Pony Confessions Commentary
Too many facts

Everyone’s talking about Michael Brown, so why not me, too? I’ve spent so friggin’ long in the comments section of so many news sites and that’s just stupid, quite frankly. Even more stupid than spending 3-4 hours on a post on a blog with a hundred or so followers.

So I thought you guys would like a summary of the facts and my interpretation of them. I first heard about the events not long after Dorian Johnson gave his interview, where he claimed that a decorated police officer with six years’ of experience decided one day, out of the blue, to murder a teenager in cold blood for no reason whatsoever. That set off my bullshit detectors. How much sense does that actually make? Well, not much. And, as more and more evidence is released, we see why.

First we found out that Michael Brown had performed a strong-armed robbery of a convenience store. This wasn’t “shoplifting,” as people have tried to claim. He physically intimidated and assaulted the clerk when the clerk tried to stop him. He has been identified by many people as having been the person in the video, including Johnson. We also found out that Darren Wilson, the police officer that shot him, was treated for injuries after the fact.

Now, the police said that the “initial contact” between the two was not related to the robbery, but people focusing on that have left out a couple of details:

  1. After stopping them, Wilson did suspect Brown and Johnson of being the ones to have robbed the convenience store, as they matched the description and there was some plain-view evidence against them.
  2. One of the most common ways for a police officer to die in the line of duty is during a routine traffic stop when he doesn’t know that the people he’s stopped have committed a crime. See, criminals, as a general rule, are very paranoid just after committing a crime. Whether or not the police officer knows is irrelevant because they don’t know if he or she does or not.

To add to that, the injuries suffered by Wilson show that he was, in fact, attacked. This proved that his friend was outright lying. Eyewitness testimony, as a general rule, is notoriously unreliable, and people’s memories of events change over time as they hear new things about the events, such as a news report claiming that someone had their hands up in surrender just before being shot. You know, as an example. With the case of Dorian Johnson, however, his testimony was not a distortion of memory, but to the point where it’s highly unlikely that he didn’t know that what he was saying was a lie. For this evidence.

More evidence came to light recently, however. Michael Brown was not shot in the back, as Johnson claimed. He was shot in the arm and head—from the front. The autopsy also showed no gunpowder residue on his body, but that doesn’t actually mean a whole lot (especially since he didn’t examine Brown’s clothing), and keep in mind that both Wilson and Johnson claimed about the same range for the first shot, and both also claimed a range for the subsequent shots that would make the existence of gunpowder residue on Brown’s person pretty much impossible from those shots.

(Edit: Something I forgot to mention when I originally posted this: The medical examiner claimed that there was “no sign of a struggle,” but this is a gross overinterpretation of the evidence that the medical examiner had available to him, that being Brown’s body. Had there been a question of whether or not Wilson attacked Brown in the way it’s said that Brown attacked Wilson, showing no sign of stuggle would be significant. The question, however, is whether or not Brown attacked Wilson, something that would not show up on Brown’s autopsy.)

And then there’s another piece of evidence, one that most major news outlets refuse to release. It is extremely damning to the case against Wilson, and yellow journalism will be as yellow journalism is, reporting bias in this case aside (such as referring to Wilson as a “triggerman” or choosing a headline based off of the ludicrous claims of the family’s attorney and not the facts of the autopsy). The more right-wing news outlets have been circulating a video that disproves the claim that Michael Brown was surrendering (keep in mind that this isn’t a lack of bias, but rather pandering to a different audience). Someone recording the events after the shooting managed to accidentally capture a conversation wherein a witness is explaining to his friend that Brown charged Wilson. While eyewitness testimony is generally unreliable, because of how general the information is, as well as it being given without outside influence, this telling of the story can be taken as pretty reliable, far moreso than that of a known criminal and liar with plenty of motive to hide the facts and invent new ones. Brown charging is why Wilson shot him so many times. Handgun bullets don’t have the force required to stop someone from charging at you (in spite of what movies will tell you).

Was Brown unarmed? Yes. Did Wilson know this? Yes. But the claim that he was unarmed and therefore posed no danger shows a blatant disregard for how dangerous unarmed individuals can be. Boxing has, from the start, had a mountain of rules to help prevent deaths in the ring, but in spite of that, unarmed boxers still manage to kill their opponents without intending to do so. A 125 lb boxer can still threaten the life of someone else, even without intent to kill. Double that (more, in fact) and add that intent, plus numerous environmental weapons (the asphalt, for example), and you have Michael Brown. You also have the possibility of him taking the gun from the officer and killing him with that, something which, by the accounts of the only witness that has not been proven to be a liar, he had already intended to do.

Michael Brown was not some innocent victim of a murderous police officer that was surrendering when he was shot. He was a violent criminal that forced a police officer to act in self-defense. While his death sucks, it came as a result of his actions and is far preferable to that police officer dying. And the response from the community has followed the same lines. There’s been rioting, looting, massive destruction of private property, and, more recently, extreme violence. And when the police respond to these actions with force, they’re villified. When they try to evacuate reporters for their own safety because of the violence in the area, the reporters accuse them of censorship.

What’s especially interesting to me is that the Highway Patrol Captain, Ron Johnson, is getting a taste of how these protestors treat the truth. He is the one, for those that don’t know, that marched hand-in-hand with protestors when he was first called to aid the local police in the violence that has broken out (I have a message for him about that…). He spoke at a rally for Michael Brown, condemning the officer that shot him. Not long afterwards, he was forced to deploy tear gas and other riot control measures against protestors throwing molotov cocktails at police officers, along with other acts of violence and rioting. And now the media and those involved in the riots are accusing him of lying and attacking peaceful protestors. He’s being villified by the very people with whom he sided (prior to actually knowing the facts, mind you).

I have no doubt that some people in that group, probably even most, had nothing to do with the violence of those riots, but when you stand with those committing violent acts, it’s a little hard to distinguish you from those acting violently. And if you stand with them, you have nobody to blame but yourself when authorities respond to them in order to protect themselves and others.

One final note: People have been asking why the police didn’t reveal this information beforehand. There are two reasons: First, that’s not the way police operate. Investigations are closed-door for a variety of reasons, not the least of which relates to the points about eyewitness testimony mentioned above. Secondly, they didn’t for the same reason why the US used to have a policy of not negotiating with terrorists: If you give people what they want in response to violence, it encourages similar acts of violence in the future in order for those people to get what they want. They’ve only released information in response to pressure from higher-ups that don’t understand, and the fact that the rioting, looting, and violence only gets worse every time they release evidence only goes go show how much those “protestors” really want the facts.

