili skrimsli: if_i_really_have_to: Willies look silly. You're right, I think men assume because they get off on out of context shots of female genitalia, that women must feel the same. I think that for the majority of women this is not true. I've never known any woman who admits to being turned on by a cock shot. I'm certain there are some out there, but it's not a sexist lie that most women aren't that kind of visual.

Now you do.

The other parts like chest and ass and legs are nice enough, but I'd rather see some cock.

My question is whether I'm unique in wanting to see cock and being turned on by cock, or just in the fact that I'll say so. Are women actually not turned on by this, or is it that they get all demure and unwilling to admit that they actually really like dick? Are the women who are saying that pictures of cock are 'icky' the same ones who would say 'Eww, I'd never touch myself. That's gross!'?

never understood straight people who are grossed out by the opposing gender's sex organs.  why are women creeped out by hard cocks?  granted they are more than mildly amusing, but at some level it seems there needs to be some sort of attraction.  on the other side, i remember seeing a comedian, i think it was martin lawrence, talk for 20 minutes about how disgusting vaginas are.  struck me as strange considering the other 40 minutes of his show was about trying to get inside as many vaginas as possible.

if i had a favorites list you would be a shade of reddish purple for "likes cock".
please don't point that at my face.

It doesn't make sense to me why people are so horrified by actually looking at the body parts that they're having sex with. Get all up close to it, look at it, touch it, lick it, and enjoy it. Why people are so repressed about body parts is farking baffling to me. No wonder there's so much stankycrotch out there though, with all these people who are so freaking horrified by genitals that they most certainly would never actua ...


i have become very knowledgable about the feel of my genitals through vigorous and prolonged workshops and get acquainted sessions.  regarding picking it out of a lineup, it was only that one time and it was been proven to be a case of mistaken identity.  i would like to put that behind me and ask that you not bring it up in mixed company.
 
2013-03-11 02:36:11 PM

PsiChick: What real-world organizations are you talking about, then? And yes, you're right, that is wrong.


http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1993-05-08/news/1993128032_1_potent ia l-rapists-campus-feminist-art

COLLEGE PARK -- Are nearly all male students at the University of Maryland "potential rapists"?
Women in a feminist art class here apparently believe so. About 10 of them plastered the campus with fliers last week listing the names of virtually every male student under the heading, "NOTICE: THESE MEN ARE POTENTIAL RAPISTS."

PsiChick: MRA groups do not address that in anything resembling a sane manner


There are a few that do. But you're lumping in the good with the bad, the exact thing you say that shouldn't be done when men refer to the self-proclaimed "feminist" groups that promote an anti-male agenda.

PsiChick: the reason men get arrested has nothing to do with feminism, and feminists actually find that insulting and sexist.


Nice strawman. I never blamed feminist groups for the idiotic laws, I only pointed out an example of where men are systematically discriminated against by the legal system.

Bringing up "us versus them" arguments isn't going to help your cause, especially when the person you're arguing with already supports the non-crazypants version of feminism.

PsiChick: That's not addressing the problem, that's being an idiot, and you should not demand the same treatment as a real civil rights group if you're just a conspiracy group.


If I said that no feminist group should be recognized under the law due to the fact that a few loudmouth nutjobs promote hatred under the banner of feminism, you would rightfully call me a misogynist.

But when you say that no men's rights group should be recognized under the law due to the fact that a few loudmouth nutjobs promote hatred under the banner of MRA, it's completely acceptable.

Yup. No double standards there. "Equality for everyone. Except men."
 
2013-03-11 03:20:21 PM
What about the other possibility...you want to take a picture of yourself in some place you are visiting and there is no-one else around to take a picture (of your cawk).
 
2013-03-11 03:36:39 PM

doglover: EvilRacistNaziFascist: Oooh, could you tell me what my "only book" might be?

If ya can only have one book two, pick it them well.



Smart, Sane, Pretty
 
2013-03-11 05:26:52 PM

PsiChick: -the reason men get arrested has nothing to do with feminism, and feminists actually find that insulting and sexist.


Let me introduce you to something called the Violence against woman act, I do believe you'll concede that feminists were very much involved with it's passage. I assume you are aware that the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 explicitly endorsed a mandatory arrest policy, right? When too many woman started getting arrested the standard was changed to 'predominant aggressor'.

