Reddit reviews Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men?: A Debate (Point/Counterpoint)

> This crosses more into anti-feminism than Men's Rights. It's also not a good article.

MRA/MRM is explicitly anti-feminist. Historically, it is an off-shoot of the Men's Liberation Movement which was feminist-informed.

Moreover, MRM's modern leaders all reject the core claims of feminism. Feminists believe patriarchal society and gender roles oppressed women (and harmed men) and that this understanding is useful today. MRA leaders disagree, from Warren Farrell (himself a former feminist who broke from the movement, and whose seminal work claims male power is a myth, and feminism hurts men), to Paul Elam (the founder of A Voice for Men, which is one of the blogs on the sidebar and is related to 5 of the 7 blogs there, who argues that women were never oppressed), to Girl Writes What who makes the same argument.

To be clear, it would be possible to support men's rights and men's issues from a feminist-informed perspective. And it is also possible to criticize feminist movements or feminists themselves without being anti-feminist. But the modern MRM is explicitly anti-feminist, so saying "anti feminism" doesn't belong in this sub is, I think, mistaken.

You know, you've been hitting me with these comments that demonstrate you haven't actually read anything I've posted- which you at least admit- despite the fact that I already posted two sources that debunk Kanin's study.

Here's a third, an essay which dismantles the shibboleths of most MRA anti-rape victim advocates. The Kanin study is examined at length and is woefully out of step with every other study conducted on rape prevalence.

The Air Force study you cite was also debunked later in the 1990s. Said debunking was masterfully put together by James P. Sterba in the recent book Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men? Unfortunately, the copy I read was a library copy (from my school's Women & Gender Studies Department, no less) and so I can't refer to the exact pages.

The gist of it is however that the Air Force itself disavowed the study. It was a poorly designed and executed study that emerged at a time when there was controversy about there being women in armed service at all (this is 1985, remember) and the statistics used in the study would've required every woman on the base (very few at the time) to make multiple reports. It also emerged that it was an attempt by the Air Force to downplay criticism about the risk of sexual harassment in the military.

Secondly:

>The Australian model just shows what happens in feminist indoctrinated investigation models and shows the blatant corruption that results.

You're not establishing what these "indoctrinated" methods are. What corruption? Results that don't comport with your deep seated antipathy for women?

Forgive me for saying, but...

>(by making cunt recant in manner consistent with accused's version of events)

Seriously?

And from a prior comment of yours:

>If you are asked whether you were raped in the last year, almost everyone would answer yes if it happened in the last 13-36 months, especially if there is perceived trauma and relived anger. Many/most would also answer yes if it happened to a close friend instead of them.

Perceived trauma? Are you saying that most rape victims' trauma isn't real? And are you really making the 'too emotional' argument?

Secondly, your assertion about the year question has no relevance. The bulk of the violence surveys ask about lifetime experience in unequivocal language, not 'over the last year.' With the one university survey I do quote from that looks at rapes only over the prior 6 months, I make that abundantly clear.

Thirdly, like every assertion you've made in reply to my posts, you have nothing to substantiate your often deeply embittered claims about "social engineering" "corruption" and assorted evils you keep imputing to feminism without evidence.

I show you several studies that demonstrate something that does not comport with your claims, you come back with an angry subjective statement.

Explain the actual flaw in the methodology.

Also I link again this comprehensive article which explains the rationale for the new methodologies used and why they're important as well as more reflective of reality.

To relink from my third long comment: An academic paper with citations explaining the evolving history of violence surveys, the refinement of methodology and contemporary limitations.

>That model changed in the 90's with pro-feminist interviewing policies

Not pro-feminist, pro-victim. Interviewing policies that were not designed to intimidate or undermine a victim. It has nothing to do with lowering the evidential standards for prosecuting rape. It also has nothing to do with re-interviews, which are a standard part of any investigation and not the novelty you claim for the long since discredited Air Force study.

>feminists/society should be training women to say "get the fuck off me, and I want to leave" to avoid assaults.

Like many who think as you do, you clearly have not been to feminist supported self-defence classes and other such events. If you honestly think feminists and their allies never advise a woman to loudly assert her right to say no, you are deeply mistaken. Something isn't a truth just because you assert it to be. A recent feminist anthology, Yes Means Yes!, is a diverse collection of essays that point to positive, sex affirming modes of consent- particularly 'enthusiastic consent', as derived from the title.

>Implied consent was the right criminal model

Exactly how many rape cases have you dealt with, Godspiral?

The reason implied consent is no longer used as a legal standard is to prevent miscarriages of justice in favour of spouses or lovers who rape their partners, or other people in a position of trust who abused and/or coerced their partners into having sex with them when they didn't want to. It is also designed to ensure that people who resisted but eventually gave in because they feared for their safety have recourse. Most rape victims cannot fight back against their assailants. It's easy for you to posit hypotheticals when you haven't actually been in the situation of having someone violate you like that while threatening you if you scream or otherwise try to resist their advances.