To them, this is the only fact that matters: A black man was shot by a white police officer, and that’s terrible.

doubleclickthepony:

askgamingprincessluna:

Ask Gaming Princess Luna 023

So we lose Molestia and gain a polite Trollestia?  I’ve heard of worse trades…

Molly was so very much Trollestia for the last, like, two years of that blog. She’s just less horny now.

doubleclickthepony:

askgamingprincessluna:

Ask Gaming Princess Luna 023

So we lose Molestia and gain a polite Trollestia?  I’ve heard of worse trades…

Molly was so very much Trollestia for the last, like, two years of that blog. She’s just less horny now.

If you support gay marriage reblog this. If you’re on the homophobic side, keep scrolling.

askthefemaleeren:

like-an-icy-blast:

reachfortheflowers:

anigrrrl2:

askthefemaleeren:

image

As a bisexual, it sickens me that some people WILL keep scrolling.

As the straight daughter of a gay man, it sickens me that some people will keep scrolling. 

As a straight girl with a basic understanding of equality and love, it also sickens me that people will keep scrolling.

As a straight Christian woman, I pray that people will not scroll past this. Love, not judge.

I’m re-reblogging for that last one.

As a firm supporter of gay marriage and acceptance whose religion, sexuality, and relationships are not relevant to the discussion, I recognize that my causes are not everyone’s causes and they’re not obligated to fight for my causes over their own.

I also recognize that reblogging this doesn’t actually do anything to help gay rights.

scrumptiousangst:

ponyconfessionscommentary:

Previous discussion removed by me for the sake of readers not having to scroll too much.
scrumptiousangst:

I will work an extended reply later. I have two simple questions. A. As a man, what precautions do you take to avoid being raped. B. How would you live your life differently if rape was not part of reality? For me the answers are A. Not go to jail (where it is men that would rape me) and B. Not at all. I have given my real name, real phone number, and even my physical address to many people with nary a concern I will be sexually assaulted.

I will answer your questions.
A. I don’t take any more precautions than the precautions I take to avoid being mugged, murdered, burglarized, etc. “Protecting myself from violence” (men being the majority victims of violence) is the primary issue with which I concern myself over “protecting myself from being raped by a woman” because I’m not a fucking misogynist.
B. I wouldn’t live it any differently, because letting fear rule your life for the sake very small statistics and prejudice is a shitty way to be.
As for your answers, you need to hold the fuck on. the CDC study whose explanation I linked in my original reply didn’t even count prison rape (you might want to click that link, if you don’t click any others). The issue was “forced envelopment,” the vast majority of perpetrators thereof are women. And let’s not forget the fact that women rape women (including via forced or alcohol/drug facilitated penetration) as well. But it’s great that feminists are seeking a definition of rape that doesn’t diminish victims of female rapists.
But not before they make sure that the discussion of sexual harassment on college campuses focuses solely on women (in spite of the majority victims being men) and informing women (with institutional and social power) of the evils of men. Those issues, you see, are much more important.

The basic point is that your answers are very very different what what almost all women have to answer.  Trying to avoid being raped is not a pressing concern for men but is a pressing concern for women.  It has nothing to do with hating men and everything to do with not being raped.  Whereas for men, it is a very small statistic.  You don’t have to watch your drink at a bar to make sure it doesn’t get drugged.  You don’t have to make escape plans, carry mace, have pre-arranged signals with friends, etc.  You can cite studies, but you live your life as if rape isn’t a huge concern.  Because it isn’t.

Oh my goodness the level of bullshit in this post is astounding. I have linked to you, twice, proof of gender symmetry in rape, along with proof of why the claim that women get raped more than men is because of the definition of rape (which excludes male victims and female perpetrators) and not actual cases of rape. And yet, you keep pressing with the claim that women are raped more than men. I think I’m done here.

scrumptiousangst:

ponyconfessionscommentary:

Previous discussion removed by me for the sake of readers not having to scroll too much.

scrumptiousangst:

I will work an extended reply later. I have two simple questions. A. As a man, what precautions do you take to avoid being raped. B. How would you live your life differently if rape was not part of reality? For me the answers are A. Not go to jail (where it is men that would rape me) and B. Not at all. I have given my real name, real phone number, and even my physical address to many people with nary a concern I will be sexually assaulted.

I will answer your questions.

A. I don’t take any more precautions than the precautions I take to avoid being mugged, murdered, burglarized, etc. “Protecting myself from violence” (men being the majority victims of violence) is the primary issue with which I concern myself over “protecting myself from being raped by a woman” because I’m not a fucking misogynist.

B. I wouldn’t live it any differently, because letting fear rule your life for the sake very small statistics and prejudice is a shitty way to be.

As for your answers, you need to hold the fuck on. the CDC study whose explanation I linked in my original reply didn’t even count prison rape (you might want to click that link, if you don’t click any others). The issue was “forced envelopment,” the vast majority of perpetrators thereof are women. And let’s not forget the fact that women rape women (including via forced or alcohol/drug facilitated penetration) as well. But it’s great that feminists are seeking a definition of rape that doesn’t diminish victims of female rapists.

But not before they make sure that the discussion of sexual harassment on college campuses focuses solely on women (in spite of the majority victims being men) and informing women (with institutional and social power) of the evils of men. Those issues, you see, are much more important.

The basic point is that your answers are very very different what what almost all women have to answer.  Trying to avoid being raped is not a pressing concern for men but is a pressing concern for women.  It has nothing to do with hating men and everything to do with not being raped.  Whereas for men, it is a very small statistic.  You don’t have to watch your drink at a bar to make sure it doesn’t get drugged.  You don’t have to make escape plans, carry mace, have pre-arranged signals with friends, etc.  You can cite studies, but you live your life as if rape isn’t a huge concern.  Because it isn’t.

Oh my goodness the level of bullshit in this post is astounding. I have linked to you, twice, proof of gender symmetry in rape, along with proof of why the claim that women get raped more than men is because of the definition of rape (which excludes male victims and female perpetrators) and not actual cases of rape. And yet, you keep pressing with the claim that women are raped more than men. I think I’m done here.

Previous discussion removed by me for the sake of readers not having to scroll too much.
scrumptiousangst:

I will work an extended reply later. I have two simple questions. A. As a man, what precautions do you take to avoid being raped. B. How would you live your life differently if rape was not part of reality? For me the answers are A. Not go to jail (where it is men that would rape me) and B. Not at all. I have given my real name, real phone number, and even my physical address to many people with nary a concern I will be sexually assaulted.

I will answer your questions.
A. I don’t take any more precautions than the precautions I take to avoid being mugged, murdered, burglarized, etc. “Protecting myself from violence” (men being the majority victims of violence) is the primary issue with which I concern myself over “protecting myself from being raped by a woman” because I’m not a fucking misogynist.
B. I wouldn’t live it any differently, because letting fear rule your life for the sake very small statistics and prejudice is a shitty way to be.
As for your answers, you need to hold the fuck on. the CDC study whose explanation I linked in my original reply didn’t even count prison rape (you might want to click that link, if you don’t click any others). The issue was “forced envelopment,” the vast majority of perpetrators thereof are women. And let’s not forget the fact that women rape women (including via forced or alcohol/drug facilitated penetration) as well. But it’s great that feminists are seeking a definition of rape that doesn’t diminish victims of female rapists.
But not before they make sure that the discussion of sexual harassment on college campuses focuses solely on women (in spite of the majority victims being men) and informing women (with institutional and social power) of the evils of men. Those issues, you see, are much more important.