Predominant aggressor arrest policies have led to single only party arrests where previously two parties were often at fault.

www.saveservices.org/downloads/Predominant-Aggressor-Policies

Criteria for determining who was the 'predominant aggressor' were typically based on the following:

Age, height & weight of the parties
• Criminal history
• Domestic violence probation
• Corroboration
• Presence of fear
• Offensive/defensive injuries
• Seriousness of injuries
• Motive to lie
• Strength and skill
• Use of alcohol or drugs
• 911 reporting party
• Timing of citizen's arrest
• Demeanor of parties
• Existing protective orders
• Detail of statement
• Self defense, defense of others/property

The criteria are vague and open to interpretation except for a few factors, and those factors strongly dictate who gets arrested. You'll note that actual self defense is out number by factors that the typical male will lose on simply by being male. Now, feminists can be insulted and offended all day long on this, but it doesn't change the fact that blatantly sexist laws have been passed on the matter. You'll note that these laws directly contribute to 'the reason men get arrested' and with just a touch of research you will see that in 70% of the cases it has everything to do with feminism and nothing to with violence or guilt.
 
2013-03-11 05:56:25 PM

doglover: Chris Rock's joke: biatch get half


I can't say that Chris Rock never did a joke like this, but the original "HALF!" bit was from Eddie Murphy in Raw. Sure you weren't thinking of that?
 
2013-03-11 07:05:05 PM

onyxruby: PsiChick: -the reason men get arrested has nothing to do with feminism, and feminists actually find that insulting and sexist.

Let me introduce you to something called the Violence against woman act, I do believe you'll concede that feminists were very much involved with it's passage. I assume you are aware that the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 explicitly endorsed a mandatory arrest policy, right? When too many woman started getting arrested the standard was changed to 'predominant aggressor'.

Predominant aggressor arrest policies have led to single only party arrests where previously two parties were often at fault.

www.saveservices.org/downloads/Predominant-Aggressor-Policies

Criteria for determining who was the 'predominant aggressor' were typically based on the following:

Age, height & weight of the parties
• Criminal history
• Domestic violence probation
• Corroboration
• Presence of fear
• Offensive/defensive injuries
• Seriousness of injuries
• Motive to lie
• Strength and skill
• Use of alcohol or drugs
• 911 reporting party
• Timing of citizen's arrest
• Demeanor of parties
• Existing protective orders
• Detail of statement
• Self defense, defense of others/property

The criteria are vague and open to interpretation except for a few factors, and those factors strongly dictate who gets arrested. You'll note that actual self defense is out number by factors that the typical male will lose on simply by being male. Now, feminists can be insulted and offended all day long on this, but it doesn't change the fact that blatantly sexist laws have been passed on the matter. You'll note that these laws directly contribute to 'the reason men get arrested' and with just a touch of research you will see that in 70% of the cases it has everything to do with feminism and nothing to with violence or guilt.


1) When I click your link I get a virus warning. You need better sources.

2) Actually, although there is a slight bias in that men tend to be bigger and have more fighting skill, every other criteria is actually pretty damn accurate for someone walking into a domestic violence situation with no training whatsoever. The abuse victim,  male or female, will react automatically in fear to the abuser, for example, or will have a different ratio of offensive\defensive injuries...I can't get to the link you're citing, but from just what you posted, no, that doesn't look sexist, that looks like a ham-fisted attempt at deciphering  hellishly complex power dynamics. So maybe the original VAWA had sexist language, but that is not the right example.

3) You'll also notice the  current VAWA,  heavily championed by  many feminist groups, actually addresses protections for men. I'm pretty sure the only way to miss that hullabaloo was to live under a rock, so it's a bit disengenous to claim that modern feminism supports the 1994 bill.
 
2013-03-11 07:49:35 PM
Some fun statistics about domestic violence:

1. When the man is at fault (legitimately) the call doesn't come from inside the home, but from neighbors.
2. When the man is at fault, he always answers the door. Always.
3. When the man is at fault, the woman will deny anything happening, and can become violent.
4. When the woman is at fault, she will answer the door. Always.
5. When the woman is at fault, she will be holding a baby. (if one is available)
6. When the woman is at fault, the husband will be more than willing to get the fark out of the house. (more often than not)
7. When the woman is at fault, she will tell you EVERY. FARKING. THING. the husband ever did in their entire relationship.
8. Beaten women do >not< cry to cops. Not until after the husband has been removed. Abusive women will be weeping like pros when we knock.  You can hear em prepare themselves when we knock.
 
