Feminism: C or D?

In any case, even if you want to take the broader perspective and talk about all violence in general, it's hard to escape the conclusion that, whatever sex the victim, it's certain patterns of male behaviour that's the problem, and not female behaviour. Is it wrong for a woman to suggest that?

Domestic violence is overwhelmingly male on female? A quick google says some interesting stuff.

"In July 1994 the Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice the results of a survey of family homicides released a Special Report detailing in 33 urban U.S. counties. The report covered ONLY convictions, which should respond to any contention that female-on-male family violence is almost always reactive. The report said:

"A third of family murders involved a female as the killer. In sibling murders, females were 15 percent of killers, and in murders of parents, 18 percent. But in spouse murders, women represented 41 percent of killers. In murders of their offspring, women predominated, accounting for 55 percent of killers.

Personally I grew up with an abusive female family member. After instigating fights the (mostly male) cops would be brought in. "Female victimisation" was the excuse for the males getting in trouble with the law and the courts and cops became a tool for manipulation. That doesn't happen the other way around.

(xpost)

Poverty among lower class women is worse in economic-reductionism terms. The other side is that men are the majority of all victims of workplace injury, sickness or death. It's higher pay for worse job conditions, and job security is also much worse.

The other side is that men are the majority of all victims of workplace injury, sickness or death. It's higher pay for worse job conditions, and job security is also much worse.

This might apply to some Western countries, yes, but not to most Third World countries where the majority of the world population lives.

Bill & Ted had it right. Be excellent to each other (dudes). It's the only way to go.

Other sides to that "double burden:"

-men are expected to work to take care of a family, but are denied the family caretaker role themselves if they want it. Their higher pay is a sacrifice to the family and they don't get to enjoy any of it. Especially when higher pay often means sacrificing health and happiness to the job, while the traditional women's roles could be said to provide the "psychic income" of family time. This goes for divorce cases too when men are most often denied child custody.

-There's hardly very many men who live at home supported by working wives. Working men who do more average hours than working women don't get family time.

-Men don't have access to other social support for families- alimony and child support, maternity leave benefits, or equal access to welfare. Homelessness might be good to bring up because it's much worse for men than women. So if women are treated like property in the home, at least they get taken care of while men are disposable.

Do women around the world have the shorter end of the stick? I disagree: 50 million women didn't die in war in the 20th century.

As for trying to raise these issues alongside female discrimination, fair enough, when they aren't being actively made invisible.

What sort of feminism are we talking about? The ILX approved kind where women can talk about shagging but men cannot because any and all straight male libidosm are inherently obscene and evil and must be censored? The sort of feminism that removes threads about Christina Aguilera and how shaggable she looks in her video? The sort of feminism that brands all pornography evil?

Or the sort of the feminism that doesn't waste time with such utter cock and instead spends its days trying to obtain equal wages and equal managerial standing for women?

Is it's the latter then I'm all for it.

If it's the sort of feminism that says women should be permitted to take 6 months off to raise kids but still be entitled to lead large businesses then I'm skeptical. It's one or the other if you ask me (and I know that might sound sexist, but I think if men want to play house-husband, and there are many, then it's the same thing. Capitalism sucks, I agree, but as long as that's society and feminism appears to have become OF society rather than working to CHANGE it, then I see no alternative).

This is a VERY good point: society consists of females and males.

as a consequence the issue of violence against men is now on the political agenda as a serious topic in itself: sucka's argument having weight is a consequence of mainstream feminism, not a counter to it

the work done in the politics of violence against women, and the politics of violence against non-conformist sexuality, has changed the sustance of shame and shaming, and rewritten the maps of belief

the more forms of power and resistance to power that exist in the world, the more varied opportunities there are for manipulative bullying, i suspect (hmm that sounds a bit gloomy, do i really think that?)

As for "slavery, c or d," it would be more like "owned slaves (women)vs. wage slaves (men): which is better"?

Yes I'm snotty, sorry.

(i.e. maybe it has less to do with "society" than it does mens' actual physiology?)

God, I swore I wasn't going to get involved in this thread, I swore, I swore, I swore...

Yeah, as arguments those types of comparisons are an A1 time-waster and mostly the best response is to treat them with ignore.

Because so many of Feminism's more sensible ideals *have* been absorbed into mainstream society, it ironically becomes easier to write off Feminism as a whole, or else concentrate on the more "extreme" issues.

Is this true? I'm not disagreeing, I just want to know if it's true.

Women don't have to accept their "place".

I don't think someone should get paid to look after their own kids. Similarly, people shouldn't get paid to clean their own houses, polish they're own cars or do their own dishes.
Also

Where can we get figures for male and female deaths by war?