Previous discussion removed by me for the sake of readers not having to scroll too much.

scrumptiousangst:

I will work an extended reply later. I have two simple questions. A. As a man, what precautions do you take to avoid being raped. B. How would you live your life differently if rape was not part of reality? For me the answers are A. Not go to jail (where it is men that would rape me) and B. Not at all. I have given my real name, real phone number, and even my physical address to many people with nary a concern I will be sexually assaulted.

I will answer your questions.

A. I don’t take any more precautions than the precautions I take to avoid being mugged, murdered, burglarized, etc. “Protecting myself from violence” (men being the majority victims of violence) is the primary issue with which I concern myself over “protecting myself from being raped by a woman” because I’m not a fucking misogynist.

B. I wouldn’t live it any differently, because letting fear rule your life for the sake very small statistics and prejudice is a shitty way to be.

As for your answers, you need to hold the fuck on. the CDC study whose explanation I linked in my original reply didn’t even count prison rape (you might want to click that link, if you don’t click any others). The issue was “forced envelopment,” the vast majority of perpetrators thereof are women. And let’s not forget the fact that women rape women (including via forced or alcohol/drug facilitated penetration) as well. But it’s great that feminists are seeking a definition of rape that doesn’t diminish victims of female rapists.

But not before they make sure that the discussion of sexual harassment on college campuses focuses solely on women (in spite of the majority victims being men) and informing women (with institutional and social power) of the evils of men. Those issues, you see, are much more important.

scrumptiousangst:

ponyconfessionscommentary:

scrumptiousangst:

ponies-against-bronies:

"not all men"

If you you say Not All Men Are Like That, you really are just saying But I Am. Because you are valuing people’s perception of you over the expression of the woman’s pain.

So does that mean that I’m allowed to say that women are violent, murderous rapists unless proven otherwise, and that trying to point out the sexism in that is “valuing people’s perception of you over the expression of men’s pain”? Or is misandry acceptable and misogyny not because… reasons? Or is your reason to deny the evidence presented?
Also, prejudice, whether it takes the form of misandry, misogyny, racism, or whatever, is not an “expression of pain.” It’s just mindless hate. And if you’re causing yourself pain because of your own mindless hate, I reserve the right to not give a shit.

To focus on one aspect, let’s examine rape.  Yes, many laws still represent the heteronormative view of penetrative rape.  Laws written and enforced primarily by men.  Women have been trying to get those laws fixed because rapists sometimes get free because of not actually penetrating.  
I have known many women who have told me they were raped.  No men.  Now there is even more social stigma attached to men being raped because it is identified as emasculating (again, a patriarchal concept).  But I have had close enough male friendships that surely one person would have shared their pain.
I used to do pest control in homes and business.  Probably been in 2000 different buildings.  I have been in foreign countries.  Frequently lost as that is something I do.  And never once have I felt the need for mace.  Never felt like I might be sexually attacked (the closest was in Germany by some guys).  But avoiding being raped is something women have to do frequently.
Prejudice is not a good thing, but it only really becomes a problem when combined with power.  If you have a male boss and a female employee, both prejudiced.  He says “you are fired, I dislike women” and she replies “you are fired, i HATE men with a burning passion”.  Do you really think that they were both wrong and hurtful?  Maybe she was worse because it was much stronger in wording?  But He still has a job and She does not.  Misogyny is real, misandry is not.  Because men have institutional power.  If you don’t believe that to be true, despite the mountain of evidence (ex. 100% of presidents have been men) then you are purposely choosing to be ignorant.
BTW, 
Racial Prejudice + Institutional Power = Racism