2013-03-11 08:01:11 PM

PsiChick: I can't get to the link you're citing, but from just what you posted, no, that doesn't look sexist, that looks like a ham-fisted attempt at deciphering  hellishly complex power dynamics.



http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/14/a-domestic-violence- vi ctim/

Denise Hines of Clark University found that when an abused man called the police, the police were more likely to arrest him than to arrest his abusive female partner. This is partly the result of primary aggressor laws, which encourage police to discount who initiated and committed the violence but instead look at other factors that make them likelier to arrest men. When the men in Ms. Hines' study tried calling domestic-violence hot lines, 64 percent were told the hot lines helped only women, and more than half were referred to programs for male domestic-violence perpetrators.
 
2013-03-11 08:18:32 PM

the ha ha guy: PsiChick: I can't get to the link you're citing, but from just what you posted, no, that doesn't look sexist, that looks like a ham-fisted attempt at deciphering  hellishly complex power dynamics.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/14/a-domestic-violence- vi ctim/

Denise Hines of Clark University found that when an abused man called the police, the police were more likely to arrest him than to arrest his abusive female partner. This is partly the result of primary aggressor laws, which encourage police to discount who initiated and committed the violence but instead look at other factors that make them likelier to arrest men. When the men in Ms. Hines' study tried calling domestic-violence hot lines, 64 percent were told the hot lines helped only women, and more than half were referred to programs for male domestic-violence perpetrators.


This is an opinion piece citing the same article I already pointed out was flawed, and the reason it's flawed is that the study may only reflect a temporary or changing trend--the SPCL cited Department of Justice statistics that began  pre-VAWA and showed a  long-term trend. Yes, there are abused men, no one is denying that, but a) that's not a source, that's an opinion piece, and does not have a sample I would consider a decent comparison, and b) we  do teach men and women to respond differently to all kinds of abuse scenarios, and quite often  both partners are abusing each other--that's what I mentioned with dynamics.

You'll also note that, as I pointed out, the  feminist-sponsored,  current VAWA bill addresses exactly this.
 
2013-03-11 08:35:38 PM
Does the VAWA bill still utlize the Duluth Model?
 
2013-03-11 09:17:54 PM

PsiChick: This is an opinion piece citing the same article I already pointed out was flawed


The article might be an opinion piece, but the part I quoted was a study by Denise Hines of Clark University.

PsiChick: You'll also note that, as I pointed out, the  feminist-sponsored,  current VAWA bill addresses exactly this.


It does? In the last revision I've read, the provisions of the 1993 law that led to men being considered the automatic aggressor are still intact. Yes, it does extend protections to other groups, but it gave no protections whatsoever to heterosexual men being abused by women.
 
2013-03-11 09:28:19 PM

the ha ha guy: PsiChick: This is an opinion piece citing the same article I already pointed out was flawed

The article might be an opinion piece, but the part I quoted was a study by Denise Hines of Clark University.

PsiChick: You'll also note that, as I pointed out, the  feminist-sponsored,  current VAWA bill addresses exactly this.

It does? In the last revision I've read, the provisions of the 1993 law that led to men being considered the automatic aggressor are still intact. Yes, it does extend protections to other groups, but it gave no protections whatsoever to heterosexual men being abused by women.


And, once again, I already pointed out the flaw.

And yes, it  does provide provisions specifically for abused men, gay or straight--that was part of what the Republican party protested.
 
2013-03-11 09:41:34 PM

PsiChick: And, once again, I already pointed out the flaw.


You referred to it as an opinion piece. I was clarifying that it was a university study, not some nutjob who wrote a letter to the editor.

PsiChick: And yes, it  does provide provisions specifically for abused men, gay or straight--that was part of what the Republican party protested.


Very well, I'll read the most recent revision. But as I recall, the opposition was due to provisions for gay and lesbian victims, not straight men abused by straight women.
 
2013-03-11 09:51:28 PM

the ha ha guy: PsiChick: And, once again, I already pointed out the flaw.

You referred to it as an opinion piece. I was clarifying that it was a university study, not some nutjob who wrote a letter to the editor.

PsiChick: And yes, it  does provide provisions specifically for abused men, gay or straight--that was part of what the Republican party protested.

Very well, I'll read the most recent revision. But as I recall, the opposition was due to provisions for gay and lesbian victims, not straight men abused by straight women.


Yes, but you'll notice the rest of the sentence there.

It was GLBTQ, immigrant, Native American, and male protections, actually...
 
2013-03-11 10:00:13 PM

PsiChick: It was GLBTQ, immigrant, Native American, and male protections, actually...



Gay males, yes, but I've not seen any republican opposition to protections for straight men.
 
2013-03-11 10:15:15 PM

the ha ha guy: PsiChick: It was GLBTQ, immigrant, Native American, and male protections, actually...


Gay males, yes, but I've not seen any republican opposition to protections for straight men.