We may advocate proactive, positive consent, but we're not going to leave such victims high and dry either. Your lack of sympathy for them is quite telling.

An "implied consent" standard is not a "right of the accused" either. You might want to look up what that means exactly.

I do apologise for my terse tone but you've been posting up and down this thread with nothing but embittered assertions- and calling women cunts needlessly (and based on a debunked study, no less)- was also something that... irked. Time and again, like some right wing pundit, you refer to the corruption of social engineering without demonstrating what it is you're actually talking about and take the usual "all feminists are evil and out to get men" approach to buttressing your statements.

You also clearly have not worked with rape victims or closely studied the ample literature on what actually happens in their lives and in the criminal justice system with them. You also say "The Australian model" as if that's the only place it's been tried. That was one sample among several in the report I quoted in my top line comment.

To quote from the essay I linked at the top of this comment:

>A few research projects have attempted to determine the percentage of false reports; that is, researchers attempt to determine the number of cases in which the evidence definitely proves that the accusation is false. The Portland, Oregon police department examined 431 complaints of completed or attempted sexual assault in 1990, and found that 1.6% were determined to be false, in comparison to a rate of 2.6% of false reports for stolen vehicles. The San Diego Police Department Sex Crimes Division routinely evaluated the rate of false reports over several years and found them to be around 4%. In a recent study of 2,643 sexual assault cases reported to British police, 8% were classified as false allegations. Yet when researchers applied the actual criteria for a false report, as opposed to an unsubstantiated or unfounded report, the figure dropped to 2% (Lonsway, Archambault, &
Berkowitz, 2007).

Again, just a sampling of fairly routine studies done on this kind of thing.

At this point I'm just going to be reiterating points I've already made about the rarity of malicious false accusations, and Gareth inspired me to produce a companion piece about the prevalence of rape against women. If you can't do any better than "I don't like surveys and apparently Statistics isn't a science" then there's really nothing more I can add to that. The use of such surveys, the fact that they meet the scientific gold standard of replication, and the fact that scientific statistical research, polling, and surveying has yielded increasingly accurate results, is well defended.

If all you have in response to that is some vaguely defined musing about how "cunts" are socially engineering feminist interviews, please just save yourself some time.

You might consider the following:

Raising Cain - Although this one is not inherently anti-feminist, it is "feminist approved" and indicates a lot of the current problems boys are facing.

The Myth of Male Power - http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Male-Power-Warren-Farrell/dp/0425181448

The War Against Boys - http://www.amazon.com/WAR-AGAINST-BOYS-Misguided-Feminism/dp/0684849577/ref=pd_sim_b_3

Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men - http://www.amazon.com/Does-Feminism-Discriminate-Against-Men/dp/019531283X/ref=pd_sim_b_7

Two that I think are great without going back too far are Naomi Wolf's The Beauty Myth, and Female Chauvinist Pigs.

I'm looking at amazon.com and thinking of ordering a new one from bell hooks, who I've always liked. As an African-American woman, hooks has always had a broader perspective.

I'd also recommend Susan Faludi's Backlash.

Amanda Marcotte's recent It's a Jungle Out There was a quick read and good.

I'm currently looking at Valenti's Full Frontal Feminism and by Siegel and Baumgardner's Sisterhood, Interrupted: From Radical Women to Grrls Gone Wild, but they're about 4th and 5th on my current reading list and I can't yet say how I'd rate them.

Also on my reading list is Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men?: A Debate (Point/Counterpoint) by Warren Farrell, Steven Svoboda, and James P. Sterba on my list. Looking forward to that one. Warren Farrell is a former feminist and the father of the men's liberation movement. The movement had progressive roots, but I think Farrell's moved more center, and certainly the men's movement has some very conservative branches. I think it will be interesting splitting apart any anti-feminism from the pro-men's liberation stuff.

I personally don't think there's any conflict between men and women's liberation, but I want to be more informed as to the current arguments.

So you've got a pretty limited scope. If you want to read a good discussion about the topic, check out Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men? An author and feminist philosopher debate the subject.

Additionally, there's a good amount of feminist literature on same sex abuse relationships, which obviously doesn't fit into a male vs. female narrative. Fundamentally, feminism is about fighting oppression and domination, which is not exclusively perpetrated by men and not exclusively suffered by women.

If you visit this book's Amazon.com page and read the buyer's reviews, you will notice a particularly encouraging one from a senior lecturer at Britain's Sheffield Hallam University.
http://www.amazon.com/Does-Feminism-Discriminate-Against-Men/dp/019531283X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256689998&sr=8-1