There you go, denying evidence. If there’s gender symmetry in rape, why is it that “avoiding being raped is something women have to do frequently” and not men? This claim is not based on the practicality of one sex facing a problem more often than the other; this claim is built around misandry and the denial of male rape victims. Again, you completely dodged the issue here. Furthermore, the precedent of researchers defining rape as one person penetrating another without their consent sure as hell wasn’t set by a man.
Any time someone talks about the “patriarchy” or “a patriarchal concept” and how it “hurts men,” I have to just sit and stare in amazement. We’re talking about a conspiracy theory whose core concept is that it is to protect the interest of men… and yet it seems that every single man alive has been harmed by it… seriously, in fact. How does that even work? Aside from that, it must be the most ineffective conspiracy to date, given the success of the women’s suffrage movement and other things I will discuss later in this post.
Before I get into that, though, let’s talk about power. First of all, you make the false assumption that the only power someone can have is political, and only if it’s “institutional.” This flies in the face of pretty much everything history has taught us about political power, but you know what? We’ll get back to that. A more pressing issue is about presidents. In 2008, when Hillary Clinton decided to try for the presidency, the Democratic party chose (via democratic primaries) Obama over her. The Democratic party, in case you didn’t know, has a fairly strong gender gap in favor of women. This was for an election that the Democratic party was going to win, hands-down. The Democratic primaries were essentially choosing the next President, thanks to the state of the economy and the public opinion on the wars being fought at the time. In other words, women made the choice for there to not be a female president (side note: WTF? Clinton was a far better candidate than Obama). In fact, women make up the majority votes period. In the Democratic theory of a Democratic Republic, where the people in power are either elected or appointed by the elected (and, for the Democratic part, laws are enacted directly by voters), officials serve at the pleasure of the voters. So while a president may hold overt power, it is only because said president represents the interests of the voters (or can make the appearance of doing so), who hold practical power. In a country that has such an extreme gender gap in voters, this means that women hold the practical power in the US by Democratic theory.
But there’s an interesting feature of Republics and incomplete Democracies not represented by voting statistics: Lobbying power. This lobbying power extends not just to influence on politicians, but voters as well. This is best illustrated in the modern age by pointing out how much of an issue education is. Only a tiny percent of voters directly benefit from improved education (those in school at 18 will have graduated before they have a chance to vote if on track, so only those whose graduation is delayed benefit directly). Why is it such an issue? Simple: Children have lobbying power with their parents and others that seek to protect and benefit them. This is an especially important example, because it’s an example where the lobby itself doesn’t even enforce the lobbying power it has; that power is passive. There is a multitude of evidence that women held voter lobbying power (over their husbands, sons, etc) before suffrage, but since you seem only to care about representatives (and representatives in the US over any other country to boot) and not the individual voters, let’s talk about a couple of examples of women’s lobbying power over representatives in the US. Just a couple, as this post is already going to be fairly long, though this could be a world history course in and of itself.
The first example is the Women’s Christian Temperance Union. This was the first major prohibition lobby (the prohibition party being a political party and, therefore, not a lobby), and the ASL owed pretty much the entirety of its existance to the WCTU. Not only did the WCTU successfully sway public opinion in favor of prohibition enough to lead to a Constitutional Amendment on the issue, but it also lobbied very successfully for other laws and policy changes long before the 19th Amendment, something else for which it lobbied.
But hey, let’s talk about that little paradox of Patriarchy Theory. Somehow, an agenda designed solely for the detriment of women to the benefit of men decided that women, who are the majority, should have equal voting rights as men. Yet it goes even further than that. You see, the “right” to vote was actually a myth at the time. Just a few years before the 19th Amendment was ratified, the Supreme Court said as much. The “rights” of citizenship (including, but not limited to, the “right” to vote) were not rights at all, but rather were part of an exchange. One that included compulsory military service, should the government decide it necessary. In fact, one of the arguments that women opposed to suffrage made involved the problem of this exchange. Another argument, you’ll note, is the argument of women already possessing political power without the vote (I would be remiss if I did not point out that a number of their arguments are somewhat sexist, but these are a red herring to the point of the illusion of the “right” to vote).
If men hold such power, as you claim, and are interested in using it primarily for the benefit of men (including holding that power), as Patriarchy Theory implies, why is it that women received, as a right, what men had only as a life-threatening exchange? Why is it that men still have to go through that exchange (one that includes more than just the “right” to vote, though that aspect has been removed) in many states, but women don’t? It’s not because of “patriarchy,” either. Suffragists were just completely disinterested in this. Their drafts of the 19th Amendment did not include obligations placed on men in exchange for citizenship as part of their call for a right to vote. The feminist response to the Selective Service Act was to ensure that they’d have a political say, whether they would be required to register for the draft or not. Once it was clear that this exchange was not and would not be a requirement for women, they dropped the issue. Why, if men held such power and were interested in keeping that power for themselves, would they give women (the majority) the right to vote without even bothering to make the same demands of them as are made of men?
The last time a major draft happened was during Vietnam, true. But when was the time that a major draft happened before that? And before that? Major drafts don’t happen often, but they do happen. They did in the past and dismissing the possibility of it in the future is absurd on the face of it, even setting aside the issues that men that did not register (for whatever reason) face (as mentioned above). Remember: We’re not talking about voluntary military service here. We’re talking about forced conscription.
Let’s move on to the evidence you so conveniently ignored when you were making your grand argument about “men in power” and how misandry doesn’t exist because women have no power to enforce it. In fact, let’s discuss that violence link. First of all, those women hardly needed any political power to be abusive their husbands and boyfriends. But the real kicker is the existance of “Predominant Aggressor” policies. Women certainly didn’t need to hold majority “institutional power” for feminist groups to enact these policies when they didn’t like the way the numbers looked without them. A man being ignored after being attacked with a frying pan because he’s larger than his wife or one being arrested for a woman fracturing her arm on his while trying to stab him seems to me to be cases where we might consider misandry to be a thing that affects men negatively. Funny how feminists were successful in getting those laws—laws which benefit female abusers to the detriment of male victims—passed, and yet we still have the sexist definition of rape.
Before they bothered trying to deal with victims of female-on-male rape, they also decided that it would be a good idea to lobby for lower physical standards for female police officers in some areas (as well as other life-or-death jobs), putting men and women at risk for the sake of arbitrary quotas. And yet, they still haven’t been successful in getting society to recognize that that “99% of rape victims are women” statistic is crap because it’s the way we define rape. In fact, there seems to be a lot more support for spreading that statistic than there is among feminists for pointing out the flaws.
I wonder what these issues could tell us about feminism as a whole and where the majority power lies in that movement. Could it be that it lies with the sort of woman that would send death threats to the first woman to open a women’s shelter for victims of domestic violence for daring to suggest that most abuse is reciprocal or those that seek to hide the evidence that it is? Is it any wonder that she’s become an active supporter of the Men’s Rights Movement, given that she’s never received death threats from them for suggesting such a thing? Or maybe it lies with the women that would burn a book because it explains how, in the 90’s, boys and girls were struggling in school and policies were enacted that focused on the way girls learn, effectively sacrificing the education of boys for the benefit of girls. Funny how those girls that have benefitted didn’t need to hold “institutional power” over the boys that suffered and still do suffer for those policies to take effect.
And, of course, when did Valerie Solanas need “institutional power” to attempt to murder three men because she couldn’t find her publisher and those three were just… good enough for her? I suppose it’s the patriarchal system that caused her gun to jam before she could actually be successful in killing them?
And that’s to say nothing of social power. For example, laughing at male victims of rape (I’m sure she’s real concerned at the definition of rape) or posting articles expressing glee over the majority abusers in relationships being women. That article was posted seven years ago, has been viewed more than 60,000 times, has many comments with women gleefully recalling beating up their partners (or expressing dismissive attitudes towards abuse), and it still stands. It’s still considered a socially acceptable article by one of the top 500 sites in the US, and certainly one of the top sites aimed at women.
And, since the whole “not all men” thing started with Elliot Rodger, let’s discuss that. Here was someone that killed more men than he did women and had multiple motivations for his killing spree—not just misogyny—and yet the primary issue in the media is that he killed women and that he was a misogynist, along with misattributing him as a Men’s Rights Activist when he actually had no connection with any MRM group whatsoever. Some articles have even gone so far as to list the various “pick up artist” sites on which he posted and then claim that these show he had a connection to the MRM, a movement that has literally nothing to do with PUAs and wants nothing to do with them. No one cares about his other motivations, properly fact-checking the accusations against MRAs, or the men that died (3 of whom he killed because of his racism) in the slightest.
Women are afraid that men will kill them? Well, men are afraid that they’ll be forgotten.
One more point on Elliot Rodger and social power. There’s a lot of claims that go around about women and “slut shaming,” but slut shaming is not a generally acceptable practice, especially when it comes to women (imagine Ted telling Robin that she “should be tested” or Marshall telling her that she’s disgusting). Virgin shaming of men, on the other hand, is. This is why men regret their sexual experiences more than women. It isn’t their partners pressuring them to have sex. It’s society. And this is why Rodger being a virgin was such an issue for him. This is why he turned to “pick up artists” (and later anti-PUAs, not MRAs) for advice.
So… no. “Institutional power” is not necessary for actual power, nor is it necessary for hate to be detrimental. Keep in mind that I didn’t address anywhere close to half the issues and already this post is too long. Hell, I could double its size just talking about the gender bias in divorce courts (how many divorce court judges are female, I wonder). Unless the man gets an amazing lawyer and the woman a pretty shitty one, the woman can essentially make any demands she pleases and the courts will grant her those demands. Nor did I discuss bias in criminal sentencing, both when it comes to perpetrators and victims. I certainly feel that my interests as a man are super protected when, say, killing a man with no other crime is punished less severely than killing a woman with no other crime, and these are just two of a multitude of issues.
You know, I take it back. Men aren’t afraid that they’ll be forgotten. Men are afraid that they’ll be killed and no one will care.
I suppose I should point out that I did address the whole “male boss/female employee” thing not too long ago as a side note to the wage gap issue (and that’s aside from the absurdity in your claim and a complete lack of understanding of the legal system, which maybe you can see from these examples is very biased towards women).
Now, brevity is not a strength I have. This post is… really long (4 pages in Word, not counting the content of the links) and trying to argue against the entirety of it would be even more absurd than actually making a post like this. I don’t expect you to try, and I know that I certainly wouldn’t. All I ask is that you have a little intellectual honesty and not treat the argument like it ended with your post. Whether you agree or disagree, please reblog this and just say so. No one should expect a reply longer than that to a post like this. Besides, I’m sure someone else as crazy as me will work on it if you reblog it.
Edit: Let’s be clear on something: Feminism itself is not the problem. The problem is misandric feminists that hold power in the feminist movement and their ideals, confirmation bias, outright lies, and things like that affecting other feminists. Heck, how many women self-identifying as feminists even know that men are just as likely to be raped by “forced envelopment” as a woman is to suffer rape or attempted rape? And that doesn’t even count other times a man would be raped, such as by penetration or via “alcohol/drug facilitated” envelopment. Ask a feminist and they’ll tell you that rape is a women’s issue. The same thing for domestic abuse. They’ll tell you that Elliot Rodgers was an MRA and MRAs feel that they have a “right” to women’s bodies. The reason why they’ll say this isn’t because feminism itself is flawed or necessarily that they’re not well-meaning, but rather because of misandric feminists affect the views of the gender equality crowd and have a disproportionate amount of power in our society, including inspiring misandry in other women (and in men… I used to be a misandrist).