Their exact language was along the lines of "We can't support this because of how radical it is". The only new stuff involved the categories I mentioned. There have been Republican party members going on-air saying things like "Men are more easily able to handle abuse". The Republican party is fairly misogynist. It's not really a big leap.
 
2013-03-11 10:33:33 PM

PsiChick: the ha ha guy: PsiChick: It was GLBTQ, immigrant, Native American, and male protections, actually...


Gay males, yes, but I've not seen any republican opposition to protections for straight men.

Their exact language was along the lines of "We can't support this because of how radical it is". The only new stuff involved the categories I mentioned. There have been Republican party members going on-air saying things like "Men are more easily able to handle abuse". The Republican party is fairly misogynist. It's not really a big leap.


"it fits my preconceptions so it must be true"
 
2013-03-11 10:38:53 PM

Yogimus: PsiChick: the ha ha guy: PsiChick: It was GLBTQ, immigrant, Native American, and male protections, actually...


Gay males, yes, but I've not seen any republican opposition to protections for straight men.

Their exact language was along the lines of "We can't support this because of how radical it is". The only new stuff involved the categories I mentioned. There have been Republican party members going on-air saying things like "Men are more easily able to handle abuse". The Republican party is fairly misogynist. It's not really a big leap.

"it fits my preconceptions everything a certain group believes in and says, so it must be true"


FTFY.

/You trying to argue the Republicans  aren't widely-known misogynists? I mean, when the sun comes up every day...
 
2013-03-11 11:05:06 PM

PsiChick: Yogimus: PsiChick: the ha ha guy: PsiChick: It was GLBTQ, immigrant, Native American, and male protections, actually...


Gay males, yes, but I've not seen any republican opposition to protections for straight men.

Their exact language was along the lines of "We can't support this because of how radical it is". The only new stuff involved the categories I mentioned. There have been Republican party members going on-air saying things like "Men are more easily able to handle abuse". The Republican party is fairly misogynist. It's not really a big leap.

"it fits my preconceptions everything a certain group believes in and says, so it must be true"

FTFY.

/You trying to argue the Republicans  aren't widely-known misogynists? I mean, when the sun comes up every day...


I think you dislike republicans, and you dislike misogynists, therefore republicans must be misogynists.
 
2013-03-11 11:12:27 PM

PsiChick: /You trying to argue the Republicans  aren't widely-known misogynists? I mean, when the sun comes up every day...



There are misogynists who spread hatred under the republican banner, but that doesn't mean all republicans are misogynists.
 
2013-03-11 11:18:00 PM

Yogimus: /You trying to argue the Republicans  aren't widely-known misogynists? I mean, when the sun comes up every day...

I think you dislike republicans, and you dislike misogynists, therefore republicans must be misogynists.


the ha ha guy: PsiChick: /You trying to argue the Republicans  aren't widely-known misogynists? I mean, when the sun comes up every day...


There are misogynists who spread hatred under the republican banner, but that doesn't mean all republicans are misogynists.


BAHAHAHAHAHA. Wow. You two have  no idea what the Republican party's been  saying the past couple of...hell, by now it's the past  decade, do you?

Tell you what, I'll wait for you to catch up. You can get at least the past twenty-four hours on Fark, but I'm sure you can go search CNN or something to get more data. Search 'GOP rape victims', 'GOP domestic violence', 'GOP abortion', to start with. That's where some of the best misogyny is.
 
2013-03-11 11:21:42 PM

PsiChick: Yogimus: /You trying to argue the Republicans  aren't widely-known misogynists? I mean, when the sun comes up every day...

I think you dislike republicans, and you dislike misogynists, therefore republicans must be misogynists.

the ha ha guy: PsiChick: /You trying to argue the Republicans  aren't widely-known misogynists? I mean, when the sun comes up every day...


There are misogynists who spread hatred under the republican banner, but that doesn't mean all republicans are misogynists.

BAHAHAHAHAHA. Wow. You two have  no idea what the Republican party's been  saying the past couple of...hell, by now it's the past  decade, do you?

Tell you what, I'll wait for you to catch up. You can get at least the past twenty-four hours on Fark, but I'm sure you can go search CNN or something to get more data. Search 'GOP rape victims', 'GOP domestic violence', 'GOP abortion', to start with. That's where some of the best misogyny is.


Ah, I see you're one of those folks that  assume party affiliation represents 100% of a person's belief system.  The best thing about this manner of thinking is that you can pick and choose what that party represents to YOU, and then brand everyone accordingly, reality be damned.

/Must be nice
 
Displayed 50 of 387 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report