scrumptiousangst:

ponyconfessionscommentary:

scrumptiousangst:

ponies-against-bronies:

"not all men"

If you you say Not All Men Are Like That, you really are just saying But I Am. Because you are valuing people’s perception of you over the expression of the woman’s pain.

So does that mean that I’m allowed to say that women are violent, murderous rapists unless proven otherwise, and that trying to point out the sexism in that is “valuing people’s perception of you over the expression of men’s pain”? Or is misandry acceptable and misogyny not because… reasons? Or is your reason to deny the evidence presented?

Also, prejudice, whether it takes the form of misandry, misogyny, racism, or whatever, is not an “expression of pain.” It’s just mindless hate. And if you’re causing yourself pain because of your own mindless hate, I reserve the right to not give a shit.

To focus on one aspect, let’s examine rape.  Yes, many laws still represent the heteronormative view of penetrative rape.  Laws written and enforced primarily by men.  Women have been trying to get those laws fixed because rapists sometimes get free because of not actually penetrating.  

I have known many women who have told me they were raped.  No men.  Now there is even more social stigma attached to men being raped because it is identified as emasculating (again, a patriarchal concept).  But I have had close enough male friendships that surely one person would have shared their pain.

I used to do pest control in homes and business.  Probably been in 2000 different buildings.  I have been in foreign countries.  Frequently lost as that is something I do.  And never once have I felt the need for mace.  Never felt like I might be sexually attacked (the closest was in Germany by some guys).  But avoiding being raped is something women have to do frequently.

Prejudice is not a good thing, but it only really becomes a problem when combined with power.  If you have a male boss and a female employee, both prejudiced.  He says “you are fired, I dislike women” and she replies “you are fired, i HATE men with a burning passion”.  Do you really think that they were both wrong and hurtful?  Maybe she was worse because it was much stronger in wording?  But He still has a job and She does not.  Misogyny is real, misandry is not.  Because men have institutional power.  If you don’t believe that to be true, despite the mountain of evidence (ex. 100% of presidents have been men) then you are purposely choosing to be ignorant.

BTW, 

Racial Prejudice + Institutional Power = Racism

There you go, denying evidence. If there’s gender symmetry in rape, why is it that “avoiding being raped is something women have to do frequently” and not men? This claim is not based on the practicality of one sex facing a problem more often than the other; this claim is built around misandry and the denial of male rape victims. Again, you completely dodged the issue here. Furthermore, the precedent of researchers defining rape as one person penetrating another without their consent sure as hell wasn’t set by a man.

Any time someone talks about the “patriarchy” or “a patriarchal concept” and how it “hurts men,” I have to just sit and stare in amazement. We’re talking about a conspiracy theory whose core concept is that it is to protect the interest of men… and yet it seems that every single man alive has been harmed by it… seriously, in fact. How does that even work? Aside from that, it must be the most ineffective conspiracy to date, given the success of the women’s suffrage movement and other things I will discuss later in this post.

Before I get into that, though, let’s talk about power. First of all, you make the false assumption that the only power someone can have is political, and only if it’s “institutional.” This flies in the face of pretty much everything history has taught us about political power, but you know what? We’ll get back to that. A more pressing issue is about presidents. In 2008, when Hillary Clinton decided to try for the presidency, the Democratic party chose (via democratic primaries) Obama over her. The Democratic party, in case you didn’t know, has a fairly strong gender gap in favor of women. This was for an election that the Democratic party was going to win, hands-down. The Democratic primaries were essentially choosing the next President, thanks to the state of the economy and the public opinion on the wars being fought at the time. In other words, women made the choice for there to not be a female president (side note: WTF? Clinton was a far better candidate than Obama). In fact, women make up the majority votes period. In the Democratic theory of a Democratic Republic, where the people in power are either elected or appointed by the elected (and, for the Democratic part, laws are enacted directly by voters), officials serve at the pleasure of the voters. So while a president may hold overt power, it is only because said president represents the interests of the voters (or can make the appearance of doing so), who hold practical power. In a country that has such an extreme gender gap in voters, this means that women hold the practical power in the US by Democratic theory.

But there’s an interesting feature of Republics and incomplete Democracies not represented by voting statistics: Lobbying power. This lobbying power extends not just to influence on politicians, but voters as well. This is best illustrated in the modern age by pointing out how much of an issue education is. Only a tiny percent of voters directly benefit from improved education (those in school at 18 will have graduated before they have a chance to vote if on track, so only those whose graduation is delayed benefit directly). Why is it such an issue? Simple: Children have lobbying power with their parents and others that seek to protect and benefit them. This is an especially important example, because it’s an example where the lobby itself doesn’t even enforce the lobbying power it has; that power is passive. There is a multitude of evidence that women held voter lobbying power (over their husbands, sons, etc) before suffrage, but since you seem only to care about representatives (and representatives in the US over any other country to boot) and not the individual voters, let’s talk about a couple of examples of women’s lobbying power over representatives in the US. Just a couple, as this post is already going to be fairly long, though this could be a world history course in and of itself.

The first example is the Women’s Christian Temperance Union. This was the first major prohibition lobby (the prohibition party being a political party and, therefore, not a lobby), and the ASL owed pretty much the entirety of its existance to the WCTU. Not only did the WCTU successfully sway public opinion in favor of prohibition enough to lead to a Constitutional Amendment on the issue, but it also lobbied very successfully for other laws and policy changes long before the 19th Amendment, something else for which it lobbied.

But hey, let’s talk about that little paradox of Patriarchy Theory. Somehow, an agenda designed solely for the detriment of women to the benefit of men decided that women, who are the majority, should have equal voting rights as men. Yet it goes even further than that. You see, the “right” to vote was actually a myth at the time. Just a few years before the 19th Amendment was ratified, the Supreme Court said as much. The “rights” of citizenship (including, but not limited to, the “right” to vote) were not rights at all, but rather were part of an exchange. One that included compulsory military service, should the government decide it necessary. In fact, one of the arguments that women opposed to suffrage made involved the problem of this exchange. Another argument, you’ll note, is the argument of women already possessing political power without the vote (I would be remiss if I did not point out that a number of their arguments are somewhat sexist, but these are a red herring to the point of the illusion of the “right” to vote).

If men hold such power, as you claim, and are interested in using it primarily for the benefit of men (including holding that power), as Patriarchy Theory implies, why is it that women received, as a right, what men had only as a life-threatening exchange? Why is it that men still have to go through that exchange (one that includes more than just the “right” to vote, though that aspect has been removed) in many states, but women don’t? It’s not because of “patriarchy,” either. Suffragists were just completely disinterested in this. Their drafts of the 19th Amendment did not include obligations placed on men in exchange for citizenship as part of their call for a right to vote. The feminist response to the Selective Service Act was to ensure that they’d have a political say, whether they would be required to register for the draft or not. Once it was clear that this exchange was not and would not be a requirement for women, they dropped the issue. Why, if men held such power and were interested in keeping that power for themselves, would they give women (the majority) the right to vote without even bothering to make the same demands of them as are made of men?

The last time a major draft happened was during Vietnam, true. But when was the time that a major draft happened before that? And before that? Major drafts don’t happen often, but they do happen. They did in the past and dismissing the possibility of it in the future is absurd on the face of it, even setting aside the issues that men that did not register (for whatever reason) face (as mentioned above). Remember: We’re not talking about voluntary military service here. We’re talking about forced conscription.

Let’s move on to the evidence you so conveniently ignored when you were making your grand argument about “men in power” and how misandry doesn’t exist because women have no power to enforce it. In fact, let’s discuss that violence link. First of all, those women hardly needed any political power to be abusive their husbands and boyfriends. But the real kicker is the existance of “Predominant Aggressor” policies. Women certainly didn’t need to hold majority “institutional power” for feminist groups to enact these policies when they didn’t like the way the numbers looked without them. A man being ignored after being attacked with a frying pan because he’s larger than his wife or one being arrested for a woman fracturing her arm on his while trying to stab him seems to me to be cases where we might consider misandry to be a thing that affects men negatively. Funny how feminists were successful in getting those laws—laws which benefit female abusers to the detriment of male victims—passed, and yet we still have the sexist definition of rape.

Before they bothered trying to deal with victims of female-on-male rape, they also decided that it would be a good idea to lobby for lower physical standards for female police officers in some areas (as well as other life-or-death jobs), putting men and women at risk for the sake of arbitrary quotas. And yet, they still haven’t been successful in getting society to recognize that that “99% of rape victims are women” statistic is crap because it’s the way we define rape. In fact, there seems to be a lot more support for spreading that statistic than there is among feminists for pointing out the flaws.

I wonder what these issues could tell us about feminism as a whole and where the majority power lies in that movement. Could it be that it lies with the sort of woman that would send death threats to the first woman to open a women’s shelter for victims of domestic violence for daring to suggest that most abuse is reciprocal or those that seek to hide the evidence that it is? Is it any wonder that she’s become an active supporter of the Men’s Rights Movement, given that she’s never received death threats from them for suggesting such a thing? Or maybe it lies with the women that would burn a book because it explains how, in the 90’s, boys and girls were struggling in school and policies were enacted that focused on the way girls learn, effectively sacrificing the education of boys for the benefit of girls. Funny how those girls that have benefitted didn’t need to hold “institutional power” over the boys that suffered and still do suffer for those policies to take effect.

And, of course, when did Valerie Solanas need “institutional power” to attempt to murder three men because she couldn’t find her publisher and those three were just… good enough for her? I suppose it’s the patriarchal system that caused her gun to jam before she could actually be successful in killing them?

And that’s to say nothing of social power. For example, laughing at male victims of rape (I’m sure she’s real concerned at the definition of rape) or posting articles expressing glee over the majority abusers in relationships being women. That article was posted seven years ago, has been viewed more than 60,000 times, has many comments with women gleefully recalling beating up their partners (or expressing dismissive attitudes towards abuse), and it still stands. It’s still considered a socially acceptable article by one of the top 500 sites in the US, and certainly one of the top sites aimed at women.

And, since the whole “not all men” thing started with Elliot Rodger, let’s discuss that. Here was someone that killed more men than he did women and had multiple motivations for his killing spree—not just misogyny—and yet the primary issue in the media is that he killed women and that he was a misogynist, along with misattributing him as a Men’s Rights Activist when he actually had no connection with any MRM group whatsoever. Some articles have even gone so far as to list the various “pick up artist” sites on which he posted and then claim that these show he had a connection to the MRM, a movement that has literally nothing to do with PUAs and wants nothing to do with them. No one cares about his other motivations, properly fact-checking the accusations against MRAs, or the men that died (3 of whom he killed because of his racism) in the slightest.

Women are afraid that men will kill them? Well, men are afraid that they’ll be forgotten.

One more point on Elliot Rodger and social power. There’s a lot of claims that go around about women and “slut shaming,” but slut shaming is not a generally acceptable practice, especially when it comes to women (imagine Ted telling Robin that she “should be tested” or Marshall telling her that she’s disgusting). Virgin shaming of men, on the other hand, is. This is why men regret their sexual experiences more than women. It isn’t their partners pressuring them to have sex. It’s society. And this is why Rodger being a virgin was such an issue for him. This is why he turned to “pick up artists” (and later anti-PUAs, not MRAs) for advice.

So… no. “Institutional power” is not necessary for actual power, nor is it necessary for hate to be detrimental. Keep in mind that I didn’t address anywhere close to half the issues and already this post is too long. Hell, I could double its size just talking about the gender bias in divorce courts (how many divorce court judges are female, I wonder). Unless the man gets an amazing lawyer and the woman a pretty shitty one, the woman can essentially make any demands she pleases and the courts will grant her those demands. Nor did I discuss bias in criminal sentencing, both when it comes to perpetrators and victims. I certainly feel that my interests as a man are super protected when, say, killing a man with no other crime is punished less severely than killing a woman with no other crime, and these are just two of a multitude of issues.

You know, I take it back. Men aren’t afraid that they’ll be forgotten. Men are afraid that they’ll be killed and no one will care.

I suppose I should point out that I did address the whole “male boss/female employee” thing not too long ago as a side note to the wage gap issue (and that’s aside from the absurdity in your claim and a complete lack of understanding of the legal system, which maybe you can see from these examples is very biased towards women).

Now, brevity is not a strength I have. This post is… really long (4 pages in Word, not counting the content of the links) and trying to argue against the entirety of it would be even more absurd than actually making a post like this. I don’t expect you to try, and I know that I certainly wouldn’t. All I ask is that you have a little intellectual honesty and not treat the argument like it ended with your post. Whether you agree or disagree, please reblog this and just say so. No one should expect a reply longer than that to a post like this. Besides, I’m sure someone else as crazy as me will work on it if you reblog it.

Edit: Let’s be clear on something: Feminism itself is not the problem. The problem is misandric feminists that hold power in the feminist movement and their ideals, confirmation bias, outright lies, and things like that affecting other feminists. Heck, how many women self-identifying as feminists even know that men are just as likely to be raped by “forced envelopment” as a woman is to suffer rape or attempted rape? And that doesn’t even count other times a man would be raped, such as by penetration or via “alcohol/drug facilitated” envelopment. Ask a feminist and they’ll tell you that rape is a women’s issue. The same thing for domestic abuse. They’ll tell you that Elliot Rodgers was an MRA and MRAs feel that they have a “right” to women’s bodies. The reason why they’ll say this isn’t because feminism itself is flawed or necessarily that they’re not well-meaning, but rather because of misandric feminists affect the views of the gender equality crowd and have a disproportionate amount of power in our society, including inspiring misandry in other women (and in men… I used to be a misandrist).

scrumptiousangst:

ponies-against-bronies:

"not all men"

If you you say Not All Men Are Like That, you really are just saying But I Am. Because you are valuing people’s perception of you over the expression of the woman’s pain.

So does that mean that I’m allowed to say that women are violent, murderous rapists unless proven otherwise, and that trying to point out the sexism in that is “valuing people’s perception of you over the expression of men’s pain”? Or is misandry acceptable and misogyny not because… reasons? Or is your reason to deny the evidence presented?
Also, prejudice, whether it takes the form of misandry, misogyny, racism, or whatever, is not an “expression of pain.” It’s just mindless hate. And if you’re causing yourself pain because of your own mindless hate, I reserve the right to not give a shit.

scrumptiousangst:

ponies-against-bronies:

"not all men"

If you you say Not All Men Are Like That, you really are just saying But I Am. Because you are valuing people’s perception of you over the expression of the woman’s pain.

So does that mean that I’m allowed to say that women are violent, murderous rapists unless proven otherwise, and that trying to point out the sexism in that is “valuing people’s perception of you over the expression of men’s pain”? Or is misandry acceptable and misogyny not because… reasons? Or is your reason to deny the evidence presented?

Also, prejudice, whether it takes the form of misandry, misogyny, racism, or whatever, is not an “expression of pain.” It’s just mindless hate. And if you’re causing yourself pain because of your own mindless hate, I reserve the right to not give a shit.

luna-nix:

whoufflesoufflegirl:

the-treble:

willowpedia:

crazymolerat36:

ewitsmichelle:

not just followers, everyone.

same

I’m here if any of you need to talk<3

Argentina Suicide Hotlines

Armenia Suicide Hotlines

Australia Suicide Hotlines

Austria Suicide Hotlines

Barbados Suicide Hotlines

Belgium Suicide Hotlines

Botswana Suicide Hotlines

Brazil Suicide Hotlines

Canada Suicide Hotlines

China Suicide Hotlines

Croatia Suicide Hotlines

Cyprus Suicide Hotlines

Denmark Suicide Hotlines

Egypt Suicide Hotlines

Estonia Suicide Hotlines

Fiji Suicide Hotlines

Finland Suicide Hotlines

France Suicide Hotlines

Germany Suicide Hotlines

Ghana Suicide Hotlines

Gibraltar Suicide Hotlines

Hong Kong Suicide Hotlines

Hungary Suicide Hotlines

India Suicide Hotlines

Ireland Suicide Hotlines

Israel Suicide Hotlines

Italy Suicide Hotlines

Japan Suicide Hotlines

Liberia Suicide Hotlines

Lithuania Suicide Hotlines

Malaysia Suicide Hotlines

Malta Suicide Hotlines

Mauritius Suicide Hotlines

Namibia Suicide Hotlines

Netherlands Suicide Hotlines

New Zealand Suicide Hotlines

Norway Suicide Hotlines

Paupua New Guinea Suicide Hotlines

Philippines Suicide Hotlines

Poland Suicide Hotlines

Portugal Suicide Hotlines

Russian Federation Suicide Hotlines

Somoa Suicide Hotlines

Serbia Suicide Hotlines

Singapore Suicide Hotlines

South Africa Suicide Hotlines

South Korea Suicide Hotlines

Spain Suicide Hotlines

Sri Lanka Suicide Hotlines

St. Vincent Suicide Hotlines

Sudan Suicide Hotlines

Sweden Suicide Hotlines

Switzerland Suicide Hotlines

Taiwan Suicide Hotlines

Thailand Suicide Hotlines

Tobago Suicide Hotlines

Tonga Suicide Hotlines

Trinidad and Tobago Suicide Hotlines

Turkey Suicide Hotlines

Ukraine Suicide Hotlines

United Kingdom Suicide Hotlines

United States Suicide Hotlines

Zimawe Suicide Hotlines

The best part is, this post actually does something, it offers support, unlike one of those useless “reblog if you care” posts.

Exactly. Which is why I’ll reblog this one.

So in case you were wondering why I can’t take Leverage seriously…

Can I get a list of sins here?

junoandthemoon:

Wow okay. Here’s the facts:
Women do NOT receive equal pay. Women in 2010 working full time still only made 77% of what men made.
There are still Pink Collar jobs that women are encouraged to go into such as teaching, nursing and childcare that are paid far less than your typical male-dominated field.
But congratulations on your equality, because you can vote.
If you refuse to acknowledge the problem, you become part of the problem.

Let&#8217;s get some fact checking on the facts presented.
The 77% figure (and related figures) are largely made from studies that compare all jobs. Yeah, it&#8217;s true, women are less likely to take jobs in computer programming and more lokely to take jobs in things like social services. That&#8217;s a part of personal choice. You may not want to get in those fields, but others do. It&#8217;s that simple. As of right now, there&#8217;s plenty of evidence that women are no more discouraged from taking jobs in the science than men and none that suggests otherwise aside from theorists (as opposed to those that have actually studied it).
But even when we compare, say, female doctors with male doctors or female journalists with male journalists, there&#8217;s a gap. Surely, that must prove sexism, yes?
No. Again, choice is a major factor. Men are more likely to work overtime as well as more likely to work more overtime. Even outside of the take-home pay difference this causes, those that work more overtime are more likely to receive raises and promotions&#8212;irrespective of sex.
There is actually an interesting aspect to the wage gap, and it&#8217;s one that feminists should be celebrating. Let&#8217;s take female doctors. That&#8217;s a field where women are quickly gaining in percentages. A number of studies in a number of countries have shown this. I believe one was 35% to 45% in the matter of a decade. That&#8217;s some powerful stuff.
But it also contributes to the bad science of the wage gap. Guess who gets paid more: A doctor with 10 years of experience or a doctor just out of med school. See, that increasing percentage rate means that women in those fields, on average, have less experience than men, which means lower pay and lower position that has nothing to do with their sex. This isn&#8217;t a reflection of sexism in our society, but rather women putting themselves in fields that have traditionally been for men.
Aside from that, there are also minor issues such as the fact that men rate pay and opportunity for advancement as more important than women do when looking for work. These are all averages and do not speak to every man or every woman. There are most certainly female computer programmers that have worked hours of overtime since the early days of COBOL and care largely about their compensation when seeking work and there are men whose ink is still wet on their CompSci degrees that value workplace culture more than pay and&#8230; okay, I was going to say something about overtime, but if you&#8217;re getting into computer programming and think that you won&#8217;t have to work overtime&#8230; good fsking luck.
The problem is that the wage gap studies are built on averages and either don&#8217;t take these confounding variables into account or only consider one or two.
This is not to say that there is necessarily no wage gap. This merely points out that the evidence for it is crap. There is, however, no evidence against it. Basically? It&#8217;s still in the air as to whether or not a wage gap is actually a thing or not, and people need to stop declaring bad science as proving their point just because they agree with it. We instead need to push for good science, the kind that actually works to control for these variables.
And even if there is a wage gap, it exists on a spectrum, where there are companies that very obviously do not pay women less, but bully for you for insisting that this woman here must necessarily be paid less than her male co-workers. Maybe you should use that omnisentience for good instead of correcting her about her experiences.
On a less insulting and more serious note, this actually reminds me of an essay that talked about victimization being a required element in black identification, and if a black man wasn&#8217;t victimized&#8230; he wasn&#8217;t black. The author viewed this as problematic, especially for middle-class blacks, as these two identities are inherently contradictory.
One more note as to women being &#8220;encouraged&#8221; to go into certain jobs: Remember that female doctors aren&#8217;t routinely mocked by the media for choosing to go the diagnostic route over the patient care route when getting into medicine. Male nurses, on the other hand&#8230;
I also note that you completely glossed over everything except the &#8220;equal pay&#8221; issue.
As far as your tag, lawyered isn&#8217;t a tag. You also don&#8217;t use it when you have not, in fact, lawyered someone. This is how and when you use it:

If you want sources, I&#8217;ll be happy to provide them, but you must:
1. Request it in a reblog2. Reblog my post in which I provide sources

junoandthemoon:

Wow okay. Here’s the facts:

Women do NOT receive equal pay. Women in 2010 working full time still only made 77% of what men made.

There are still Pink Collar jobs that women are encouraged to go into such as teaching, nursing and childcare that are paid far less than your typical male-dominated field.

But congratulations on your equality, because you can vote.

If you refuse to acknowledge the problem, you become part of the problem.

Let’s get some fact checking on the facts presented.

The 77% figure (and related figures) are largely made from studies that compare all jobs. Yeah, it’s true, women are less likely to take jobs in computer programming and more lokely to take jobs in things like social services. That’s a part of personal choice. You may not want to get in those fields, but others do. It’s that simple. As of right now, there’s plenty of evidence that women are no more discouraged from taking jobs in the science than men and none that suggests otherwise aside from theorists (as opposed to those that have actually studied it).

But even when we compare, say, female doctors with male doctors or female journalists with male journalists, there’s a gap. Surely, that must prove sexism, yes?

No. Again, choice is a major factor. Men are more likely to work overtime as well as more likely to work more overtime. Even outside of the take-home pay difference this causes, those that work more overtime are more likely to receive raises and promotions—irrespective of sex.

There is actually an interesting aspect to the wage gap, and it’s one that feminists should be celebrating. Let’s take female doctors. That’s a field where women are quickly gaining in percentages. A number of studies in a number of countries have shown this. I believe one was 35% to 45% in the matter of a decade. That’s some powerful stuff.

But it also contributes to the bad science of the wage gap. Guess who gets paid more: A doctor with 10 years of experience or a doctor just out of med school. See, that increasing percentage rate means that women in those fields, on average, have less experience than men, which means lower pay and lower position that has nothing to do with their sex. This isn’t a reflection of sexism in our society, but rather women putting themselves in fields that have traditionally been for men.

Aside from that, there are also minor issues such as the fact that men rate pay and opportunity for advancement as more important than women do when looking for work. These are all averages and do not speak to every man or every woman. There are most certainly female computer programmers that have worked hours of overtime since the early days of COBOL and care largely about their compensation when seeking work and there are men whose ink is still wet on their CompSci degrees that value workplace culture more than pay and… okay, I was going to say something about overtime, but if you’re getting into computer programming and think that you won’t have to work overtime… good fsking luck.

The problem is that the wage gap studies are built on averages and either don’t take these confounding variables into account or only consider one or two.

This is not to say that there is necessarily no wage gap. This merely points out that the evidence for it is crap. There is, however, no evidence against it. Basically? It’s still in the air as to whether or not a wage gap is actually a thing or not, and people need to stop declaring bad science as proving their point just because they agree with it. We instead need to push for good science, the kind that actually works to control for these variables.

And even if there is a wage gap, it exists on a spectrum, where there are companies that very obviously do not pay women less, but bully for you for insisting that this woman here must necessarily be paid less than her male co-workers. Maybe you should use that omnisentience for good instead of correcting her about her experiences.

On a less insulting and more serious note, this actually reminds me of an essay that talked about victimization being a required element in black identification, and if a black man wasn’t victimized… he wasn’t black. The author viewed this as problematic, especially for middle-class blacks, as these two identities are inherently contradictory.

One more note as to women being “encouraged” to go into certain jobs: Remember that female doctors aren’t routinely mocked by the media for choosing to go the diagnostic route over the patient care route when getting into medicine. Male nurses, on the other hand…

I also note that you completely glossed over everything except the “equal pay” issue.

As far as your tag, lawyered isn’t a tag. You also don’t use it when you have not, in fact, lawyered someone. This is how and when you use it:

image

If you want sources, I’ll be happy to provide them, but you must:

1. Request it in a reblog
2. Reblog my post in which I provide sources